An Analysis of The Categorical Composition of Religion

Today I was contemplating the essential components that must exist in a religion to give it its authority and its grandeur. It became clear that it could be fairly simply classified into the logos, ethos, and pathos. To understand all of this, it is important to first recognise that the ultimate role that religion serves is as a bridge between Man and God, which can also be described in the psychological and sociological sense as that which brings Man, as a community, together in the pursuit of a higher aim – with God representing the highest conceivable aim. The psychological or sociological interpretation is the best means of addressing the pathos and ethos attributed to religion, but the logos is best left to direct connection of Man and God.

In this sense, we can associate Man with the physical world of space and time, in connection with the inhuman and random chaos – both morally and biologically – of nature. On the other hand, God, which is best viewed through the lens of Plato’s forms, is the realm of the divine and orderly. It is home to language and mathematics in their perfection, and holds the virtues – of Goodness, and Truth, and so on – in their highest and most pure form. So logos, which is ascribed to these divine Platonic concepts, is defined as The Word of God. More specifically, it may be considered the axiomatic base of the religion, upon which all else may arise – it is this which is preached. In terms of how this is embodied, one must look toward the prophet – be it Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, or someone else – who is considered holy as it is they who God has spoken through, and from here that the scripture emerges.

Next are the ethos and pathos, which are much more concerned with society, rather than the divine and metaphysical. The pathos relates to emotion and experience, and so, if the logos is the Word, then the pathos would be the (personal) Revelation. The pathos is the experience of transcendence, and hence is what breeds followers. Aesthetically, the art, storytelling, and even architecture that is commonly found in religion can be attributed to the pathos, which represents divine transcendence. So, the pathos and the logos are the raw ingredients in a religion, then the ethos – the guide, or the community – is the organisation. It is the institution that provides structure and direction of the pursuits of the religion. The ethos is generally conservative, and is built upon both the logos and the pathos, and thus is often vulnerable to shifts in the underlying logos or pathos. When these change, the institutional structure is often broken, at least somewhat, and new ethos arises, such as Protestants out of Catholics in regards to Christianity.

In summary, the logos is the Word (scripture or doctrine), the pathos is the Revelation (thus the followers), and the ethos is the structure that interprets the Word and directs the pursuits of the individual post-Revelation. As an example, one may look at Catholicism, which is arguably the strongest and most influential religion in history. Jesus, alongside much other scripture, offers clear logos, while the centralised and top-down structure results in a well-organised ethos, although this has been shaken up and has branched into a plethora of Protestant alternatives. In terms of the pathos, the 1.4 billion worldwide followers shows its effectiveness, and is especially well cultivated in the sacrament of communion, as well as the wide range of artistic and biblical modes of communication that pass on the experience.

Contrastingly, Buddhism – with a significantly less developed ethos, and a very different form of logos – has taken on a very different, and seemingly less singularly powerful, role to Christianity. Unlike Jesus, the prophet (logos, and here Buddha) is not sent from God to enlighten Men, but is instead a Man who personally experiences transcendence. In this regard, the pathos and the logos are intricately related, such that Buddha is both the logos, and the first representation of pathos. Furthermore, on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from Catholicism, there is no centralised ethos in Buddhism, and instead different monasteries and individuals are left to their own internal organisation and interpretation. In the end, I suppose that brings together the central composition of religions, and what enables their success.