ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF RELIGION
ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF
RELIGION
The
scientific study of religion confronts a variety of issues as it passes through
time. For the sake of convenience, the
issues faced by different approaches to the study of religions, starting with
that of Max Muller, can be highlighted.
Then, the general issues that call for the attention of every scholar of
religion may be listed. For instance,
definition of religion, who should study religion, nature of data for the study
of religion, whether value free judgment of data is possible, issues related to
the use of language, specific problems in studying living religions, response
threshold, observable and non-observable aspects of religion, hermeneutic and
option for a plurality of perspective.
Muller argued that the manifestation of the infinite is diversely found
among all people and hence the common elements among religions could be traced
through comparative method and this in turn would enable one to trace the
history of the origin of religions. As Muller’s aim was to establish an
independent discipline for the scientific study of religion, he did not foresee
other difficulties which are confronted by modern scholars.
The anthropologists depended mostly on empirical knowledge, and hence, they
did not penetrate into the real religious realm which is beyond the empirical
phenomena. Some of them approached primal religions with hidden motives, like
missionaries. Further, most of the
anthropological studies were concentrated on the analysis of primal religions. They, therefore, failed to examine the
challenges facing the living religions. A major issue, this approach has to
face is, over generalization. Anthropologists,
having studied one or few primal religions tend to assert that their theory
alone can be the right one to trace the origin of religions. One other issue related to this is that, one
or a few anthropologists cannot study the entire primal religious
practices. Even though most of the
primal religious data are in oral form, language, at least at the stage of
interpretation, is a limitation to the anthropologists.
The real issue in the study of religion from sociological perspective is
whether religion is responsible for the social institutions or the social
structure is responsible for the emergence of religion. In other words, whether religion influences
society or society influences religion.
The reason is that, many sociologists perceive some form of supernatural
influence upon the religious behavior of people.
The main issue in the historical approach is whether the historian of
religion will be able to use the abundance of available data to trace back the
origin of religion. Indeed, it is too
hard to perceive the past with the present data.
The task of the phenomenologist is to find out the essence of
religion. This is a crucial issue
because what seems to be the essence of one religion may not be the same or
have a similar status in other religions.
Further, as pointed above, shifting religious categories from their
original context can lead the scholar to perceive meanings different from what
was really intended.
The issue in the psychological approach is that the simple to complex
generalization has its own limitations.
Further, the psychologists of religion have not taken heed of any force
other than human being to be the cause of the religious behavior of the people. It requires serious attention because this is
what constitutes the crux of the religious sentiment.
Apart from these specific issues, there are certain common issues which
cannot but capture the attention of every scholar of religion. The major issue confronting the study of
religion is the definition of the term ‘religion’. Thus the question is whether religion has to
be defined or not before attempting to study it because “philological
investigation of the use of the word has revealed some interesting aspects of
Roman religiosity, which was characterized by a scrupulous attention to all
signs or manifestations of invisible powers or forces.”[1] At the same time, further studies about
religion have proved that there are religions even without any supernatural
element.
On the basis of
a deep commitment required from the scholars of religion [2]
the emerging next issue is whether the insider or the outsider should study
religion. As scholars of religion face
the reality of abundance of data the question is whether any individual scholar
will be able to handle and classify all the data or only one aspect of the data
should be focused.
The chronic fear about the value-free judgment of religious data is
another issue confronting the study of religion. In the context of religious pluralism too,
value plays an important role. In the
pluralistic paradigm, there is an immense stress to respect the value of each
and every religion. A religiously
pluralist country like India
With regard to language, when a primal concept is explained in the modern
language, whether the real content and implications are carried through is a
question that matters religious studies.[3]
Traditional scholars were concerned with primal or archaic
religions. But today scholars show
greater interest in the living religions.[4] Primal religions did not possess documentary
evidences to prove their origin, development, faith, practice etc. But living religions abound with such
details. Hence the study of living
religions requires new dynamics. Here
the problem is not data or origin, but how different religions interact and
exist side by side in harmony, addressing the current issues.[5] Added to this is the issue of personal
response (response threshold) to one’s own faith. In the words of Michael Pye
“after all, unless one has an understanding of what a religion means to its
participants one cannot really be said to understand it fully.”[6]
The academic study of religion, now, is generally concerned with
observable data.[7] But religion is not limited to these observable
factors alone. Beyond the observable
there is a non-observable sphere too.
This is what really gives life to religion. Failure to consider the non-observable causes
confusion.[8] Of course this is related to the element of
Truth. It is a complicated matter yet,
“discovering the character of this transcendent focus comprises an important
part of the study of a religion.”[9]
Another important issue the science of religion has to face is to derive
at an appropriate Hermeneutical principle.
This need is due to the increasing amount of data being gathered by
various branches of studies connected with religion. Further, the multi religious context
definitely is in need of a relevant Hermeneutical principle.[10] Unless a relevant hermeneutic is used to
interpret the religious phenomena which is influencing life at all levels, the
study of religion will not be in a position to experience its implications.
Another pertinent issue is whether religious study could be ventured
using single method or poly-method. K.
P. Aleaz[11], Eric
J. Lott[12] and
Ninian Smart[13] favour a poly-methodic approach.
[1] De
Graeve, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.12, p.240.
[2]
Henry H. Presler, “How should we study other religions?” National Christian
Council Review.
Vol.LXXXI,
No.5 ( May 1961), pp.193, 194.
[3]
Jarich Oosten, “Cultural Anthropological Approaches”, Contemporary
Approaches to the
Study
of Religion in 2 Volumes, edited by Frank Whaling, Vol.II: The Social
Sciences (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985), p.252.
[4]
Ursula King, “The Debate about the Science of Religion”, Contemporary
Approaches to the
Study
of Religion in 2 Volumes, edited by Frank Whaling, Vol.I: The Humanities
(Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984), p.149.
[5]
Geoffrey Parrinder, Comparative Religion (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1962), p.21.
Abbot: David
and Charles, 1972), p.13.
[7]
Thomas A. Idinopulos, “The Difficulties of Understanding Religion”, what is
Religion?
Origins,
Definitions & Explanations, edited by Thomas A. Idinopulos & Brain
C. Wilson (Brill, 1998), p.27.
[8] Ibid.,
p.27.
[9]
Eric J. Lott, “Approaching Religious Traditions”, Religions Traditions of
India (Indian Theological
Library, 1988), p.3.
[10]
Ursula King, op. cit., p.152.
[11]
K. P. Aleaz, Dimensions of Indian Religion, Study, Experience and
Interaction (Calcutta
Punthipustak,
1995), p.6.
[12]
Eric J. Lott, Tradition, Interpretation, Theology Religion, and the Study of
Religion (Moutan
de Gruyter, 1988), p.156.
[13]
Ninian Smart, “The Scientific Study in its Plurality”, Contemporary
Approaches to the Study
of
Religion in 2 Volumes, Vol., op. cit., p.372.
Comments
Post a Comment