Nagima Baitenova, Aigul Demeuova, Azamat Nurshanov (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Abstract. Religion is a quite complicate social and cultural phenomenon. The modern interpretation of the religion as a social and cultural phenomenon from the viewpoint of the philosophy of the religion can be found among the works of such world known religions researchers and theologists as W. James, R. Оttо, М. Eliade. A vivid representative of the philosophy of religion is American philosopher, psychologist, theologist W. James. The point of view expressed this theologist is that the religion plays a positive psychologist role, since it harmonizes the spiritual life of the human and contributes to forming the positive emotions including such a great and significant feeling for the human as happiness. German theologist and historian of religion, R. Otto, extending on the subject what the essence of religion is, focuses the attention onto the numinous and unperceivable content of religion. The author of the original approach to discovering the essence and peculiarity of the religion as a social and cultural phenomenon is М. Eliade himself, who considers that any human being, is «homo religiosus», in other words a creature motivated by the religious goal. М. Eliade supposes that in its religious essence the human nature is the single whole and unchanged form archaic times to the present, i.e. the human entity through all the periods of human civilization existence did not change its religious essence
Keywords: philosophy of religion, religion, social and cultural phenomenon, W. James, R. Оttо, М. Eliade.

Introduction

The modern interpretation of the religion as social and cultural phenomenon contains various theological approaches of studying thereof including, from the position philosophy of religion [Kimelev 1998, p. 424; Kopceva 1999, p. 120], psychology [Antonov 2017, p. 248; Wulff 1997, p. 127] and sociology [Garadzha 1995, p. 223; Storchak 2012, p. 248] thereof. Religion is a quite complicate social and cultural phenomenon. Unlike before, within the frame of Marxist-Leninist approach the religion was unambiguously referred to as an imaginary, distorted, counter –scientist understanding of the world and self and which was regarded as a dope for the peoples that misleads the humans bringing them away from reality and deactivates human’s active life philosophy. Nowadays there exists a number of very polar, opposite definitions of what the religion is and very often such definitions appear to be utmost contrary to each other but same time those represent an entirely new interpretation, sometimes, very surprising one which give our minds much food for thoughts and reflection.
Within the frame of philosophy of religion, the interpretation thereof is made based on a particular subordinate principle, which identifies epistemological, axiological and ontological features of the religion. The modern understanding of the religion as a social and cultural phenomenon from the point of philosophy of religion unites such well-known researchers of the subject as W. James, R. Оttо, М. Eliade.

Research Methodology
Social sciences are those disciplines that seek to apply the empirical approach of the natural sciences to the study of human groups and of interpersonal relationships in them. We must therefore have a clear understanding of the methodology of the natural sciences if we are to appreciate the approach of the social sciences. The word science is derived from the Latin word scire, denoting “to know”. Nevertheless, it is evident that the quest for knowledge is not the exclusive province of the natural and social sciences, since other fields of study such as mathematics and philosophy seek to acquire knowledge. What is distinctive about the sciences, natural and social, is the methodology they employ in their quest for knowledge.
In line with the methodology of the natural sciences, the social sciences emphasize the need for the systematic gathering, analyzing and presenting of empirical data. As such, they emphasize the need to use a research methodology that facilitates precision in the endeavor to describe social phenomena as accurately as possible.
The research used the general method of cognition: analysis, synthesis etc., as well as interdisciplinary methods: historical-philosophical, system-structural, comparative, axiological etc. To comprehensively analyze the principles of philosophy of religion, the principles of historical and cultural interconnection, methods of system analysis and comparative studies were used. The theoretical base of article was formed by traditional methodological foundations, which are widely used in the philosophy of religion and cultural anthropology.

