- Sep 2021
polythetic definitions have the appeal of avoiding essentialism, Which is regarded by most scholars of religion as a pitfall and a danger
I am confused on how it is regarded because wouldn't a word like religion be expected to have more than one definition since religion is not one thing to everyone. Even the basic definitions of religion are unique in their own ways.
typical answer to something
give a clarifying expression
to deal with something in a practical non-theoretical way.
another word for clarification
Polythetic definitions are thereby far from unprob- lematic, at least from the standpoint of meaning realism
More than one definition could be hard for people to understand the realism vs not since it could be defined in a whole other way.
ax exemption, schools and schooling, the military and Cons¢i. entious objection, free speech, property, Sunday rules, land development, employmen, regulations, prison rules, medical procedures, adoption, and child custody (
The hard yet realistic issue with this statement is how people can abuse the word religion to get out of things "sneakily"
The internal/vertical ne ‘ to the ‘secular’ ¢ on Ofthe legitimate between religion ahd non-religion being tei ea, More Variation “ mi of no- magic, superstition, ‘sects, ‘heresies’ cults? etc regard to Such thi stinctions of view of insider-discourses; they are the Sern The ae nNon-relj , §S as idolatry; of the divides face theoretical and normative br cligion’
This divide sets the tone for the issue of this debate since automatically most people of religion and people of no religious beliefs agree on what religion is.
hat has provided impetus to those who seek to define religion in functional terms, most commonly either socially (e.g. Durkheim) or individually (e.g. Tillich), both offering classical functional definitions, which allows for “an openness to religious diversity
This is important because it is accepting the openness to religion.
religion’ is primarily a creation of the academy
No one is necessarily forced into religion. People are able to believe what they want to and make their own opinions. Everyone is not going to agree on all of the same claims or beliefs.
I agree with this statement of "there may be no need to define it" Religion can mean so many things to different people and nit every version will be the same.
If classical theorists study and still cannot comprise a definition of religion, then why can't the definition of religion be unique to each person and their beliefs?