What is religion aside from its semantic construction? What is religion aside from the religious? In a relatively reflexive manner, the insider and outsider interact within an interpretative relationship (Olson 10). Upon designating certain characteristics with religion, objective categorization of various elements assemble ‘religion’. However, when one critiques the objectivity of such a construction, a conceptual ‘a priori knowledge’ unconditioned by experience establishes universals which influence observation (Olson 6). Thus, the term religion must be understood as an individual understanding academically institutionalized.
Institutionally, religion, as an academically established study, was introduced during the late 1800’s within European universities. Within American universities, it was not until the late 1950’s until the study of religion was established. Along these lines, as a member of the Human Sciences, religion has been recognized as an academic construction. The study of religion observes and accurately examines the beliefs, behaviors and institutions of human entities rather than asserting anything about the superhuman entities of religious belief. Thus, the truth of various beliefs or behaviors is descriptive or normative. (Apple 1: What is the Academic Study of Religion)
Sociological, psychological, and anthropological views of religion cannot succeed with a religious way of interpreting religion. If the science of religion is truly scientific, the term religion would not be used with the subject. However, complex and multiform equations and definitions establish religious events and institutions. Substantial, essentialist, theological, experiential, functional, social, and individual views all offer definitions of religion (Olson 4). Thus, sacred, holy, or cultic observations consisting of beliefs and institution are established within an analytic and imaginative act of observation.
Therefore, a non-evaluative comparative method in a cross cultural study of religious beliefs, practices, and ritual of ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’ is the organization of religion (Apple 3). However, the precise etymology of the word ‘religion’ is derived from the latin words releger (to be careful, mindful) and religare (to bind together) or to pay close attention. By the pre-Christian era, an etymological relation of religio with ‘releger’; to re-trace or re-read was established. However, in other investigational writings the term ‘religio’ is used in ambiguity. (Apple 3)
However, within the categorization of the signifier, the term religion must be understood as a designated academic construction (Gill 20). When considering the holy, the sacred, and the ‘other’ which transcends religious experience, a metaphysical reality is constructed. However, within the immanent material culture of oral narratives, dance, ritual, movements, objects, and religious symbolism identifiable institution of religious culture is established (Gill 23). Human motives and means which are illustrated within events, experience, and exercises reveal an agenda and a criterion of understanding religion. However, shifting identifiers which designate religion create a difficult interpretive criterion which establishes identifiable religious elements of religiosity.
Experiences and events which underlie evaluation open one to an examination of other representatives of religious activity. Entering into objectivity allows one to accept an ingrained awareness identifiable with worldly signifiers. Such signifiers continue to link in an evaluative acceptance of evolving evidence. Such an investigation into ‘wholly other’ awareness is ever associated with outside establishments, institutions, and material organizations (Otto 111). Upon accepting ‘institutional otherness’ one escapes evaluation of individual religiosity and investigates the arrangement and opinions evident in organized religion.
Anything considered ‘ultimately other’ and existing away from intelligible apprehension are usually resembled within commandments, ritual, and obligation which create response and reaction to rules and regulations which mold and ascertain religious behavior. Authority which governs ritual and spirituality usually illuminate an illusive agenda. In the most extreme sense, erratic, neurotic, and addictive behavior illustrate goals and ambitions within the religious. However, universal outlines of rationality and sanity imposed upon goals, responsibility, and ambition reflect an outsiders observation of an insiders conviction. Thus, in regards to ‘locus classicus’ whatever one knows or believes is only acceptable within an insider/outsider operation of engagement.