W. James on religion as fulfilling the positive role of a psychologist

A vivid representative of philosophy of religion is W. James [William 1985, p. 426; William 1986, p. 129; William 2010: p. 29-69], American philosopher, psychologist and researcher of religion. As W. James states in his works the religion plays a positive psychological role because it contributes much to harmonizing the emotional and psychical condition of a human and promotes generating the positive emotions including such an important for all humans feeling as happiness.
Being a representative of such a philosophic direction as pragmatism W. James in his theological researches is widely utilizing the philosophic principles as pragmatism and radical empiricism. He was stressing the ‘usefulness’ of the religion from the pragmatic point of view and not its doctrinal basis, therefore he considered that the practical usefulness is of paramount importance for psychic and spiritual life of a human including formation of its religious world outlook. Another important principle for him, in defining the essence of the religion, becomes the principle of radical empiricism. In line with such an approach, the foundation of any religion is represented by individual, sensual and material experience, which is coming out through introspection, in other words, via self-observation.
Like many other students of religion, in particular, R.Otto, W.James, in order to outline the essence of the religion, pays significant attention to the religious experience. He is referring to the religious experience as the core of the religion. The subject of religious experience is what one the most famous works of W. James is dedicated to – see his ‘Variety of religious experience’ (1902). W. James was more focused on the religious life of a single human, individual rather than on the social expression of the religion. He introduced such a definition as «stream of consciousness» the purpose being to familiarize his readers with a wide range or depth of religious experience’s stream. W. James in his works singles out two types of religious experience: а) experience of «born once» and b) experience of «those born twice». If the first type is of clearly expressed optimistic nature, the second type is on the contrary – associated mostly with melancholy and pessimism.
When studying these or those postulates of the religion W. James keeps the strong line of his scientific principles and is based on such approaches as already mentioned herein above а) introspection (self-observation) of people that have gone through the religious experience; and b) interpretation of the data employing the principle of pragmatism, since the religion, as this American researcher of religion states, is assessed by its usefulness for the spiritual development and growth of the humans.
Substantial intent and element of pragmatism within works of W. James – are justifications of the religious belief. It comes from the concept that the astounding growth of the science was the phenomenon that undermined the foundations of the religious world outlook. The scientists, W. James is ready to admit, are ‘geared’, especially “in hours of scientific work”, in a deep materialistic and atheistic way. Meanwhile to remain on the positions of materialism which is addressed as “gloomy, severe, nightmare-like outlook” and refuse from belief in God would mean the complete defeat of the philosophy, rejection of the genuine, authentic morality – this was the understanding of W. James. This would have been also a refusal of a human from its inimitable divine individuality. For God is needed namely by a particular individual as the most trustworthy and reliable support in struggle with the day-to-day problems of living, sufferings, loneliness, in the fight against evil and chaos. W. James by no way negates – on the contrary – he implicitly admits that God, religious belief are affirmed by him not in some ontological meaning (God does exist), but, namely, in pragmatic meaning: the belief in God is required by humans, it is a way of salvation for people. He agrees to treat the religion as a hypothesis which may, though, appear to be the truth. Here there are possible contradictions between the science not capable or not willing to strengthen the belief and addressing of God by humans. This must not confuse a man of belief even if he is a scientist. On the part of a believer – an indigenous right of choice of every human, «a right to give himself \ herself to the personal belief at the personal risk of every such human», choose any religious hypothesis, again, because the belief is salvational and ‘beneficial’ to human beings while the absence of belief generates destruction of them.

