Three Classic Definitions

The history of the attempt to formulate suitable definitions of “religion” is intriguing. In many instances, definitions reveal as much about the historical era and about the intentions of the individual theorist as they do about the nature of religion.

The following well-known definitions of “religion” were set forth by notable theorists in different fields:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.³

—Emile Durkheim

[Religion is]... the feelings, acts and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.-⁴

—William James

[T]he religious aspect points to that which is ultimate, infinite, unconditional in man’s spiritual life. Religion, in the largest and most basic sense of the word, is ultimate concern.⁵

—Paul Tillich

French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), a founding figure of the sociological study of religion, emphasizes in his definition the social nature of religion. He insists on the unification brought about by “beliefs and practices,” culminating in a “moral community called a Church.” Durkheim surely hits on some central functions of religion, but most scholars contend that he overemphasizes this social orientation. In contrast, American psychologist William James (1842-1910) emphasizes the individual nature of religion. Although this aspect is also clearly important, his definition omits any mention of religion’s social nature. The definitions put forth by Durkheim and James, though provocative, are therefore problematically limiting.

Paul Tillich (1886-1965), the eminent Protestant theologian, naturally connects religion to a focus on “man’s spiritual life.” His notion of religion as “ultimate concern” has been influential for several decades, probably in part because many find it true to their own experiences. But the definition is very broad, and it says nothing regarding the specific content of religious traditions. In emphasizing the existential concerns of religion, it neglects the social and institutional components of the traditions. People commonly claim to be “spiritual” while also denying that they belong to a religion. A sound definition needs to accommodate this distinction or else avoid this ambiguity altogether.