Abstract
The paper attempts to expand and transform the religious notion of transcendence, as well as the way in which religion is defined, which in Polish religious studies is dominated by a denominational approach, where the social functions of religion in particular (which according to academic religious studies determine the essential character of a religion) are considered ‘non-specific,’ while the ‘specific’ functions are those that the religion itself assumes to be such. The paper states that the essential character of religion goes beyond its social functions to encompass broadly understood ideological functions. This claim is illustrated by an analysis of the biblical story of the creation of the world and man, as this story demonstrates that religion is a product of the biblical axiological dilemma interpreted from an authoritarian viewpoint.
Highlights
The paper attempts to expand and transform the religious notion of transcendence, as well as the way in which religion is defined, which in Polish religious studies is dominated by a denominational approach, where the social functions of religion in particular are considered ‘non-specific,’ while the ‘specific’ functions are those that the religion itself assumes to be such
The paper states that the essential character of religion goes beyond its social functions to encompass broadly understood ideological functions
This claim is illustrated by an analysis of the biblical story of the creation of the world and man, as this story demonstrates that religion is a product of the biblical axiological dilemma interpreted from an authoritarian viewpoint
Summary
Definiowanie religii nale¿y do najbardziej kontrowersyjnych problemów nauk spo3ecznych w ogóle, a religioznawstwa w szczególnoœci. Jednoczeœnie kontrowersyjnoœæ tê stosunkowo 3atwo usun1æ – wystarczy siê zgodziæ, ¿e religijna samoœwiadomoœæ, jak ka¿da samoœwiadomoœæ, ma, po pierwsze, sk3onnoœæ do arbitralnego definiowania samej siebie, i, po drugie, ka¿dy, w tym równie¿ cz3owiek religijny, ma prawo do definiowania samego siebie, i, co wiêcej, jego autodefinicja powinna byæ brana pod uwagê, zarazem jednak nie mo¿e ona zastêpowaæ definicji naukowej, a wiêc definicji, w ostatecznym rachunku budowanej z zewnêtrznego wobec samego obiektu definiowania[1] punktu widzenia. Naukowy punkt widzenia akurat w religioznawstwie – zw3aszcza w religioznawstwie – nie tylko nie jest uwa¿any za szczególnie wyró¿niony, ale jest wrêcz traktowany jako jeden z mo¿liwych „pogl1dów”, podczas gdy religijna definicja religii (jako „drogi do Boga” itp.2) jest uwa¿ana nie tylko za wyró¿nion[1], ale nawet za „klasyczn1”3
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