R. Otto on the numinous essence of religion

German theologist and historian of religion, R. Оttо [Otto 2008, p.272; Pylaev 2011, p. 225; Robert 1947, 247 p.; Gooch 2000, p. 233; Raphael 1997, 250 p.], speculating on the subject of essence of the religion, stresses the attention onto numinous and unperceivable substance of the religion. His understanding of the essence of the religion is based on the idea of irrationality of the religion’s nature and its autonomy towards such outer non-religious factors as social ones, ethical, aesthetical and others. The source of religiosity, from the point of R. Otto, is the religious experience. He is of the opinion that the religious experience underlies the foundation of the religiosity, and, a specific a priori beginning of religiosity is «mental aiming», a feeling of the sacred, which he determined with the term – «numinous». Definition ‘numinous’ was first introduced into the scientific vocabulary by a German theologist, Rudolf Otto. The definition ‘numinous’ is (Lat. Numen – divine being, monad, God’s will) the reality, the given of the religious experience connected with the intensive feeling of the mysterious and intimidating presence of the Divine nature, a certain powerful, almighty force that disposes the human fates [Zabilko, A., Krasnikova, A., Elbakyan, E. 2006, p. 707]. In his well known work «the Sacred» (1917). R. Оttо states that the Divine being, manifesting itself in the religious experience, is discovered as numinous. The Numinous generates the feeling of reverential fear and awe; this is something «entirely different» (‘ganz andere’ – Ger.) towards the human being. It appears rather from the belief than out of something rationally demonstrated. Оttо was confirmed that the sacred or numinous is impossible to describe or narrate, or define, it can only «wake up» and «be aiming at something». In accordance with viewpoint of М. Eliade, the success of R. Otto’s «The Sacred» was guaranteed by newness and originality of author’s approach to the subject. Instead of studying the idea of God and religion Rudolf Otto sticks to analyzing the various forms of religious experience which is fearful and irrational experience. The merit of R.Otto here is that he managed to open and identify the essence of the religion and its specific features and he was able to leave aside all the rational and speculative that the religion normally possesses while passionately and with inspiration describing its irrational side. М.Eliade in his further statements is writing that «Оttо has read Luther and understood what ‘alive God’ means for a believer’. This is neither God of philosophers and nor the God of Erasmus (of Rotterdam), not it is some idea, abstract meaning, simple moral allegory; it is a fearful power demonstrated by the God’s ‘wrath’… Moreover, «the Sacred — mysterium tremendum («mystery calling the trepidation») – overwhelming with its imperious superiority – generates the feeling of terror. It discovers the religious fear towards mysterium fascinans («fascinating mystery»), in which the Being opens up in all perfection and completeness». The Divine is singled out as something ganz andere («entirely different»), as absolutely and completely different: it is not something humanlike nor it is of cosmic nature. Towards it a human being experiences the feeling of personal insignificance identifying itself as a, just, some creature, just, if using the words of Abraham, with which he addressed the Lord, «dust and ashes» (Being, XVIII, 27) [Eliade 1994, p.17]. Consequently, for R. Otto the religion is something divine that suggest to a human being trepidation and terror. Here the views of the German theologist coincide with those of another scientist that had also contributed much in researching the problems of religion and religiosity – А. Birse, who was saying, «Religion is a daughter of Hope and Fear that is explaining the nature of Unknown to Ignorance».
R. Оttо considers that the entire history of the religion is based on or comas from the feeling of fear, terror and awe. To experience «religious terror» is an innate feature of human soul. In his works R. Оttо states that the Numinous has a complicate structure. Numen, in other words, a divine (being), in accordance with affirmations of the German theologist, is perceived as a mighty force, primary numinous feeling is the ‘feeling of reality’. Continuation of this feeling is ‘feeling of creaturehood’, id est, the feeling of a creature, a beast that feels as a nonentity by the feet of the omnipotence. This feeling is suggested to a human by the power arising over it, mysterium tremendum («awe-inspiring mystery»), the being absolutely predominating a human as a creature, beast. It is becoming an intimidation for a human because it is completely oppose to the creaturehood, the understood, it is now — ganz andere («completely different»).

