Artifacts and Supraphysical Worlds: A Conceptual Analysis of Religion
| Abstract | It is a contested question in contemporary theories of religion whether the concept of religion can be defined in a sound way or not. Many theorists maintain that a universal but delimiting definition is impossible. In this study, by contrast, it is argued that a conceptual analysis of religion that holds universally is perfectly possible because the following thesis can be seen as a necessary and sufficient conceptual condition of what religion is: (R) X is a religion if and only if X is a collection of artifacts which has the proper function of representing a supraphysical world. On this thesis, it is argued that artifacts such as pictorial and verbal representations, rituals, symbols, and various tools constitute religion as a cultural object, which, as a collection of artifacts, has the proper function of representing a conceived world that is not entirely physical, and which, allegedly, is a prerequisite for existential welfare in relation to observance. It is here important to understand what is constitutive for these kinds of conceived worlds. Supraphysical world is defined as follows. Given that the actual world is a physical world, a conception S is a construction of a supraphysical world if and only if both of the following conditions apply to S: (1) Metaphysical component: S is a duplicate of the actual world with the addition of an anti-physical substance. (2) Existential-normative component: S is an alleged prerequisite for existential welfare in relation to observance. The core argument of the study is that (R) holds a priori for the concept of religion and as an a posteriori necessity for every instance of a religion. Apart from discussing the methodological problems of defining religion, the study introduces a new theory of religion in terms of (R). It addresses issues in the theory of artifacts; in the theory of representations; and in the theory of conceptual analysis | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesGavin D. Flood (2012). The Importance of Religion: Meaning and Action in Our Strange World. Wiley-Blackwell.
Roberto Cipriani (2012). Religion in the Twenty-First-Century World Society. World Futures 68 (4-5):367 - 379.
Manuel A. Vásquez (2010). More Than Belief: A Materialist Theory of Religion. Oxford University Press.
Changchi Hao (2006). Wu-Wei and the Decentering of the Subject in Lao-Zhuang. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (4):445-457.
Alfred North Whitehead (1926/1996). Religion in the Making: Lowell Lectures 1926. Fordham University Press.
Philip Hefner (2010). Embodied Science: Recentering Religion-and-Science. Zygon 45 (1):251-263.
D. Z. Phillips (2001). Religion and the Hermeneutics of Contemplation. Cambridge University Press.
D. Z. Phillips & Timothy Tessin (eds.) (1999). Religion and Hume's Legacy. St. Martin's Press, Scholarly and Reference Division.
Paul Copan & Chad V. Meister (eds.) (2008). Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary Issues. Blackwell Pub..
Charles Lemert (1999). The Might Have Been and Could Be of Religion in Social Theory. Sociological Theory 17 (3):240-263.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-25Total downloads2 ( #232,265 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
