Introduction
It is hard to disagree that religion is important to people’s everyday lives. At the same time, when defining this phenomenon, people often provide different statements and explanations. In his informative writing, Greil offers a great number of various definitions of religion and concludes that a universal one will probably never be created. The author mentions that the existing definitions can be divided into two major groups, substantive and functional, and one may say that the latter seems more relevant due to its inclusivity.
Overview of the Reading
The writing by Greil explores the concept and process of defining the terms “religion” and “religious.” Greil provides different reasons why creating a single definition that would refer to all practices of faith is impossible. For example, the list of various religious phenomena is quite long, and it is challenging to “discover what (if anything) it is that all these diverse phenomena have in common” (Greil 136). At the same time, Greil explains the acute need for such a definition (138). The reading is highly informative and rich with references, opinions of other scholars, and the author’s in-depth analysis.
Key Concepts in the Reading
Several major concepts in the article can be used to support the claim that functional definitions seem more relevant. Firstly, Greil indicates that “a substantive definition of religion is one that defines religion in terms of the key characteristics that are presumably shared by all religions” (140). However, as he mentions earlier in writing, not all primary religions share the concept of “a culturally sanctioned dichotomy,” and not all religious practices or interests are based on faith and belonging (Greil 137). At the same time, precisely, these characteristics are considered in many substantive definitions, making them somewhat wrongful.
Functional definitions focus more on what religion does and includes. Such formulations are more relevant as they include various activities, structures, ideologies, and values that share some common characteristics with what is known as religion (Greil 143). This gives more freedom of faith and expression to many individuals. In other words, if one considers their beliefs to be religious but does not involve the concepts of the supernatural in them, functionalists would agree that their views are religious, and scholars taking a substantive approach would not.
The Reading’s Argument
The author’s main argument is that defining religion is impossible because numerous questions have to be answered first, which is impossible as well. Such questions refer to the primary religious features, the exact number of religions, their varieties, and others (Greil 149). The author proves this point throughout the whole writing, referring to the history of religion and an extended number of varied definitions offered by scholars and theologists. The provided evidence is strong as Greil cites many credible sources and explains each claim in detail. I agree that a universal definition is unlikely to be created because too many religions with different characteristics have to be included in it.
Conclusion
To conclude, the reading offers a detailed explanation of why it is difficult to define the terms religious and religion. Greil’s writing is strong and convincing due to the provided evidence. Among the substantive and functional definitions listed by the author, the second group is more relevant because it can refer to a greater number of religions and ideologies.
Work Cited
Greil, Arthur L. “Defining Religion.” The World’s Religions: Continuities and Transformations, edited by Peter B. Clarke and Peter Beyer, Routledge, 2008, pp. 135-149.