The Case For Religion By Keith Ward

INTRODUCTION:

In Chapter 1 of Keith Ward’s, The Case for Religion, Ward discusses Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s concept of the term “Religion” and his definition of the term and critically responds to it. In one of Smith’s own books, The Meaning and End of Religion, he discusses both his interpretation of the term “religion” and his opinion that the term should no longer be used. Smith’s skepticism of the term, together with his attempt at defining it, creates a contradiction that Ward critically unpicks and responds to.

Smith describes the concept of religion as “recent, Western-and-Islamic, and unstable” (Ward, 2008:10) and his definition of the term religion is “faith in a transcendent reality” (Ward, 2008:11). It is important to understand

Smith explains to us that originally in Europe, religion was understood as the “observance of ritual regulations” (Ward, 2008:10) and later a shift in this understanding occurred where it was understood as being devout and focused on worship. Then, moving into the 17th century, the concept of religion changed yet again and was defined by having a system of doctrines and focused on the idea of having the “correct beliefs” (Ward, 2008:10).

It is here where we can understand Smith’s concept of religion as being unstable. The evidence is clearly stated to us. Just by looking at how inconsistently and ambiguously the term has been interpreted and defined throughout history proves how unstable the term was and still is today. Without a fixed term for the word “religion”, it will undoubtedly always be unstable. It is at this point that I can start to understand (but not yet agree with) Smith’s reasoning for getting rid of the term all

Smith defines religion as “faith in a transcendent reality” (Ward, 2008:11).

Smith states that we cannot describe the essence of religion, although he goes on to describe it himself. Smith states that today, religion is not merely a “set of abstract, ‘frozen’ doctrines” (Ward, 2008:10), but a matter of a personal living faith in the transcendent. Though each unique religion may have differing rituals, doctrines and beliefs of what exactly the transcendent is, the common thread is the experience of and faith in a transcendent reality, whatever it may be.

Smith states that the concept of “THE religion” and the idea of each religion having its own essence is recent and are of western origin. And he claims that the danger of making this definition created by the west a universal one, is simply putting the power in the hands of the west (Goosen 2015:18). This is what we saw happen in the past during the colonial era, religion became a pawn that could be controlled for the gain of only one party. Here Smith states that we should stop speaking of “THE religion” and the “essence of religion” in order to avoid such predicaments repeating