Commenting on various definitions of religion, Professor G.
Galloway says, “When we keep in mind the psychological factors of
the religious consciousness and the way in which they work, some
definitions of religion strike us by their inadequacy and one-
sidedness. We find, perhaps, that they are applicable to certain stages
of religion but not to others, or that they leave out what is
important.” However, undeterred by the lack of success which had
attended the efforts of so many great scholars, Galloway has
advanced his own definition. He defines religion as “Man’s faith in a
power beyond himself whereby he seeks to satisfy emotional needs
and gain stability of life, and which he expresses in acts of worship
and service.”(5)
A.C. Campbell, in his illuminating work On Selfhood and Godhood,
has devoted a chapter to the discussion of the problem of a
definition for religion. He too has put forward a definition of his
own which deserves consideration:
Religion may be defined as a state of mind comprising belief in the
reality of a supernatural being or beings endowed with transcendent
power and worth, together with the complex emotive attitude of
worship intrinsically appropriate thereto.(6)
Leuba, in his book, A psychological Study of Religion, has listed no
less than forty-eight different definitions of religion, each offered
by a scholar of repute. Even this is far from being an exhaustive list
as Ducasse in his book, A Philosophical Scrutiny of Religion, has quoted
twenty-seven other definitions.(7) To add to the confusion, as has
been observed before, many definitions contradict one another. As
Professor H.J. Paton has pointed out, “For any serious view of
religion, it is always possible to find another, equally serious, which
seems to be its precise opposite.”(8)
Ouspensky, looking at the formidable array of conflicting
definitions, was led to accept the relativistic theory of religion.
According to him, “Religion corresponds to the level of a man’s
being; and one man’s religion might not be at all suitable for another
man.”(9) His definition is clearly inadequate and unsatisfactory
inasmuch as it completely ignores the Reality to which religion
refers and denies it any form of objectivity.
We have been trying to seek an element which is common to all
the important definitions. That element, if found, would constitute
Islam: A Challenge to Religion 38