「世界觀」與「面向」：析論斯馬特的宗教哲學

Worldview' and 'Dimension': An Analysis of Ninian Smart's philosophy of Religion

英國宗教學者斯馬特（F. Ninian Smart）的宗教理論在今天西方宗教研究領域裡舉足輕重，具有廣泛的影響力，本文的主當即在分析其宗教哲學的內涵與根據，並指出其中的問題與困境所在。本文指出，斯氏有鑑於二十世紀六○年代的英國宗教學界仍侷限於傳統的基督宗教神學窠臼，無法符應彼時的全球化多元主義趨勢，因此提出新的宗教認知，以「世界觀」取代「宗教」，企圖涵蓋人文傳統與意識型態體系，為新時代論述「宗教」拓展更寬廣的基礎。另一方面，斯氏亦主張「面向」說，從宗教現象學的立場標舉七大主題範疇，以此整理與歸納「世界觀」所呈現的複雜現象。斯氏繼而強調，宗教學者應綜觀各種研究途徑，折衷運用跨科際的人文與社會科學方法，從現象之蒐羅與整理肇始，進至不同「世界觀」的分析與比較，最後及於其中的意義詮釋，逐級循序而上，如此方是有系統、有步驟的新時代宗教研究。本文肯定斯氏的問題意識、新的宗教認知以及所提的研究方法，但亦清楚地指出，其理論雖然意欲超越西方傳統的框架，不過其現象學式的研究取徑，仍陷於神聖與世俗、本質與現象兩極相對之張力，因此呈現不穩定的游移狀態，而此一困頓亦反映西方宗教研究的重要問題所在。

This paper is a critical introduction to and reflection upon Ninian Smart's theory of religion, with emphases on analyzing its primary contents and presupposition as well as pointing out the major problems it faces. The paper first spells out the intellectual context of England of the 1960s when the trend of globalization and pluralism began to take shape. It notes that in this critical period of historical transformation, Smart observed that traditional definition of religion, dominated by Christian theology, was inadequate to cope with the new phenomenon of religious pluralism. Thereupon he upheld 'worldview' to supersede 'religion.' His purpose was to broaden the scope of 'religion,' even to the point of bringing various types of humanism and ideology into the scholar's vision, in order to lay out a new foundation for academic discourses. He also coined the idea of 'dimension' with which to collect and systematize the complicated manifestations of 'worldviews.' He further proposed clear steps along which the scholar of religion should do his or her study, a methodic procedure from material arrangement to comparison and finally to philosophical interpretation. This paper proceeds to affirm that Smart's theory of religion contains a clear Problematik, an innovative vision of 'religion,' and an eclectic methodology. However, the paper argues that Smart fails to go beyond the Christian theological framework which he severely criticizes. That is, with his obvious stress on phenomenological grasping of religion, Smart is still caught between the tension of the sacred versus the profane or essence versus manifestation. His dilemma, the paper concludes, reflects one of the key issues in the study of religion that deserves our serious consideration with respect to defining religion.