- Key People:
- Elaine Pagels
- Related Topics:
- religion
study of religion
-
What is religion?
Religion is the relationship between human beings and what they consider holy, spiritual, or divine. It addresses ultimate concerns about life, death, and destiny. These concerns often involve gods or spirits, but can also focus on the human community or natural world. Many religions feature texts of scriptural status and people seen as having spiritual or moral authority. Common practices include prayer, meditation, and rituals. Elements of religious life include worship, moral conduct, belief, and participation in religious institutions.
The study of religion uses intellectual disciplines to understand its various aspects. Disciplines such as history, psychology, and sociology help determine the history, origins, and functions of religion. The anthropology of religion comparatively studies religions in their cultural, social, historical, and material contexts.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why do people study religion?
People study religion to understand its various aspects through intellectual disciplines such as history, psychology, and sociology. Religions have doctrines, myths, ethical teachings, rituals, social institutions, and inner experiences that influence art, music, and architecture. Studying religion provides a cross-cultural perspective, fosters dialogue, and addresses intellectual and social challenges. The multidisciplinary approach enhances education by promoting a deeper understanding of different cultures and beliefs.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What are some common features found in different religions?
Religions share common features, including beliefs, practices, and moral codes. They address ultimate concerns about life, death, and the relationship between humanity and what is considered holy or divine.
Many religions have sacred texts, figures with spiritual authority, and devotional practices like prayer, meditation, or rituals. Religious communities often form around shared experiences, traditions, doctrines, and liturgical forms.
Moral codes prescribing behavior, such as prohibitions against murder, theft, and adultery, are nearly universal across societies. Theism, the belief in a deity or deities, is central to many of the world’s largest religions, though the nature of deities varies widely.
9 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How do scholars compare and contrast different religions?
Scholars compare religions using various disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology to analyze different facets like doctrines, myths, ethics, rituals, and social institutions. They also consider historical context, archaeology, and philology to understand religions' past and development.
Comparative studies identify recurring themes across different religions. Thematic comparisons, such as those by Georges Dumézil, explore sociological functions and thematic traits of deities in mythical material. Scholars also classify religions based on attitudes toward life (healthy-mindedness vs. morbid-mindedness) and forms of expression (mythopoeic vs. rational). The goal is to delineate facts without judging from a particular standpoint.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What methods do people use to study religious texts and practices?
People study religious texts and practices through various methods and disciplines. Historical criticism interprets biblical documents in their contemporary environment, using history and archeology. Exegesis is the critical interpretation of religious texts to discover their intended meaning.
Other approaches include:
* Phenomenology of religion seeks to describe religions in their own terms, suspending personal beliefs to understand adherents' perspectives.
* Psychology studies religious experiences, feelings, myths, and symbols.
* Sociology and social anthropology view religious institutions and their relationship to beliefs and values.
* Literary studies elicit the meanings of myths and other religious items.4 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How does the study of religion help us understand cultures and societies?
The study of religion provides insights into the beliefs, values, and practices that shape cultures and societies. It explores the historical, social, and cultural contexts of religions, revealing how they influence human relations, social structures, and individual lives.
By comparatively studying religions, we can understand the diversity of human customs and the different ways people understand their reality. This comparative approach helps to achieve a more neutral vocabulary when analyzing different religions.
Moreover, the study of religion allows us to examine the ethical and moral dimensions of various faiths, and how these influence social justice, and moral imagination. It also helps to understand the interrelations between religion, politics, and other aspects of society.
4 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
study of religion, attempt to understand the various aspects of religion, especially through the use of other intellectual disciplines.
The study of religion emerged as a formal discipline during the 19th century, when the methods and approaches of history, philology, literary criticism, psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, and other fields were brought to bear on the task of determining the history, origins, and functions of religion. No consensus among scholars concerning the best way to study religion has developed, however. One of the many reasons for this failure is that each discipline enlisted to study religion has its own distinctive methods and topics, and scholars often disagree about how to resolve the inevitable conflicts between these different intellectual perspectives. Another reason is that questions about the origins and functions of religion have often been conflated with questions about the truth of religion, and this has led to controversies that tend to hinder the development of common concepts, methodologies, and problems.
Nature and significance
The essence of religion and the context of religious beliefs, practices, and institutions
Even a commonly accepted definition of religion has proved difficult to establish, though not for lack of trying. Attempts have been made to find a distinctive ingredient in all religions, such as the numinous, or spiritual, experience, the contrast between the sacred and the profane, and the belief in one or more gods. But objections have been brought against all these attempts, either because the rich variety of religions makes it easy to find counterexamples or because the element cited as central is in some religions peripheral. The gods play a merely subsidiary role, for example, in most phases of Theravada (“Way of the Elders”) Buddhism. A more promising method would seem to be that of exhibiting aspects of religion that are typical of religions, though not necessarily universal, such as the occurrence of the rituals of worship. There are religions, however, in which even worship rituals are not central. Thus, the preliminary task of the student of religion must be to amass an inventory of kinds of religious phenomena.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
Even if an inventory of kinds of belief and practice could be gathered so as to provide a typical profile of what counts as religion, some scholars would maintain that the differences between religions are more significant than their similarities. Moreover, in the absence of a tight definition there will always be a number of disputed cases. Thus, some political ideologies, such as communism and fascism, have been regarded as analogous to religion. Certain attempts at a functionalist definition of religion, such as that of the German American theologian Paul Tillich (1886–1965), who defined religion in terms of human beings’ ultimate concern, would leave the way open to count these ideologies as proper objects of the study of religion (Tillich himself called them quasi-religions). Although there is still no agreement on this issue, the frontier between traditional religions and modern political ideologies remains a promising topic of study.