M. Eliade about “homo religious”

Another famous researcher and an author of an original approach in discovering the essence and peculiarity of the religion as a social and cultural phenomenon is М.Eliade [Eliade 2009, p. 352; Eliade 1994, p. 144; Eliade 1998, p. 624; Eliade 1995, p. 240; Eliade 2000, p. 400] himself, a Romanian student of religion, philosopher and writer. М. Eliade was proving in his works that a human being is «homo religiosus», or, in other words, a creature motivated by the religious purpose.
The philosophy of religion from М. Eliade states that ontology and the essence of the religion are portrayed through his doctrine on the sacred (sacral doctrine), via comparative analysis of the sacred and the temporality. The idea of such approach comes to discovering the sacral content behind the cover of the imperious acts and phenomena.
In his work titled «Sacred and Common» М. Eliade was writing that «…a human of traditional communities is, certainly, a homo religiosus, but his conduct and behavior go well together with the universal scheme of human’s behavior, and, consequently, it represents interest for philosophic anthropology, phenomenology and psychology» [Eliade 1994, p. 19]. Romanian religion researcher is attempting to answer a number of questions related to the nature and the essence of the religious human: «By what way a religious human is able to extremely long remain in the sacred field; what is the difference of its life experience from that of a human possessing no religious feelings, i.е. a human living or trying to live, exist in the world that has lost the sacral nature?» [Eliade 1994, p. 18]. M. Eliade is trying to answer these questions through such opposite phenomena as the sacred and the common. The definition he gives to the sacred is as follows: «the very first definition one can give to the sacred is like that: the sacred is what is in opposition to the sacred». Further, on, he states with more detail: «the sacred does always show up as the reality of a quite different nature, different form the ‘natural’ reality. To give identification of what is concluded in expressions – tremendum or majestas, or mysterium fascinans, we, as naive as we are, using the words borrowed from the sphere of natural, commonplace or, even, spiritual but not a religious life of a human» [Eliade 1994, p.18]. As a result of it, as M. Eliade manifests further, the sacred is something, which is opposite to the common and it represents a completely different form of reality, entirely opposite to the natural reality. He considers that the languages of humans are too poor and are not capable to demonstrate all the specifics of the sacred: «Though, such utilization of the vocabulary – on the analogy, is stipulated by, namely, inability of a human to express that ganz andere («completely different»), consecutively, also, for expressing anything which comes outside the limits of the natural human experience the language can apply that very arsenal of means that have been accumulated by the language thanks to this natural human experience» [Eliade 1994, p. 17].
In connection with this circumstance M. Eliade is proposing to replace the definition «sacred» with hierophany (hierophanie), which is less ambiguous in interpreting this given non-material, spiritual phenomenon: «A human discovers the sacred because it shows up, appears as something entire different form the common. To give an explanation of how the sacred demonstrates itself we propose such term as hierophany (hierophanie), which is quite comfortable because, first of all, it does not contain any supplementary, associated meaning and expresses just what is etymologically concluded into it, anything sacred appearing before us. I would say the history of religions, from the very primitive to most sophisticated ones is nothing else but the description of hierophanies, manifestations of the sacred realities. Between elementary hierophany, for example, a manifestation of the sacred in an object, say, stone or tree, and the hierophany of the highest order, which for a Christian is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, the evident connection, link does exist. Both, ion first and second cases it goes about a secret, mysterious act, demonstration of something «from the other world, beyond this one», some kind of reality not belonging to our world, in objects, which constitute the integral part of our ‘natural’ world, i.е. in «the common» [Eliade 1994, p. 17].
M. Eliade makes herein very interesting conclusions. In particular, he considers that a religious man, or, a human that possesses the certain religious experience has a more profound understanding of the Nature, environment, the Cosmos in general, than a non-religious man. In relation to this subject he writes: «We shall never be able to get an entire awareness of the paradox which is an integral part of each act of hierophany, however elementary, simple it is. By demonstrating divine features, an object is turning into something different same time continuing to be itself (per se), in other world, remaining to be a material object of the space around us. Stone however sacred, divine it may be, remains a stone by its nature; by its form (to be exact, form the common point of view) it retains all the features and properties of a stone and does not differ from other stones. However, for those, who see a demonstration of the sacred in this stone, on the contrary, its spontaneous reality given in perception, gets transformed into the supernatural reality. In other words, for humans possessing the religious experience, the entire Nature is able to appear as the divine Cosmos. Cosmos, in all its fullness, presents itself as hierophany» [Eliade 1994, p. 18]. Moreover, so called «homo primitivus» possesses much better understanding of the social realm and environment around themselves than modern non-religious, western people. And here his position, viewpoint coincides to the certain extent with that of Levy Stross who states that the perception, gnosis of the nature acquired by the archaic, primitive men was more perfect that awareness of the modern people of their environment. For primitive men the divine appears to be realistic and the common in their understanding is represented as pseudo reality. In connection with this understanding we further wrote: «Men of the primitive societies were usually trying to lead their lives, as much as it was possible, among the divine, being surrounded by the sacred things and objects. This tendency is quite explainable. For «primitive» people of early and archaic societies the divine was the Power, Might , i.e., after all, it is that very reality. The divine is saturated with the being. The divine power means, same time, reality, inviolacy and efficiency. The opposition: «divine – common» is very often assumed as the opposition of real and irreal, or pseudo real. It is worth mentioning here that it is in vain to attempt finding this philosophic terminology: real, irreal, etc., in ancient languages, but the phenomena which are behind these definitions are present: thereby, it is quite natural that a religious man with all its soul is trying to exist; merge deeply, participate in reality, absorb the might, power in its nature» [Eliade 1994, p. 18]. Consequently, this is the religious man, in accordance with the concept of M. Eliade, that lives in a more realistic and inviolable world, unlike the Marxist interpretation, which manifests that the religious men exist in illusory, phantasmal world generated artificially by themselves.
