The pragmatics of defining religion in a multi-cultural world

Abstract

Abstract. Few seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between religious and secular institutions, yet there is widespread disagreement regarding what "religion" actually means. Indeed, some go so far as to question whether there is anything at all distinctive about religions. Hence, formulating a definition of "religion" that can command wide assent has proven to be an extremely difficult task. In this article, I consider the most prominent of the many rival definitions that have been proposed, the majority falling within three basic types: intellectual, affective and functional definitions. I conclude that there are pragmatic reasons for favouring the formerly popular view that essentialist definitions of "religions" are inadequate, and that religions should be construed, instead, as possessing a number of "family resemblances." In so arguing, I provide a response to the view that there is nothing distinctive about religions, as well as to the recent claim that religions do not exist.

Examining the Link Between Religion and Corporate Governance: Insights From Nigeria

“…As it preaches fairness and equity, a religious person should embrace corporate governance given that the ethos of religion link with those of corporate governance (Harrison, 2006). R6 shares this view:…”

“…However, literature (Ukiwo, 2003;Abioje, 2011;Sampson, 2014) The view by E11 connects with Aldohni's (2014) which imply that religion cannot provide the morality fix that corporate governance may require. In fact, the boundary of religion is noted in its intellectual definition (see Harrison, 2006). Religion focuses on the belief in an object or being.…”

“…While this describes the perception and practice of religion amongst Nigerians, it ties with the functional view of religion (see Harrison, 2006). Functional religion relegates what makes religion distinctive and different i.e.…”

“…This obliges the transformation of operators (Harrison, 2006) that require stakeholders to internalise religious principles. Max Weber proposed similar conceptualisation.…”

The Concept of 'Religion' in the Supreme Court of Israel

“…"4 At least until very recent times, Judaism did not fit with the internal, private, voluntary Protestant conception of religion. 409 "Adherence to religious law, which is at least partially, if not largely, public in nature, does not seem to fit into the category of faith or belief, which by definition is individual and private." 410 In Judaism, actions matter most.…”