Leo N. Tolstoy. Religion and morality. part 1 1893

Fragment 1.

You asked me: 1) what I understand by the word «religion» and 2) do I consider (concern) possible a morality independent of religion, as I understand it ?
I will try the best way to answer these highly important and well-posed questions.

The word «religion» is usually assigned there different meanings.

The first is that religion is a known, true revelation given by God to people and the worship (поклонение – Е.С.) of God that follows from this revelation.

Such a meaning is attributed to religion by people who believe in some one of the existing religion and therefore consider this one religion to be true.

The second meaning ascribed to religion is that religion is a set of well-known superstitions propositions and the superstitions worship of God that follows from these propositions.

Such a meaning is attributed to religion by people who do not believe in general (to religion!) or who do not believe totally in the religion they define.

The third meaning, attributed (в значении «приписываемое» – Е.С.) to religion is that religion is a set of regulations and laws invented by intelligent people, necessary for the rude masses of the people both for they consolation, and for restraining they passions and for controlling them.

Such a value is attributed to religion by people who are indifferent to religion as a religion, but who consider it is a very useful instrument of political system (statehood).

Religion by its first definition is an undoubted, indisputable truth, which is desirable and even obligatory to distribute the blessing of all people in the world, among them by all possible means.

According to the second definition, religion is a collection of superstitions, from which it is desirable and even necessary for the good of mankind (for blessing)  to rid people by all possible means.

According to the third definition, religion is the well-known device useful for people, not necessary for people for higher development, necessary, however, for the total comfort for the rude people and for controlling them, and which therefore must be supported.

The first definition is similar to the one that a person would make to music, saying that music is the very song he knows and loves, which it is desirable to teach as many people as possible.

The second is similar to what a person who does not understand and therefore does not love music would do to music, saying that music is the production of sounds by the larynx («гортанью» – Е.С.) and mouth or hands over known instruments and that people should be weaned («отучить» - Е.С.), as soon as possible, from this unnecessary or even harmful lessons.

The third is similar to what a person would do to music, saying that this is a good thing for learning to dance or for marching, and which for these purposes must be supported.

The difference and incompleteness of these definitions comes from the fact that all of them do not capture the essence of music, but only determine its signs, looking at the point of view of the determiner.

Exactly the same with the three given definitions of religion.
According to the second definition, it is what, according to the observations of the determiner, other people unjustly believe.

By a third definition, it is what useful to make people believe.
All three definitions define not what constitutes the essence of religion, but people;s believe in what is they consider about religion.

In the first definition, the faith of the one who defines religion is substituted for the concept of religion, in the second definition , the faith of other people and what this other people consider religion, and in the third definition is people;s faith in what they are given for religion.

But what is faith? And why people do believe what they really believe? What is faith where did it come from?

Among most people of the modern cultural crowd, it is considered a settled question that the essence of any religion consists in the personification, deification of these forces of nature and worship of them, which originated from superstitious fear of incomprehensible phenomena of nature.

This opinion is accepted without criticism, on faith by the cultural crowd of our time and not only does not meet with objections in people of science, but for the most part among them it finds the most definite confirmations.

Is there are occasionally voices of people like Max Muller and others attribute a different origin and meaning to religion, then these voices are not heard and are not noticeable among the universal unanimous recognition of religion in general as a manifestation of superstition and ignorance («ignorance – в значении «невежество» - Е.С).