Definition ‘temporal\common phenomenon’ is invented by the modern human, affirms М. Eliade, and it hinders the modern men from perceiving the completeness of the being: «…temporal perception of the world reality in all its fullness, Cosmos completely free from any divine properties and features is a very recent discovery of the man’s reason. We are not striving to display which historic ways and through what changes of the spiritual world the modern man had deprived its world from the divine and accepted temporal, common way of life. It is quite important to note that this loss of sacredness, holiness is very specific for the entire experience of the non — religious man in modern societies and as a result of it – the modern man feels ever growing difficulties in perceiving the extent of the being, values of the religious men in primitive societies» [Eliade 1994, p. 18-19].
Divine and common – this is not only just two terms, these are two ways of being, asserts М. Eliade in his work that ‘divine and common, temporal – these are two sorts of being in the world, two situations of the existence accepted by the man in the course of its history. … divine and common ways of existence do witness on the difference in role, position occupied by the man in the Cosmos». М. Eliade gives an actual example to demonstrate the distinction in kind between these two ways of being for the humans: those of religious and non-religious men. Through this ethnographic example M. Eliade managed to portray to what extent the life of a religious man is reasonable and sensible and how, same time, senseless and, at least, more primitive is the life of the modern man comparingа to that of the religious man, or ‘primitive man’ – in understanding of the modern, western, non-religious man. М. Eliade writes: «one can assess the depth of the abyss that separates two experiences – the divine and common\temporal ones by means of reading works about divine space and ritual structure of the human dwelling, about various manifestations of the religious experience toward the Time, on relations of the religious man with the Nature and world of tools, about dedication of the human life itself and the sacred feature of the principal living functions (meals, sexual relations, occupation, etc.,). It would quite enough to recollect what content is given to the meanings like «place of residence» and «dwelling», «Nature», «tools» or «labor» for the modern non-religious man in order to understand in what way it is different from a member of any ancient societies or even, from rural residents of the Christian Europe. For modern consciousness any physiological act (meals, sexual intercourse, etc.,.) – is a commonplace organic process, even if the number of taboos that surrounds the modern man (good conduct at the table, restrictions imposed onto sexual relationships by «good-willing» customs) is very large. But for a primitive man any such experience was never evaluated as purely physiological – it could be or actually was for primitive men a part of such «mystery», inclusion into the divine» [Eliade 1994, p. 19].
М. Eliade stresses the significance of the fact that: «…nomadic hunters and domiciled farmers have one common feature in their behavior which appears to us more important than any other differences: both of them are leading their lives in the consecrated Cosmos, they both are aggregated to the cosmic sacredness which is portrayed through the world of animals and plants. To get a clear and distinct understanding of what is difference between our contemporary and representatives of other societies it is quite sufficient to compare their household situations with those of the modern man living in the non-sanctified Cosmos. Simultaneously it is possible to discover the foundations for comparison of the religious facts belonging to different cultures and customs: all these facts are coming from the same way of behavior – the behavior of homo religiosus [Eliade 1994, p. 21].
On the basis of multilateral, comprehensive analysis of various forms and ways of being and differences in religious experience of various peoples and folks М. Eliade comes to the conclusion that the foundation for all these differences and diversities is in the behavior of homo religiosus, i.e. acts of the religious man.
Romanian researcher is of the opinion that the human nature, in its religious essence, is very unified and unchanged form the archaic times and until nowadays, in other words the human entity through all the periods of human civilization had been keeping its religious essence unchanged. The idea of identity of religious essence of the human has been used as the basis in his religion research concepts, like «identity of the spiritual history of the humankind» and «fundamental identity of the religious phenomena», and in general, for the phenomenology of the religion, all three concepts have served as the foundation of the present theological discipline. As far as the identity of the religious nature of the humankind is concerned, М. Eliade, negating the reductionist and evolutionist theories of E. Tailor and S. Freud, comes to the conclusion that back in the ancient times the inner world of the human was consisting of the religious experiences, feelings and senses. Further on, under the pressure of various historic – political and social – economic factors the archaic forms of the religious experience underwent various sorts of transformation which leads to spiritual crises. The modern man in the west, having lost its genuine religious essence, nature, is now feeling some kind of «ontological nostalgia» and is attempting to return its original religious experience. Unfortunately, all these efforts taken by the western man are in vain in most cases and instead of truly religious values there appear all possible quasi-religious, crypto-religious and other forms of the religion.
Confirmation of the truth of these judgments of well-known theologian Eliade is the formation of the modern world of various new religious formations, which are often difficult to unambiguously attributed to religious education, most of which the idea of God and the worship of God sometimes substituted for the worship of a charismatic personality.

