If we were to define religion as a social genus, we would be assuming that religion is universal and pan-human. In this way, religion could be defined as beliefs and practices that generate social cohesion and provide orientation in life. Religion would be an inevitable feature of the human condition, with both advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, we should not define religion exclusively as a social construct, but as a universal feature of the human condition.
An anchored definition of religion would have the benefits of other polythetic definitions
A polythetic approach to religion recognizes that many of its properties are common to all of them. However, this approach does not distinguish between religions. Rather, it identifies a prototypical religion. In contrast, a monothetic approach would primarily recognize the existence of common properties, such as religious affiliation. Both approaches are problematic for assessing religion, but the latter is often preferred by philosophers.
An anchored definition would be more useful in a plural context. This would allow it to distinguish between different types of religions without limiting itself to a single kind. In contrast, a monothetic definition of religion would imply that religions are all the same. However, an anchored definition would still have the benefits of other polythetic definitions. Here are three possible definitions of religion:
It would have the costs of other polythetic definitions
Abraham Lincoln’s definition of religion, for instance, requires four characteristics at a minimum: belief in spiritual beings, social groups, and rules and authorities. Other polythetic definitions reject these features, and look at religion as a prototype structure. In contrast, Tylor’s definition emphasizes the role of religion’s defining feature, which is what serves as the ultimate concern. The costs of these definitions are significant, but so are the benefits.
It would have the benefits of belief in a supreme deity
Although Herbert proposed that belief in a single supreme deity was the basis of religion, he acknowledged that many cultures worshiped more than one supreme being. The ancient Egyptians, for instance, worshiped many gods. In addition, people in other cultures worshiped celestial bodies. Herbert might have argued that such practices were not religions. However, he later recanted his position and acknowledged the benefits of belief in a supreme deity.