Editing Religion (section)

=== Classical ===
[[File:Будажап Цыреторов.JPG|thumb|Budazhap Shiretorov (Будажап Цыреторов), the head shaman of the religious community Altan Serge (Алтан Сэргэ) in [[Buryatia]]]]
[[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] in the late 18th century defined religion as ''das schlechthinnige Abhängigkeitsgefühl'', commonly translated as "the feeling of absolute dependence".<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1017/S0034412504007462|title='Feeling of absolute dependence' or 'absolute feeling of dependence'? A question revisited|journal=Religious Studies|volume=41|pages=81–94|year=2005|last1=Finlay|first1=Hueston E.|s2cid=170541390 | issn = 0034-4125 }}</ref>

His contemporary [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]] disagreed thoroughly, defining religion as "the Divine Spirit becoming conscious of Himself through the finite spirit."<ref>[[Max Müller]]. "Lectures on the origin and growth of religion."</ref>{{better source needed|date=October 2023}}

[[Edward Burnett Tylor]] defined religion in 1871 as "the belief in spiritual beings".<ref name="archive.org">Tylor, E.B. (1871) ''[https://archive.org/stream/primitiveculture1tylouoft#page/424/mode/2up Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. Vol. 1]''. London: John Murray; (p. 424).</ref> He argued that narrowing the definition to mean the belief in a supreme deity or judgment after death or [[idolatry]] and so on, would exclude many peoples from the category of religious, and thus "has the fault of identifying religion rather with particular developments than with the deeper motive which underlies them." He also argued that the belief in spiritual beings exists in all known societies.

In his book ''[[The Varieties of Religious Experience]]'', the psychologist [[William James]] defined religion as "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."{{sfn|James|1902|p=31}} By the term divine James meant "any object that is god''like'', whether it be a concrete deity or not"{{sfn|James|1902|p=34}} to which the individual feels impelled to respond with solemnity and gravity.{{sfn|James|1902|p=38}}

Sociologist [[Émile Durkheim]], in his seminal book ''[[The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life]]'', defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things".{{sfn|Durkheim|1915|p=}} By sacred things he meant things "set apart and forbidden—beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them." [[Sacred|Sacred things]] are not, however, limited to gods or spirits.<ref group=note>That is how, according to Durkheim, Buddhism is a religion. "In default of gods, Buddhism admits the existence of sacred things, namely, the [[Four Noble Truths|four noble truths]] and the practices derived from them" {{harvnb|Durkheim|1915|p=}}</ref> On the contrary, a sacred thing can be "a rock, a tree, a spring, a pebble, a piece of wood, a house, in a word, anything can be sacred."{{sfn|Durkheim|1915|p=37}} Religious beliefs, myths, dogmas and legends are the representations that express the nature of these sacred things, and the virtues and powers which are attributed to them.{{sfn|Durkheim|1915|pp=40–41}}

Echoes of James' and Durkheim's definitions are to be found in the writings of, for example, [[Frederick Ferré]] who defined religion as "one's way of valuing most comprehensively and intensively".<ref>Frederick Ferré, F. (1967) ''Basic modern philosophy of religion''. Scribner, (p. 82).</ref> Similarly, for the theologian [[Paul Tillich]], faith is "the state of being ultimately concerned",<ref name="Tillich, P. 1957 p.1" /> which "is itself religion. Religion is the substance, the ground, and the depth of man's spiritual life."<ref>Tillich, P. (1959) ''Theology of Culture''. Oxford University Press; (p. 8).</ref>

When religion is seen in terms of sacred, divine, intensive valuing, or ultimate concern, then it is possible to understand why scientific findings and philosophical criticisms (e.g., those made by [[Richard Dawkins]]) do not necessarily disturb its adherents.<ref>Pecorino, P.A. (2001) [https://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_10_DEFINITION/The-Definition-of-Religion.htm ''Philosophy of Religion. Online Textbook''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130619213234/https://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_10_DEFINITION/The-Definition-of-Religion.htm |date=19 June 2013 }}. Philip A. Pecorino.</ref>