# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The definition of religion is a controversial subject in religious studies with scholars failing to agree on any one definition. Oxford Dictionary defines religion as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

# data[].attributes.body
In Smart's phenomenological approach, one recognises that religion expresses many dimensions of human experience. Such an approach is "polymethodic," multiperspectival, comparative, and cross-cultural. The phenomenologist of religion needs to take seriously the contextual nature of diverse religious phenomena; to ask questions, engage in critical dialogue, and maintain an open-ended investigation of religion; and to recognise that religions express complex, multidimensional, interconnected world views. This focus on religions in terms of world view analysis lead to the contemporary interest in the globalisation of religion and global pluralism.'

Douglas Allen, Phenomenology of Religion.

# data[].attributes.body
He thinks we need to analyse what people actually do!  By cataloguing and comparing we can come to an account of what religion actually amounts to in human experience.  What we are saying is that there is no simple definition which will fit all the expressions of religion but rather a set of characteristics which to a greater or lesser degree will be represented in all religions.Central to Smart's approach to religion is the idea of 'methodological agnosticism'. We are encouraged to put beliefs and preconceptions to one side (or 'bracket out' personal beliefs), to avoid questions of truth in order to focus on describing the phenomena that they experience. This means we don’t concern ourselves with what is “true” but rather suspend value judgements and attempt to adopt a neutral position. If we fail to bracket out preconceptions then our assessments of the religions that we encounter will reveal more about ourselves than about the religion. This approach is sometimes terms ‘methodological agnosticism’.  In The Phenomenon of Religion Smart said that 'the question of truth is a question not asked, not a question left unanswered'.Imagine a student confronted with a Shaman ceremony in Peru in which hallucinogenic concoctions made from the San Pedro cactus are consumed to induce spiritual experiences. If the student dismisses the ritual as a nonsense because the visions are caused by LSD-like compounds then this tells us something about the student but not about the Shaman. We learn that the student presumes that truly divine experiences would have non-natural causes. We have not learned what the experience means to the Shaman themselves. Smart wrote 'If I see a rope...and perceive it to be a snake...isn't it true to say I experienced a snake?' The metaphysical explanation 'behind' the experience does nothing to change the experience itself.

# data[].attributes.body
Smart first set out the dimensions of religion in the The Religious Experience of Mankind published in 1969.

The dimensions of religion according to Smart are as follows:

Ritual:

The ritual dimension of religion refers to the ceremonies and outward behaviours which are attached to a specific intention relating to the spiritual realm.  All rituals have an ‘inner’ and an ‘outer’ element to them.  The ritual elements of religion may be simple or complex.  There are also secular rituals that people engage in.

Examples: baptism ceremony, closing eyes to pray.

Mythological/narrative:

‘The collection of myths, images and stories through which the invisible world is symbolised’.  To call them ‘myths’ does not mean they are untrue (no truth-judgement is made).

Applies to stories which refer to theologically significant supposedly historical events (e.g. Exodus, life of Jesus) as well as overtly religious stories about God.

Doctrinal:

‘Doctrines are an attempt to give system, clarity and intellectual power to what is revealed through the mythological and symbolic language of religious faith and ritual’.

Doctrines are the official teachings and systems of a religion.

Ethical:

Moral principles, codes of behaviour, specific commands.

The ideal of ethical behaviour taught by a religion may not be lived up to by individual believers!

Religion generally relates to society and influences it.  The ethical codes taught by a religion are often translated into laws and prevailing attitudes in society.

Social:

Religions have a communal social aspect, they are not just about individual beliefs or values.

Society (by which Smart means the specific conditions in which a religion develops and exists) influences religion.  Smart uses the example of the way ethical principles may be adapted in order to deal with specific situations. 'The Christian’s dedication to brotherly love or one’s attitude to war may be determined more by patriotism and a national crisis than by the Gospel.'

Experiential:

The origins of a religion often include very powerful experiential elements.  'The Buddha achieved Enlightenment as he sat in meditation beneath the Bodhi-Tree. As a consequence of his shattering mystical experience, he believed that he had the secret of the cure for the suffering and dis- satisfactions of life in this world. We have records of the inaugural visions of some prophets...The words of Jesus Christ reveal his sense of intimate closeness to the Father; there is little doubt that this rested on highly significant personal experiences.'

