The Elephant in the Room: Religion as a Subject of Inquiry

Religion, 1987

This two-volume reference work is presented as a `sequel' to J. Waardenburg's Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion published as volumes I and II in this same Mouton series (Reason and Religion). The work is meant to complement thè story' of the academic study of religion in its development up to 1945 implicit in the selections of representative scholars in the field gathered together by Waardenburg. The substance of these volumes does not, however, comprise select passages from key authors in `religious studies', that being virtually impossible given the extensive development of the field since 1945. Nor do these volumes present a unified historical narrative of that `further development' of religious studies. Rather, they contain the reflections of a `team' of scholars, each summarizing the character of the study of religion within the framework of various sub-disciplines, so to speak, that constitute that study. It is the aim of the editor (and most of the authors, it appears) not only to indicate the variety of legitimate research interests in religious studies, but also to show how that variety of approaches interrelate, or, at least, can be integrated so as to constitute a kind of unified theory of the nature of the study of religion. It soon becomes evident to the reader, however-and reluctantly admitted by the editorthat even with this two-volume assault on the problem there is no single paradigm for the study of religion even within sight let alone within our grasp. What unity does appear to exist derives more from the hopes expressed by the editor than from the substance of the essays. Volume I is focussed on `the humanities', i .e. on approaches to the study of religion that, as Whaling puts it in the introductions to the two volumes, transcend the positivism of the scientific approach to religious phenomena by means of the intuitive insight `that the study of religion has to do with man' (I : 25, 26 ; II : 12). In the introduction to the first volume, Whaling attempts to highlight, the contrasts between the classical and contemporary periods in the study of religion and enunciates some general methodological claims that seem to constitute a set of assumptions for all the authors. Five essays follow which cover the historical and phenomenological approaches to the study of religion (U. King), the comparative study of religion (F. Whaling), the study of religious texts and myth (K. Bolle), the scientific study of religion in its plurality (N. Smart), and the global context of the contemporary study of religions (F. Whaling). U. King's essay is more than merely descriptive. It is a polemical essay that argues for a historical and phenomenological study of religions that is more than a narrow, empirical approach to the phenomenon. Such an `empirical positivism', as she calls it, jeopardizes the autonomy of `religious studies' and is, moreover, inadequate to its subject matter. Her review of the methodological debates amongst historians and phenomenologists over the last 40 years, however, is thorough and stimulating .

part one - The Congress. Generalities - Sections of the Congress - The theme of the Congress.Events. Acknowledgements - Committees - Report by the Secretary-General, prof.M. Pye - Prof.U.Bianchi, Perspectives du Congrès - Index of invited papers - Index of selected papers - The Congress scientific chronicle - List of participants - List of represented countries - Part two - Invited papers - Selected papers - Oceania, Africa, Mesoamerica - East Asia, India - Iran, Egypt - Greece, Rome, Hellenism, Pre-Christian Europe - Judaism - Christianity in the first centuries.Christianity in modern times - Gnosticism, Manichaesim - Islam - Buddhism - New religions - Metholodogy of comparative research - Phenomenology of religion - Anthropology of religion, Philosophy of religion - Concluding session. Retrospect and prospect/ The History of religions.

Argument : Biannual Philosophical Journal, 2014

A comparative perspective in the study of religion has recently been taken up more and more often. It goes along with a growing awareness of cultural and religious plurality as well as of the importance of religion in terms of its role in the social, political, and economic processes of the contemporary world. This also gave an impulse to organize the two-day international seminar on "Comparative Methodology in Religious Studies" held in Kraków on 23–24 May 2013, at the Pedagogical University of Cracow, Department of Philosophy and Sociology, in co-operation with the Editors of Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal. During the seminar a variety of methods applied in the comparative study of religion were discussed. The participants considered which of them seemed to be most beneficial or useful for a better inderstanding of the subject matter, and for capturing the uniqueness and divergence between Abrahamic, Indian (Dharmic), and other religious traditions. Some criter...