Conclusion
Modern Religion Studies, though rejecting the existing experience of the classical region studies has not yet been able to develop any worthy alternative to replace the traditional point of view. A famous British student of religion, F.Whaling is of opinion that the principal difference between the classical and modern region studies is as follows: ‘In the years of classics the major attention was paid to primitive, pristine beliefs, archaic religions, religions of antiquity period and classical forms of the most influential religions. Nowadays the situation is very different. There is observed an overwhelming growth of knowledge level about all religious traditions of the humankind, these days we are witnessing the accumulation of the information both about the wide spread and newly generated religions which are only in their infancy» [Whaling 1984, p.18]. Here, by the way, the modern religion studies represent the largest interest for us and the object of this work is the current, nowadays status of the religion and its role. As another modern student of religion has expressed it, K.U. Bleker, the religion studies is to be referred to as an impartial and objective science therefore it has to be free of any worldview assumptions, evaluations, assessments, philosophic speculations and therefore K.U. Bleker is bringing the philosophy of the religion outside the framework of the religion studies. Such an approach to religion’s philosophy is connected with the standpoint of certain students of religion who are considering that philosophic investigation of the religion cannot be objective, neutral or be scientifically valuable in any way [Whaling 1984, p.171]. Such a point of view is explained by these students of religion through the fact that one of the peculiarities of religion’s philosophy is that it resolves any religious problems from the viewpoint of its truth [Krasnikov 2007, p.31]. As it is known the specifics of religion is that, its postulates cannot always be rationally interpreted. Further, reasoning on the modern status of the religion studies F. Whaling states: «At the current time there is not a theory of religion that would be regarded as a prevailing one in the scientific circles. The students of religion, with rare exceptions, do not have any desire to develop whatever general theories thereof. For establishing any general theories of religion it is imperative to abstract away from any particular contexts but the modern scientists are well satisfying themselves with studying namely particular contexts without taking the risk of coming to the path of any abstract concepts» [Kimelev 1998, p.12]. In addition, such a situation in the modern religion studies, as we think, is very much related to ignoring the philosophy of religion since it is namely the philosophy of religion is able to generate such unifying and integrating theories.

