Let me state from the start that I do not propose to say what the so-called "true definition" of "religion" is. It is not the job of a philosopher to pretend that he can work verbal magic amid the labors of scientific inquiry. With philosopher Friedrick Waismann I am suspicious of the "clarity neurosis' and tend at times to agree with his rather excessive comment that "clarity is the last refuge of those who have nothing to say".¹ Yet this is not to give aid and comfort to the inarticulate mumbo jumbo which substitutes awe for inquiry. My preliminary point is very simple: Either a prolonged obsession with precise definitions or a perpetual disregard for precise definitions can clog up the flow of scientific and experimental endeavors. I believe that scientists tend either to turn to philosophers or to do philosophical analysis themselves as the need arises. If some of those busy at work in the scientific study of religion find the following analysis useful to their work, then I shall be content in having served as a member of a team of troubleshooters who help satisfy the need to establish a measure of order and orientation so that scientific inquiry may flow more smoothly and efficiently.