Episode 33.
The social dimension is the fifth element in Ninian Smart's definition of religion.
This refers to the community aspects of a religion.
Religions are not merely belief systems,
but they involve communities of religious people.
The social dimension features a two-way relationship.
On the one hand, religion impacts society.
For example, English Common Law is based on the Bible.
On the other hand, society impacts religion.
Consider the impact of modern science in shaping liberal Christianity.
Another obvious example, is the origin of this science-religion course.
It arose primarily in response to the impact of evolution on Christianity.
Smart's final category is the experiential dimension.
This element deals with the inner experience of the invisible world.
In particular, religion is an internal and personal experience.
The last paragraph of Ninian Smart's 'the religious experience of mankind',
offers us a conclusion to his religious studies definition of religion.
In Quote 9, he writes, "Altogether,
the history of the religions of the human race has been multiple,
often bitter, often noble, often sweet,
at times cruel, sometimes beautiful, often ugly.
It can teach us many lessons,
whether we feel ourselves: number one,
surrounded by a spiritual world, or number two,
guided by the One God, or number three,
striving towards Nirvana, or number four,
and this is the interesting point,
or alone in an empty universe,
we, as religious people asking spiritual questions,
have tried to see beyond our senses.
Is it just imagination?
Or is it a holy power that impels us?"
You will note that Smart has a wide definition of religion.
For him, religion includes belief in all the following: number one a spiritual world,
number two one God,
or number three, a state of being,
like Nirvana, or number four,
and this is very intriguing,
alone in an empty universe.
When I first read this passage years ago,
Ninian Smart's listing of 'alone in an empty universe',
along with other well-known religious beliefs,
certainly made me pause for a moment.
There is a significant implication here;
is a dysteleological worldview religious?
And if this is the case,
is everyone religious, including dysteleologists like Richard Dawkins?
What's your opinion on this matter?
The second last sentence in Smart's book also reflects the Metaphysics-Physics Principle.
He writes, "We as religious people asking spiritual, that is, metaphysical, questions,
have tried to see beyond,
think of the preposition meta,
have tried to see beyond our physical senses."
Again, we get the distinct impression that anyone trying to see
beyond physical reality, is indeed, religious.
Smart's last sentence of his book characterizes
the non-judgemental method of the school of religious studies.
He simply leaves us with a question.
"Is it just imagination or is it a holy power that impels us?"
This is consistent with the phenomenological method, because
Smart does not give an answer or judgment.
In closing, it's important to point out that
religious studies offers excellent descriptive scholarship
of different religions. But in private,
these scholars judge the truth or falsity of religion,
and for many of them in this academic school,
religion is nothing but human imagination.
End of episode.