References:

Antonov, K., Gorevoj, D., Damte, D. And etc. 2017. ‘Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya psihologiya religii: paralleli i peresecheniya v proshlom i nastoyashchem: kollektivnaya monografiya’ Domestic and foreign psychology of religion: parallels and intersections in past and present: collective monograph. M.: PSTGU. 248 p.
Eliade, M. 1994. ‘Svyashchennoe i mirskoe’ Sacred and secular. Per. s fr., predisl. i komment. N.K. Garbovsky. M.: Izd-vo MGU. 144 p.
Eliade, M. 1998. ‘Svyashchennye teksty narodov mira’ Sacred texts of world peoples. Per. s angl. V. Fedorina. M.: Kron-press. – 624 p.
Eliade, M. 1995. ‘Aspekty mifa’ Aspects of myth. Per. s fr. V. Bol’shakova. Invest-PPP. 240 p.
Eliade, M. 2000. ‘Joga: bessmertie i svoboda’ Yoga: immortality and freedom – K.: Sofiya, 2000. 400 p.
Eliade, M. 2009. ‘Istoriya very i religioznyh idej’ History of believe and religious idea. Vol. 1-3. M: Akademicheskij proekt. 352 p.
Garadzha, V. 1995. ‘Sociologiya religii’ Sociology of religion. Moscow: Nauka, 1995. 223 p.
Gooch, T. 2000. The Numinous and Modernity: An Interpretation of Rudolf Otto’s Philosophy of Religion. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. 233 p.
Kimelev, Y. 1998. Philosophy of the religion: Systematic Essay. – Мoscow: Nota Bene, 1998. 424 p.
Kopceva, N. 1999. ‘Filosofiya religii: Uchebnoe posobie’ Philosophy of religion: Tutorial. M., Krasnoyar.gos. un-t. 120 p.
Krasnikov, А. 2007. Methodological problems of theology. М.: Academic Project Edition. 289 p.
Otto, R. 2008. ‘Svyashchennoe’ Sacred. Per. Rutkevicha A. M. SPb: Izd-vo Sankt-Peterburgskogo un-ta. 272 p.
Pylaev, M. 2011. ‘Kategoriya «svyashchennoe» v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii’ ”Sacred” category in phenomenology of religion, theology and philosophy. M. P. 225.
Raphael, M. 1997. Rudolf Otto and the concept of holiness. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press. 250 p.
Robert, F. 1947. Davidson’s Rudolf Otto’s Interpretation of Religion. Princeton. 247 p.
Storchak, V., Ehlbakyan, E. 2012. ‘Sociologiya religii (uchebnoe posobie)’ Sociology of religion: Tutorial. M.: ATiSO. 348 p.
Whaling, F. 1984. Introduction: The Contrast between the Classical and Contemporary Periods in the Study of Religion. Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion. Berlin: Mouton. Vol.1.P. 18.
William, J. 1985. The Varieties of Religious Experience. New York: Penguin Classics. 426 p.
William, J. 1896. The will to believe. An Address to the Philosophical Clubs of Yale and Brown Universities. New World.
William, J. 2010. ‘Psihologiya very’ Psychology of faith. Interakcionizm v amerikanskoj sociologii i social’noj psihologii pervoj poloviny XX veka: Sb. perevodov. RAN. INION. Centr social. nauchn.-inform. issledovanij. Otd. sociologii i social. psihologii; Sost. i perevodchik V.G. Nikolaev. Otv. red. D.V. Efremenko. M., 2010. P. 29-69.
Wulff, D. 1997. Psychology of Religion: Classic and Contemporary (2nd ed.). New York, Wiley. 784 p.
Zabilko, A., Krasnikova, A., Elbakyan, E. 2006. Religion Studies: Encyclopedic Dictionary. М.: Academic Project, 1256 p.

