Definition of Religion

Inasmuch as some writers on the Maori folk have stated that they had no religion—for example, Buller and Colenso—it behoves us to make some brief inquiry as to what constitutes religion, for even our most eminent anthropological writers do not agree on this subject. The following are definitions given in the new Oxford Dictionary:—"Religion: Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, page 13and desire to please a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this." And again: "Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life." We will now note some definitions as given by anthropologists. Clodd remarks that there are said to be ten thousand definitions of religion, but we do not aspire to that number. Tylor reduced them to one, and claimed that a belief in spiritual beings betokened religion. He points out that some writers admit nothing as religion "short of the organized and established theology of the higher races," and shows that others have denied that certain tribes or peoples had a religion, and then gone on to prove that they did possess one. This reminds one of Buller's Forty Years in New Zealand, in which he states that the Maori had no religion, and then proceeds to say that they believed in the continued life of the soul after the death of the body, and its sojourn in the spirit-world, that offerings were made to gods, and that a priesthood was maintained.

A famed anthropologist, Sir John Lubbock (later Lord Avebury) strikes a different note. He denies that the sensation of fear and the recognition of other beings more powerful than ourselves constitute religion. He denies any religion to the Australian natives, and seems to believe that the religion of the Samoans has been developed since Missionary Williams visited them, because he supposed that they possessed none. This theory is assuredly a wrong one. Of the Greeks and Romans he says: "Theirs was a true religion because they had prayers, sacrifices, temples, and priests." Elsewhere, however, he writes concerning the lowest races: "Religion is not with them a deep feeling of the soul, but a profound fear of some immediate evil, a desire for some immediate good." Altogether this writer does not admit as religion the simpler forms met with among races in a low state of culture. His attitude towards the Maori is not clear, but of the four institutions he mentions the Maori possessed two (sacrifices and priests), though he had no temples, and his ritual formulae were not true prayers.

R. R. Marett, in his Anthropology, remarks: "Now, the trouble with anthropologists is to find a working definition of religion on which they can agree." He explains how some draw the line between religion and magic—that is, between control and conciliation of gods, the former being magic and the latter religion. This definition he objects to on the ground that two phases or practices overlap, as they page 14assuredly do. He claims that magic and religion belong to the same department of human experience; that they represent two ways of dealing with the supernormal. Witchcraft he brands as genuine magic, black magic, "On the other hand, every primitive society also distinguishes certain salutary ways of dealing with supernormal powers. All these ways taken together constitute religion." Again, he remarks, "Religion is the facing of the unknown."

F. B. Jevons, in his Comparative Religion, writes as follows: "The relation of men to their gods, which everywhere is what is implied by religion, is one which is interpreted and is in practice worked out in a different way in every different form of religion. The different forms of religion might even be said to be the different ways in which the relationship is acted on."

Andrew Lang remarks that there is no accepted definition of religion, and refrains from giving one, as it would not be accepted by all. He does say that all propitiation of spirits is religious, as also all worship of spiritual gods, and belief in a superior or Supreme Being. Grant Allen seems to define religion as offerings and prayers to gods.

In writing of mythology, Bancroft remarks: "As made up of legendary accounts of places and personages, it is history; as relating to the genesis of the gods, the nature and adventures of divinities, it is religion." This writer believes that all myths, however puerile or absurd, are founded on fact.

In Arago's account of Freycinet's voyage the following passage occurs in the description of the sojourn at the Sandwich Isles: "I have in vain searched for a religion in this archipelago. I have found priests, consecrated places, and idols, but I have seen no form of worship." Probably this writer demanded a regular system of public worship in all religions. His estimate was quite wrong.

Quatrefages tells us that the two following formulae sum up all the doctrines and all the dogmas of the great religions: (1) Belief in beings superior to man, with power over his destiny for good or for evil; (2) belief in an after-life, a future beyond the grave. He remarks: "Every people, every man who believes in these two things is religious, and observation is ever increasing the number of proofs of the universality of this character." This definition would undoubtedly include the beliefs and practices of many of the lower races, including the Polynesian, as well as the "great religions."

Carpenter remarks that certain primitive peoples have been said to be destitute of religion because they had no Father in heaven and no everlasting hell, and adds, "These attitudes, it is now freely recognized, are not scientific."

page 15

Baring Gould maintains that "There is not a people at a low stage of mental and moral development among which this phase of religion [shamanism, demonology, fetishism] is not found; before the spirit-world coagulates into distinct beings the rudiments of a theology appear, the priesthood emerges as a caste, and worship is fixed in ceremonial observance."

Dieffenbach gives us the following dictum: "If we take religion in its common meaning as a definable system of certain dogmas and prescriptions, the New Zealanders have no religion. Their belief in the supernatural is confined to the action and influence of spirits on the destiny of men, mixed up with fables and traditions."

"Magic is not only not religion, but the very opposite of religion," writes Lord Avebury. This writer maintained that, in many cases, the ceremonial performances of savages are in no way of a religious character. "They contain no prayers or confessions, no offerings or sacrifices, no appeal for help or forgiveness to any superior power. They are gone through as immemorial customs, and when any meaning is attached to them it is as a form of magic, an attempt to control nature and secure material advantages." Again he does not look upon a belief in the survival of the soul after death as an evidence of religion.

The fact is we hold different views on this subject, hence we are writing at cross purposes, and no satisfactory conclusion can be come to until we agree as to what constitutes religion.

In his lecture on "Primitive Religion" Mr F. G. Speck commences with this statement: "Before undertaking the study, brief as it may be, of primitive religions, or, more exactly, the religions of primitive man, we must accept the broadest conceivable definition of the term, one which defines religion as that which expresses in life the relationship between man and the supernatural realm. We need a definition of this broad character if we intend to analyse and discuss the various types of philosophy, the rites of worship, and the beliefs expressing the interactivity between man and the supernatural beings, which play such an important part in the mental life of so-called savages."

