Religion History, Fitzgerald, Nongbri Flashcards
Ancient and Medieval meaning of Religion and key figures/contribution
Cicero saw religion as public ritual and duty (Relegere, meaning to treat carefully)
Lactantius redefined it as private belief in Christian truth (Religare, meaning to bind or connect)
Religious shift in 1600s and key figures
Grotius, Purchas, Brerewood
In the 1600s, European colonial expansion, global exploration, and the Protestant Reformation led to more encounters with different belief systems around the world. Scholars now needed a way to categorize, compare, and rank these systems.
New Meaning:
1) Propositional: System of beliefs/doctrines rather than an activity (worship)
2) Found in books: doctrines often contained in religious text
3) Comparative Category: this made comparison easier
4) Emergence of World Religions (isms): recognition of global beliefs/religions
5) True/False Shift: question of religions as true or false shifted from normative sense (worshipping the right way) to descriptive (ranking systems)
Early religious studies and key figures/contribution
Hobbes, Hume, Cambridge Platonists
Hobbes: Religion comes from fear and curiosity and what causes good/bad events. People invent invisible spirits/gods to explain what they dont understand. Government should control religion to keep society stable
Hume: Agreed that religion comes from human psychology like fear, hope and need to make sense of life. Wanted to study religion empirically
Cambridge platonists: Coined terms like theism, monotheism and polytheism
Religion/politics distinction and key figures/contributions
Locke, Penn
Argued for distinct split:
Religion = Private
About personal belief, faith, and the soul’s salvation
Should be guided by conscience, not controlled by the king or government
Politics = Public
About law, reason, and order
Focuses on protecting rights like life, liberty, and property
politics should be about natural law: universal moral principles — like justice, fairness, and the right to life — that can be known through reason, not just religious texts.
Critical study of religion and key figures
Fitzgerald
Core argument: there is no distinction between politics and religion
1) not neutral: split is a construct emerging for particular interests
2) serves western interests: separation serves western powers and rise of capitalism: categorize nations into civil/barbaric, confine non-western systems of life (where politics, spirituality and land are integrated) into private category of religion, making political control easier
3) secular is not neutral: Fitzgerald says the “non-religious” world (like politics or liberalism) still rests on beliefs and assumptions — like natural rights, reason, or property ownership.
These aren’t proven facts — they’re cultural ideas, almost like a new kind of faith.
Critiques on the critical study of religion
- Too Much Focus on Philosophy
Critics say Fitzgerald relies too heavily on thinkers like Locke, and not enough on practical factors like laws, taxes, and economics that shaped how religion and politics separated. - Church Taxes, Not Colonial Control
Some argue the real reason for separating church and state in early America wasn’t to dominate others — it was to stop forcing people to pay taxes to support churches, especially in the colonies. - The Outcome Paradox
Ironically, even though the U.S. separated church and state, it became more religious in public life than many European countries that still had official state churches.
pragmatic central argument on religion and key figure
Nongbri
1) Modern Invention:
The way we define “religion” today—as a private system of belief separate from politics and daily life—is a relatively recent invention.
2) Historical Roots:
This idea of religion developed during specific events in European history, like the Reformation, religious wars, and colonial expansion.
3) Not Universal:
Religion is not a natural or universal category that exists in all cultures—it’s something modern societies have projected onto the past and onto other people.
Pragmatic critique of critical study of religion
Nongbri agrees with thinkers like Asad and Fitzgerald that the concept of “religion” has a specific historical origin and is not universal. But He disagrees with the idea that this history completely determines or invalidates how we use the term today.
Instead of saying the history locks in the meaning of “religion,” Nongbri focuses on how people use the term now and what it does in context. While Fitzgerald sees “religion” as so tied to colonial power that it’s inherently flawed, Nongbri believes we can still use the term carefully and critically today.
Pragmatism vs Genealogy
Critical/Genealogical School (Fitzgerald, Asad)
- Focus: Where did the word “religion” come from?
- Sees it as a modern Western invention, tied to colonialism, Christian dominance, and secularism.
- Believes this history shows the term is biased, power-loaded, and potentially too flawed to use neutrally today.
Nongbri (Pragmatic Approach)
- Focus: How is the word “religion” used now, in real conversations and contexts?
- Agrees the term has a messy history, but instead of abandoning it, he asks “What does this word do in this situation?”
- Inspired by Wittgenstein — meaning comes from use, not just origin.
- Suggests we can use “religion” carefully and critically, as long as we’re aware of its baggage.
How can religion be used in academia under the pragmatic approach
1) Acknowledge History: Scholars should recognize that the concept of religion has a specific historical origin and shouldn’t be treated as universal or timeless.
2) Define Usage: Always explain clearly what you mean by religion in your particular analysis.
3)Distinguish Uses: Be aware of the difference between using religion to reflect a group’s own view (descriptive) and using it as an external scholarly tool (redescriptive).
4) Focus on the Concrete: Study specific texts, actions, and historical settings instead of assuming a universal idea called religion.
5) Avoid Anachronism: Don’t apply the modern Western idea of religion to ancient or non-Western cultures where it doesn’t fit.