Symbols, gestures, and narratives illustrating superhuman awareness, and experiences distinctly illuminate a set of religious dispositions. An identification and classification of such symbolism embodies institution. At the lowest levels of culture which one has clear knowledge, the notion of a ghost soul animating humans is deeply ingrained within the academic establishment of religion (Tylor 59). Also, queer sacramental observances and rituals in which a being seeks to get a shamanistic way of dwelling in a self-fulfilling exaltation and ecstatic divination and theosis establish religiosity (Otto 124). Auspicious recognition in which there is no capricious act is existent when an ego exists under an awakening or hovering like god, or animism (Otto 128). Thus, one must recognize the decision of adequate and inadequate definitions. An inadequate definition represses ultimate concern, a worldview, or the sacred, where an adequate definition represents a system of beliefs and practices relative to the extra-ordinary. (Smart 144)
Institutionally, religion, as an academically established study, was introduced during the late 1800’s within European universities. Within American universities, it was not until the late 1950’s until the study of religion was established. Along these lines, as a member of the Human Sciences, religion has been recognized as an academic construction. The study of religion observes and accurately examines the beliefs, behaviors and institutions of human entities rather than asserting anything about the superhuman entities of religious belief. Thus, the truth of various beliefs or behaviors is descriptive or normative. (Apple 1: What is the Academic Study of Religion)
Sociological, psychological, and anthropological views of religion cannot succeed with a religious way of interpreting religion. If the science of religion is truly scientific, the term religion would not be used with the subject. However, complex and multiform equations and definitions establish religious events and institutions. Substantial, essentialist, theological, experiential, functional, social, and individual views all offer definitions of religion (Olson 4). Thus, sacred, holy, or cultic observations consisting of beliefs and institution are established within an analytic and imaginative act of observation.
Therefore, a non-evaluative comparative method in a cross cultural study of religious beliefs, practices, and ritual of ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’ is the organization of religion (Apple 3). However, the precise etymology of the word ‘religion’ is derived from the latin words releger (to be careful, mindful) and religare (to bind together) or to pay close attention. By the pre-Christian era, an etymological relation of religio with ‘releger’; to re-trace or re-read was established. However, in other investigational writings the term ‘religio’ is used in ambiguity. (Apple 3)
However, within the categorization of the signifier, the term religion must be understood as a designated academic construction (Gill 20). When considering the holy, the sacred, and the ‘other’ which transcends religious experience, a metaphysical reality is constructed. However, within the immanent material culture of oral narratives, dance, ritual, movements, objects, and religious symbolism identifiable institution of religious culture is established (Gill 23). Human motives and means which are illustrated within events, experience, and exercises reveal an agenda and a criterion of understanding religion. However, shifting identifiers which designate religion create a difficult interpretive criterion which establishes identifiable religious elements of religiosity.
Experiences and events which underlie evaluation open one to an examination of other representatives of religious activity. Entering into objectivity allows one to accept an ingrained awareness identifiable with worldly signifiers. Such signifiers continue to link in an evaluative acceptance of evolving evidence. Such an investigation into ‘wholly other’ awareness is ever associated with outside establishments, institutions, and material organizations (Otto 111). Upon accepting ‘institutional otherness’ one escapes evaluation of individual religiosity and investigates the arrangement and opinions evident in organized religion.
Anything considered ‘ultimately other’ and existing away from intelligible apprehension are usually resembled within commandments, ritual, and obligation which create response and reaction to rules and regulations which mold and ascertain religious behavior. Authority which governs ritual and spirituality usually illuminate an illusive agenda. In the most extreme sense, erratic, neurotic, and addictive behavior illustrate goals and ambitions within the religious. However, universal outlines of rationality and sanity imposed upon goals, responsibility, and ambition reflect an outsiders observation of an insiders conviction. Thus, in regards to ‘locus classicus’ whatever one knows or believes is only acceptable within an insider/outsider operation of engagement.
Symbols, gestures, and narratives illustrating superhuman awareness, and experiences distinctly illuminate a set of religious dispositions. An identification and classification of such symbolism embodies institution. At the lowest levels of culture which one has clear knowledge, the notion of a ghost soul animating humans is deeply ingrained within the academic establishment of religion (Tylor 59). Also, queer sacramental observances and rituals in which a being seeks to get a shamanistic way of dwelling in a self-fulfilling exaltation and ecstatic divination and theosis establish religiosity (Otto 124). Auspicious recognition in which there is no capricious act is existent when an ego exists under an awakening or hovering like god, or animism (Otto 128). Thus, one must recognize the decision of adequate and inadequate definitions. An inadequate definition represses ultimate concern, a worldview, or the sacred, where an adequate definition represents a system of beliefs and practices relative to the extra-ordinary. (Smart 144)