In his work on Marriage, Totemism, and Religion Lord Avebury remarks: "Religion is the submission of man to God; fetichism is the attempt to subject God to man." This writer maintains that there is nothing in common between magic and religion; that the priest and wizard were enemies; that a people must recognize a Supreme Being, and be in the habit of worshipping that being, ere such people can be said to possess a religion.

page 16

The fact is there is a wide difference of opinion as to what constitutes religion, and this is, apparently, one of the two great causes of disagreement among writers as to whether or not certain peoples possess a religion, or any notion of it. The above writer evidently holds that superstitious observances have nothing to do with religion, but those persons who argue on these lines seem to forget that superstition enters into all religions, even the highest.

The other cause of disagreement consists of the widely differing qualifications of writers on this subject. Some judge from hearsay evidence, some from a slight knowledge of peoples under discussion, while yet others deem it necessary to dwell many years among a people, and to have a thorough knowledge of the language thereof, ere any opinion can be formed. Again, some collectors of such data are unbiased, and others prejudiced.

The Rev. R. Taylor informs us that the Maori was a devil-worshipper; but as to whether the worship of that worthy constitutes a religion or not the present writer declines to express an opinion.

Grant Allen remarks that mythology is composed of tales and legends about gods, while religion consists of offerings and prayers, or some less direct ritual, to gods, there being but little connection between the two. He omits to note that what is one man's god is another man's myth; that the sacred belief of one people is deemed a gross superstition by another. For this and several other reasons we cannot separate myth from religion when explaining Maori beliefs.

Tylor notes that some narrow definitions of religion have the fault of identifying religion rather with particular developments than with the deeper motives which underlie them. He here refers to such definitions as require the belief in a Supreme Deity, or of judgment after death, or the practice of sacrifice, or some other partially diffused doctrine or rite. Hence he relies on what he calls the minimum definition of religion and its essential source—namely, the belief in spiritual beings.

In his paper on "Maori Traditions" the Rev. Mr Wohlers says: "By religion we understand a feeling of dependency in the human mind, in the consciousness of its own weakness, on a higher being or beings; which beings are therefore feared and worshipped."

Mr Clodd tells us that religion was born of the emotions, and was before all theologies, which are but concrete and partial aspects of it. Religion is fundamental, and manifests itself in all creeds; it is the abiding element, for no religion lies in utter isolation from the rest. Again, he remarks: "The essence of religion is in the doctrine of spirits, beings of unknown and therefore of dreaded potency, the force of which has declined as knowledge has advanced." Anent page 17the statement of Hobbes that "the feare of things invisible is the naturall Seed of Religion," he says: "In the degree that anything is unknown it remains a source of dread, and therefore of evil, since from 'feare of the invisible' spring the feelings of inferiority, helplessness, and dependence which man's surroundings quicken, and which are the raw material of theologies and rituals." This writer upholds the theory that the first phase of religion or of its origin was antecedent to animism, and terms that early stage "naturalism," wherein primitive man believed that things lived because of their own proper powers, or because of self-power, the belief in indwelling spirits coming later, as also that of surroundings as natural and supernatural. The feeling of fear that lies at the roots of primitive religions he shows is shared by the lower animals, and comments on the connection between animal and human psychology. It is thus that he traces "the lines along which man advanced from conceptions of powers to conceptions of spirits … in whose activities he explained the creation of the heavens and the earth."

R. R. Marett, in his Anthropology, claims that the essentials of religion are present in the apparently godless observances of the ruder peoples; that they appeal to the imagination, which is the impulse that presides over all progress. He holds that the rude ceremonial performances practised by savages to ensure, say, luck in hunting are prompted and pervaded by feelings that, later, develop into sacrifice, prayer, &c. "They bring to bear on the need of the hour all the promise of that miraculous past which not only cradled the race, but still yields it the stock of reincarnated soul-force that enables it to survive." He lays particular stress on the close interdependence between religion and custom in primitive society.

In his Primitive Ritual and Belief Mr E. O. James draws our attention to the fact that false conclusions may easily follow in the wake of the comparative method, and that some of our leading anthropologists have erred in deducing laws of primitive logic from the evidence of savage beliefs and rites. Mr James looks upon religion as being, like civilization, a product of evolution, or as a search after the unknown and the infinite. He makes religion a matter of evolution from the vague and crude beliefs, superstitions, and practices of savages, to result eventually in modern Christianity. He remarks: "Savage religion chiefly consists of the system of rites resorted to by the community against real and imaginary dangers."

The same writer states that, among the lower races, religion is more a matter of practice than theory, of action than thought. Therefore, among them, ritual is more complex than belief, and our worthy savage does not so much think out the meaning and effect of each page 18ritual performance as he has confidence in the general effect of such ceremonial. This attitude is really on a level with that assumed in the recital of charms such as the karakia of the Maori, and those of the ancient Egyptians.

The same writer remarks, in his Primitive Ritual and Belief, that "with uncivilized man the magico-religious side of his nature is always uppermost." It is prominent not only in the important affairs of his life but also in his daily tasks. "He is always seeking to control the processes of nature by magical or religious means. Since the distinction between magic and religion merely lies in the notion of the controlling force, it will be readily seen how impossible it is to separate stratigraphically these two attitudes of mind in primitive man."

In view of the many definitions of religion laid down by prominent anthropologists and other writers, and bearing in mind the diversity of opinion among other specialists, it seems desirable to let a description of Maori beliefs and practices speak for itself, ever bearing in mind the definitions quoted from the Oxford Dictionary.