From PhilPapers forum Philosophy of Religion:

2010-05-25
A theory of religion
Hi Phil

Yes, you are perfectly right to say that the notion of the sacred is also vague. But I would not want to just use it baldly in a definition- eg "religion = sacred + practices" or something of the sort. I think neat formulae like that are bound to fail where religion is concerned. I mentioned the idea of the sacred because I think the word points to the area of human experience we need to investigate if we are going to begin understanding religion. But it's only a point of departure. The word itself, I agree, doesn't get us far.

As for the notion of practice, I had a quick look back at Jim Stone's earlier post and also at his article.  I am not sure if he defines what he means by the term. Perhaps he does and I missed it. My point was simply that if he intends it to form part of a definition of religion, then limiting it to recognized religious practices (if that is what he does) would be a rather dubious step, would it not?  The definition of religion would then be making assumptions about what religion is.  And, of course, if the word is not limited in this way, it can mean almost anything people might do on a semi-regular basis, from making human sacrifices, to writing poetry, to brushing their teeth.

You also say, interestingly, that "the very notion of the sacred is often invoked as a way of insulating 'God' from critical eye, setting it beyond human ken and as such leads to mystification."  I think that can often happen, yes. But it does not need to. For example, there are certain authors (mostly not philosophers...) who convey what I think approaches a sense of the sacred and I would not describe what they write as mystification - though it does certainly involve a sense of the mystery things.

Derek