Modern scholars have a new criteria for what constitutes a religion:
1) Does it have "...a mythic, philosophical, or theological cosmology defining the fundamental structures and limits of the world and forming the basic way in which cultures and individuals imagine how things are and what they mean" (Taylor ix).
2) Does it have rituals that are "...crucial to defining the normative human place in the cosmos"(Taylor ix).
3) Does it have a spiritual path toward spiritual improvement?
Robert Neville in his Introduction to Taylor's book, thinks Confucianism easily fulfills the first two criteria but knows there is more controversy around the third criteria (Taylor x). Some thinkers consider Confucianism an ethical system and humanistic teaching only.
The whole discussion begs the question though, why do we care if we can call it a religion? Is it so a Confucian practitioner will feel they are doing enough; that their practice is real and valid if Western scholars weigh in and say they are practicing a religion?
I have had a similar struggle with my own concept of God. As I let go of the classical Western supernatural God and embrace a more defuse concept, I find myself thinking "Is this God?", or, "Is there enough here to say I believe in God?". I don't want logical thinking too involved in my definition of God, because strict logic has always led me to atheism. Religion has to come from a different part of me than the logical, categorizing side. With any category comes judgement, even if simply, is this in the category?
Perhaps its the category that needs stretching, not the concept.
No comments:
Post a Comment