Religions also have a powerful experiential element in the lives of believers. Christians believe that God answers prayers, Buddhist seek out deep meaningful experiences through meditation.

Belief is not just about facts talked about.  It is a way of life lived.

'For this reason, it is unrealistic to treat Marxism as a religion: though it possesses doctrines, symbols, a moral code, and even sometimes rituals, it denies the possibility of an experience of the invisible world. Neither relationship to a personal God nor the hope of an experience of salvation or nirvana can be significant for the Marxist. Likewise Humanism, because it fixes its sights on this-worldly aims, is essentially nonreligious.'

One problem with the experiential dimension is that experiences tend to be explained and understood in the light of the accepted doctrines of the time. This means that it is difficult to understand what is actually involved in a religious experience.

Material:

Smart added the material dimension of religion later.

The material dimension of religion refers to the artefacts, aids to worship and places.

# data[].attributes.body
It is important not to over-simplify Smart’s approach to religion.  In The Religious Experience  he began by stating categorically that 'Religion is not something that one can see.'There are physical aspects to religious belief and practice which can be described but to understand these fully one needs to understand their symbolism and their relationship between other aspects of the faith.  Therefore, Smart is not saying that religion is no more than a collection of unconnected elements. ‘…just as it would be unwise to make claims about the nature and scope of science without understanding something of the present state of the sciences together with their methodology and history, so it would not be helpful to speculate about religious truth without a proper knowledge of the facts and feelings of religion.  The aim then is to try to convey these facts in relation to the experiences that religion attempts to express.  The intention is to describe rather than pass judgement on the phenomena of religion.  The intention is not to speak on behalf of one faith or to argue for the truth of one or all religions or of none.  Our first need is to understand.  The result,  I hope, will be that the reader will be in a better position to judge wisely about religious truth.’It certainly does seem true that most religions do seem to have things that could be fitted into each category and a strength of Smart’s approach is that he accounts for more than just the obvious aspects of a religion.  For example, he makes it clear that the community aspect of a religion is just as much a feature of religious life as ritual is.  However, it is not so clear that practices from different religions placed in each category would be sufficiently similar for such a comparison to be useful.  For example, all religions may have a mythical narrative element, but the contents of these myths may be extremely different.  Likewise, all religions may have ethical rules and principles but those moral principles might be totally at odds with each other.  Consequently, the categories might be technically accurate but misleading.
'One of the most frequent attacks on the phenomenology of religion is that it is not empirically based and that it is therefore arbitrary, subjective, and unscientific. Critics charge that the universal structures and meanings are not found in the empirical data and that the phenomenological discoveries are not subject to empirical tests of verification.' (Douglas Allen, Phenomenology of Religion).A different criticism was noted by Smart himself. This is the problem that many things that we might not necessarily regard as religions might also have all the dimensions listed.  For example, Marxism has many of Smart’s dimensions of a religion.  Equally, although most religions do seem to have things that fit into most categories we might be able to think of some religions that do not have one of the dimensions which appears to make Smart’s description inaccurate.

As we have seen, Smart believes that his dimensions provide a useful starting point for the study of religion.  They are intended to help the student categorise the vast array of religious traditions in a systematic and comprehensible way. Smart makes it clear that the dimensions link together and that a person must understand the relationship between the ritual and the narrative (for example) to understand the religion.  However, it is not clear whether Smart’s dimensions actually help the student to do that or whether by categorising different elements of religion actually makes it harder to understand the religion as a whole.

Another potential problem with Smart’s approach is the concept of methodological agnositicism.  First of all, is it possible?  Can we really approach things from a position of neutrality?  Secondly, even if we can, is it desirable?

‘[O]ur personal judgements are relevant to academic debate, and academic debate can affect our personal judgements’ Michael Bourdillon

He argues that if we should not pretend that we can be objective.  If we honestly admit our own judgement then we are more likely to actually learn from others

‘If we are aware of our limitations, we can enter into academic debate in an undogmatic way, ready to listen and to learn’.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Buddhism a religion? | Michael McGhee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Michael McGhee: In the first part of a new series, we examine why many consider Buddhist practices to be philosophical rather than religious