Neutrality and subjectivity in the study of religion
Discussion about religion has been complicated further by the attempt of some Christian theologians, notably Karl Barth (1886–1968), to draw a distinction between religion and the Gospel (the proclamation peculiar to Christianity). This distinction depends to some extent upon taking a projectionist view of religion as a human product. This tradition goes back in modern times to the seminal work of the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72), who proposed that God was the extension of human aspirations, and it is found in the work of the philosopher Karl Marx, the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud, and others. Barth’s distinction attempts to draw a line between the transcendent, as it reveals itself to humans, and religion, as a human product involved in the response to revelation. The difficulty of the distinction consists chiefly in a denial that God, as the object of the response, is a “religious” being (i.e., God is transcendent, not religious in the sense of being a part of the human product), and the question about revelation as a religious fact thus needs to be answered.
Subjectivity in the study of religion
There are doubts about how far there can be neutrality and objectivity in the study of religion. Is it possible to understand a faith without holding it? If it is not possible, then cross-religious comparisons would mostly break down, for normally it is not possible to be inside more than one religion. But it is necessary to be clear about what objectivity and subjectivity in religion mean. Religion can be said to be subjective in at least two senses. First, the practice of religion involves inner experiences and sentiments, such as feelings of God guiding the life of the devotee. Here religion involves subjectivity in the sense of individual experience. Religion may also be thought to be subjective because the criteria by which its truth is decided are obscure and hard to come by, so there is no obvious “objective” test, the way in which there is for a large range of empirical claims in the physical world. As to the first sense, one of the challenges to the student of religion is the problem of evoking its inner, individual side, which is not observable in any straightforward way. In considering a religion, however, the scholar is concerned not only with individual responses but also with communal ones. Often the scholar is confronted only with texts describing beliefs and stories, so the inner sentiments that these both evoke and express must be inferred. The adherent of a faith is no doubt authoritative as to his own experience, but what of the communal significance of the rites and institutions in which the adherent participates? Thus, the matter of coming to understand the inner side of a religion involves a dialectic between participant observation and dialogical (interpersonal) relationship with the adherents of the other faith.
The other sense of the subjectivity of religion is properly a matter for theology and the philosophy of religion. The study of religion can roughly be divided between descriptive and historical inquiries on the one hand and normative inquiries on the other. Normative inquiries primarily concern the truth of religious claims, the acceptability of religious values, and other such normative aspects; descriptive inquiries, which are only indirectly involved with the normative elements of religion, are primarily concerned with the history, structure, and other observable elements of religion. The distinction, however, is not an absolute one, for, as has been noted, descriptions of religion may sometimes incorporate theories about religion that imply something about the truth or other normative aspects of some or all religions. Conversely, theological claims may imply something about the history of a religion. The dominant sense in which the contemporary study of religion is understood is the descriptive sense.
The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.
SUBSCRIBE
Neutrality in the study of religion
The attempt simply to describe and not judge religious beliefs and practices is often considered to involve epochē—that is, the suspension of belief and the “bracketing” of the phenomena under investigation. The idea of epochē is borrowed from the philosophy of the German thinker Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), the father of phenomenology, and the procedure is regarded as central to the phenomenology of religion.
The term phenomenology refers first to the attempt to describe religious phenomena in a way that brings out the beliefs and attitudes of the adherents of the religion under investigation but without either endorsing or rejecting the beliefs and attitudes. Thus, the “bracketing” means forgetting about beliefs of one’s own that might endorse or conflict with what is being investigated. The term phenomenology also refers to the attempt to devise a typology, or classification, of religious phenomena—religious activities, beliefs, and institutions.
To some extent the emphasis on neutral description arises in modern times as a reaction to “committed” accounts of religion, which were for long the norm and which still exist among those who treat religion from a theological point of view. The Christian theologian, for example, may see a particular historical process as providential. This is a legitimate perspective from the standpoint of faith. But the historical process itself has to be investigated “scientifically”—that is, by considering the evidence, using the techniques of historical enquiry and other scientific methods. Conflict sometimes arises because the committed point of view is likely to begin from a more conservative stance, accepting at face value the scriptural accounts of events, whereas the “secular” historian may be more skeptical, especially of records of miraculous events. The study of religion may thus come to have a reflexive effect on religion itself, such as the manner in which modern Christian theology has been profoundly affected by the whole question of the historicity of the New Testament.
The reflexive effect of the study of religion on religion itself may in practice make it more difficult for the student of religion to adopt the detachment required by bracketing. Scholars do generally agree that the pursuit of objectivity is desirable, provided this stance does not involve the sacrifice of a sense of the inner aspect of religion. The stress on the distinction between the descriptive and normative approaches is becoming more frequent among scholars of religion.