The Study of Religion
Originally, religions were studied primarily within their own religious traditions. The goal of this
approach was that faith and devotion would be illuminated by intellectual search. Although this
approach continues in denominational schools, the study of religion began to take new form two
centuries ago.
There were several causes for the change. First, the early scientific movement accepted belief in
a creator-god, but it rejected belief in miracles and demanded scientific proof for beliefs. The
emerging scientific movement thus forced people to revise some of their traditional religious
beliefs. Second, because of the growth of historical studies, academic experts began to question
the literal truth of some statements and stories presented in the scriptures. (For example, did the
story of Noah and the Ark actually happen, or was it meant mainly to be a teaching parable
whose real purpose was moral?) Third, because of the growth of trade and travel, even faraway
cultures were becoming known. Their religions proved to be not only colorful but also wise. The
morality taught by Buddhism, the sense of duty found in Confucianism, the love of nature taught
in Shinto—all these seemed admirable. But what did this mean for other religions? In the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries this question intensified, as more information became
available through history, anthropology, and sociology. Scriptures and ritual texts were
translated, and anthropologists began to have direct experience of even small and rare religions.
In the university world, the study of religions was at first fragmented. The great questions of
religion were studied in philosophy departments. Other aspects of religion could be found in
departments of history, psychology, anthropology, and art. But there was as yet no department of
religious studies that unified these interests.
The fragmented academic approach changed in the twentieth century, as departments of religious
studies were formed and became a regular part of academic life. At first it was uncertain if these
departments of religion would survive. But the popularity of some courses in religion—
particularly those in world religions, death and dying, and the psychology of religion—
demonstrated the worth of having separate, permanent departments of religious studies.
The study of religion has further expanded, and in the twenty-first century we are able to
examine religions from additional and sometimes unexpected points of view. For example, one
of the most provocative new perspectives is neurology. Are religious beliefs and practices a part
of our genetic makeup, or are they merely manufactured by cultures and learned by people? Is a
religious experience the intrusion of a sacred being on individual consciousness, or is it the
activity of a particular chemical in the brain? Similar questions may be asked about morality. Are
moral demands a part of our physical constitution, or are they simply rules taught by society? As
academic disciplines expand and additional disciplines emerge, new aspects of religion will be
discovered.
Recent Theories
Recent thinking about religion has been influenced by the field studies of anthropologists and
other behavioral scientists. Archeology has also contributed much to newer thinking.
At one time it was thought that religions were best traced to a “great founder,” such as Moses,
the Buddha, Jesus, or Muhammad. This is no longer the common approach. Rather, sociologists
have pointed out how religions seem to emerge from whole tribes and peoples. One of the first
thinkers to speak of this was the French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). 16
He noted
how religions reinforce the values of groups, and his approach was empirical, based on research.
His approach has been continued by later French thinkers, such as Claude Levi-Strauss.
Claude Levi-Strauss (1908–2009) did fieldwork in Brazil, where he studied the mythology of
tribal groups. There he began to see great similarities in the myths of indigenous peoples. This
led him to see large structural similarities between kinship patterns, languages, and social
relations. He theorized that structures in the human mind formed these similarities. His thought,
called structuralism, has influenced the study of religion, particularly regarding taboos, marriage,
and laws about food purity.
A countermovement, called post-structuralism, soon emerged. It emphasized the individuality of
each experience and argued that belief in grand structures may keep investigators from
appreciating that individuality. Michel Foucault (1926–1984) is thought of as its primary
exponent. His work especially focused on those marginalized by society—prisoners, medical
patients, and the insane.
Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) began with a structuralist approach, but he moved away from
grand theories in order to focus on language, meaning, and interpretation. He is known for going
behind the ordinary interpretation of texts to discover new cultural meanings. This method is
known as deconstruction. In the area of religion, it can be quite effective. For example,
traditional religious texts can be looked at from many new points of view; one can look at
scriptural passages to investigate, say, underlying attitudes toward the treatment of women,
slaves, indigenous people, children, and the old. Deconstructive principles can also be used to
investigate religious art, architecture, and music.
Increasingly, religious investigation relies on anthropologists who have lived with native peoples
and learned their languages. One researcher of this type was E. E. Evans-Pritchard (1902–1973),
who lived among the Azande and Nuer people in Africa. Another esteemed anthropologist was
Clifford Geertz (1926–2006), who lived in Indonesia and Morocco and wrote about practices
there. Geertz championed what he called thick description—a description not only of rituals and
religious objects, but also of their meaning for the practitioners.
The so-called phenomenological approach to religious studies has been very popular. This
approach emphasizes direct experiential research to gather data. It seeks to understand religious
acts and objects from the consciousness of the believers, and it tries to avoid projecting the
researcher’s beliefs and expectations into the data. Specialists of this type have sometimes
focused on one religion. Contemporary examples are Wendy Doniger (O’Flaherty, b. 1940) and
Diana Eck (b. 1945). Both of them have specialized in Hinduism, but their writings and other
work have incorporated other world religions.