NTT Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion, 2020

Krech, Volkhard (2015): „From Religious Contact to Scientific Comparison and Back: Some Methodological Considerations on Comparative Perspectives in the Science of Religion“, in: Antje Flüchter, Jivanta Schöttli (Hrsg.), Dynamics of Transculturality. Concepts and Institutions in Motion. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer, 39–73.

Religio, 2012

The study of religion today constitutes an academic field that incorporates thousands of scholars dedicated to describing, comparing, interpreting and explaining religious beliefs and practices. Although the first academic (non-confessional) religious studies departments did not appear in the Western world until the second half of the twentieth century, the academic study of religion already started formally in the nineteenth century with the world of such scholars as F. Max Müller, Edward B. Tylor, and James G. Frazer. Müller clearly envisioned a Comparative Religion, where scholars borrowed key theories and methods from comparative linguistics, philology, history, and philosophy. Religiosity was to be viewed as a wide spread human phenomenon that manifested itself culturally into diverse beliefs and behaviors. Intellectualists like Tylor and Frazer argued that religious beliefs and behaviors were a way in which pre-modern, prescientific cultures expressed an explanation about the physical environment. As Müller was a philologist, he favored linguistic and historical sources, while anthropologists like Tylor and Frazer preferred different patterns of cultural expression (proto-ethnography). Soon thereafter, towering figures in other disciplines attempted to provide their own explanations of religious phenomena. William James and Sigmund Freud provided psychological-philosophical accounts of religion; Max Weber studied it from an economic perspective; while another sociologist, Émile Durkheim, provided his own influential analysis of religion.

The Scholar, 2019

Religion is one of the essential characteristics of humanity from the beginning of time. As time progressed, new or modified religions came into existence. This happened for a variety of reasons including divine interventions, human thought, experiences, superstitions, and other factors. The world that we live in today has thousands of religions practiced throughout it which have got many similarities and differences with each other. Are there any classifications among these religions based on common attributes? Is there one true religion of God, or are their multiple true religions of God for our day and age? Does it really matter which religion one follows as long as one follows it sincerely? Can various religions be compared? What should be the correct approach for conducting the comparative study of religions? These are some of the questions that have been answered in this article. The article is categorized in two sections. The first section deals with the classification of religions and why the comparative studies in religion should be considered. The second section explains the methodological aspects of conducting such studies, as it is the lack of methodological correctness which is one of the major factors that hinders the meaningful and value-adding outcomes from the comparative studies in religion.

Religio: Revue Pro Religionistiku 2/2012, 2012

The study of religion is by its nature and by its history multi-disciplinary, incorporating diverse research paradigms ranging from historiography to experimental approaches and from scientific positivism to postmodern reflection. At a conference on the Past, Present, and Future in the Scientific Study of Religion (March 1-3, 2012), the keynote speakers pro- vided an assessment of the field of religious studies. While they agreed on the relevance of traditional methods (in particular those coming from history and anthropology) for the study of religion, the speakers also stressed the contribution of new research paradigms such as cognitive, evolutionary, and experimental approaches, which have rejuvenated the disci- pline by calling attention to a much neglected but certainly fundamental aspect of human culture (the mind) and bringing methodological rigour that is often lacking in the humani- ties. The Laboratory for the Experimental Research of Religion in Brno, who hosted this conference, is the product of these developments

Religion, 2020

A better future for the study of religion would incorporate innovative and engaging approaches to bridge the gaps between popular and scholarly understandings of what comprises religion and why it remains relevant and significant in our world. This article calls for studying religion in a manner that emphasizes how it is thoroughly enmeshed with other ways of acting and existing in the world. The study of religion appears here as the study of how people attribute certain things as special, powerful, and authoritative, which conveys much about how people construct and manage social and cultural forms more generally. We argue that religion matters not because it supposedly represents a unique, autonomous realm of life, but rather because its workings are related to and paradigmatic for many other forms of human behavior.