Түйін
Дін философиясы дінді мәдени-әлеуметтік феномен ретінде
Дін өте күрделі мәдени-әлеуметтік феномен. Дін философиясы тұрғысынан діннің қазіргі мәдени-әлеуметтік феномен ретіндегі түсініктемесін В. Джеймс, Р. Отто, М. Элиаде сияқты әлемге танымал дін зерттеушілері мен теологтардың жұмыстарынан көруге болады. Дін философиясының көрнекті өкілі американ философы, психолог, теолог В. Джеймс болып табылады. Осы теологтың пікірі бойынша, дін психолог ретінде позитивті роль ойнайды, себебі ол адамның рухани өмірін үйлестіріп қолайлы эмоциялардың қалыптасуына негіз болады, ең алдымен, адам үшін өте маңызды болып табылатын бақыт сезімінің тууына себеп болады. Неміс теологы және дін тарихшысы Р. Отто, діннің мәні туралы тақырыпты дамыта отырып, діннің нуминоздық және түсініп болмайтын жағына көбірек көңіл бөледі. Діннің мәні мен мәдени-әлеуметтік феномен ретіндегі ерекшеліктеріне назар аударған өзіндік авторлық позициясы бар зерттеуші М. Элиаде, оның пікірінше, кез-келген адам «homo religiosus», басқаша айтқанда, оның барлық тіршілік әрекеті діни мақсатпен айқындалады. М. Элиаденің пайымдауынша, өзінің діни мәнінде адам табиғаты – архаикалық заманнан бүгінгі күнге дейін біртұтас және өзгеріссіз қалыпта, яғни адам мәні адамзат өркениетінің бүкіл даму барысында өзінің діни мәнін жоғалтқан емес.
Түйін сөздер: дін философиясы, дін, мәдени-әлеуметтік феномен, В. Джеймс, Р. Отто, М. Элиаде.

Резюме
Философия религии о религии как социокультурном феномене
Религия – довольно сложный социальный и культурный феномен. Современную интерпретацию религии как социально-культурного феномена с точки зрения философии религии можно найти среди работ таких всемирно известных исследователей религий и теологов, как В. Джеймс, Р. Отто, М. Элиаде. Ярким представителем философии религии является американский философ, психолог, теолог В. Джеймс. Точка зрения, высказанная этим теологом, заключается в том, что религия играет позитивную роль психолога, поскольку она гармонизирует духовную жизнь человека и способствует формированию положительных эмоций, включая такое большое и значительное чувство для человека, как счастье. Немецкий теолог и историк религии Р. Отто, развивая тему о сущности религии, обращает внимание на нуминозное и непостижимое содержание религии. Автором оригинального подхода к обнаружению сущности и особенности религии как социального и культурного феномена является М. Элиаде, считающий, что любой человек является «homo religiosus», другими словами, существо, мотивированное религиозной целью. М. Элиаде полагает, что в своей религиозной сущности человеческая природа – это единая целая и неизменная форма c архаических времен до настоящего времени, то есть человеческая сущность через все периоды существования человеческой цивилизации не изменила своей религиозной сущности.
Ключевые слова: философия религии, религия, социокультурный фенмен, В. Джеймс, Р. Отто, М. Элиаде.

Сведения об авторах

Байтенова Нағима Жаулыбайқызы — философия ғылымдарының докторы, Әл-Фараби атындағы Қазақ ұлттық университеті, дінтану және мәдениеттану кафедрасының профессоры
Демеуова Айгүл — Қазақстан Республикасы президетінің жанындағы мемлекеттік басқару академиясы, философия ғылымдарының докторы, профессор, Қазақстан Республикасы, Ақтау қаласы
Нуршанов Азамат Абубакирулы — Әл-Фараби атындағы Қазақ Ұлттық университеті, Дінтану мамандығы 3 курс PhD докторанты,

Байтенова Нағима Жаулыбайқызы – доктор филсоофских наук, професор кафедры религиоведения и культурологии КазНУ им. аль-Фараби
Демеуова Айгүл — доктор филсоофских наук, професор. Филиал Академии ГУ при Президенте РК по Мангистауской области, Республика Казахстан, г. Актау
Нуршанов Азамат Абубакирулы — 3 курс PhD докторант специальности Религиоведение, Казахский Национальный университет имени аль-Фараби, Казахстан, Алматы