Definitions

But even in those definitions that are developed on the basis of an analysis of the main elements of religion, there is either ambiguity or extreme one-sidedness. According to the point of view on which one or the other student of religion stands – whether on the point of intellectualism, or sentimentalism, or moralism – he also introduces this preconceived point of view into the definition of religion. Thus, some paid attention only to the cognitive element in religion, that is, to the spiritual element. on its teaching about God, the world, and man, and therefore defined it as a manifestation of the desire of the human mind or to explain the life of the world, which is the complexity of its laws a riddle for human thought (Og. Comte), or to approach the understanding of “the infinite under various names and in various forms” (Max Mueller), or to resolve the eternal questions about the essence of being (Hegel). Others, attaching the most essential importance in religion to the moral element, defined it as the expression of the highest moral ideals (Kant). Still others, rightly pointing out the essential role of feeling in religious life, defined it as ” the feeling of dependence of a limited person on an infinite being (Schleiermacher). The fourth focused all attention on the cult side of religion, on the element of “worship” as the most seemingly essential, and defined it as “worship of invisible forces arising from a sense of dissatisfaction” (Menzies) , etc.in all these definitions, only one side of religious life is brought to the fore, which is given the meaning of the main essence of religion. No one, of course, will deny that religion affects in man both the cognitive faculty, and the moral aspirations, and the field of feeling; but in any case, religion is not entirely limited to only one of these elements. It embraces the whole person, his entire spiritual life, not just any of his spiritual abilities. Therefore, the above definitions of religion can be said to give only a one-sided understanding of it. In dwelling on one of these definitions, the historian of religion would have to omit a great deal of such phenomena of popular life as are undoubtedly of a religious character.

This one-sidedness in the understanding of religion of its former researchers has forced the latest scientists to stop trying to give a broader definition. Thus, Geffding defines religion as “faith in the preservation of higher values”, Busse-as a manifestation of “the desire for life, for good” (Streben nach Leben, nach Gütern). But these definitions are already so General and broad that even with a deeply thoughtful attitude to them, they do not give a sufficiently clear and complete idea of the subject. With such definitions, almost anything can be attributed to the domain of religion. It is not for nothing that many think to see even in Nietzsche a manifestation of the great religious spirit, despite the fact that he set the goal of some of his writings as the complete destruction of the religious beliefs of mankind.