Religious studies

{{religion}}
'''Religious studies''' is, as indicated on the tin, a complex set of academic disciplines focused on the study of [[religion]].<br>
At its core, religious studies analyze [[belief]]s, pratices, [[symbol]]s, [[superstition]]s, [[Mythology|myths]] and [[sacred text]]s, and compares all current and historical religions in the attempt to understand what the religious phenomenon is, why it exists, how it came to be, and what (if anything) it provides humanity. 

Religious studies is an academic subject that uses a multidisciplinary approach, combining the sciences and humanities. Branches of [[history]], [[social science]]s ([[anthropology]], [[sociology]], [[psychology]]), [[philosophy]], [[psychoanalysis]] and, more recently, even [[economics]], [[cognitive science]]s, and [[neuroscience]]s, are combined in an attempt to understand "religion" as a [[Social construction|social]], [[human]], and [[Culture|cultural]] construction.

==Separating epistemology from theology==
Religious studies is distinguished from faith-based fields of study like [[theology]], [[apologetics]], and [[Philosophy of religion|religious philosophy]], because these work from the premise that the religion being studied is "[[Truth|true]]", and therefore tend towards supernatural explanations of reality (like [[Creationism]] for [[Christian fundamentalism|Christian fundamentalists]]) in order to give [[Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence|evidence to their claims without having it]]; on the other hand, religious studies approaches the subject from a [[secular]], impartial viewpoint and works without premises, and adopts [[methodological naturalism]] ([[Scientific method|every hypothesis and event must be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events]]). People who adhere to religious beliefs and practices often view religious studies as an implicit assumption that their own religion (basically, every religion) is being regarded as false.

Religious studies is the [[Empiricism|phenomenological]] study of religion, meaning that it's focused on the [[secular]] study of religion and the impact of religious belief on its adherents. Theology, on the other hand, takes an in-universe approach to the study of religion. As a result, theology frequently involves [[apologetics]], while religious studies generally ignores the truth value of religious claims. Consequently, religious studies involves the application of [[epistemology]]:

{{cquote|Contemporary epistemology of religion may conveniently be treated as a debate over whether [[Evidence|evidentialism]] applies to [[Belief|religious beliefs]], or whether we should instead adopt a more permissive epistemology. Here evidentialism is the initially plausible position that a belief is justified only if “it is proportioned to the evidence”. [...] Evidentialism implies that full religious belief is justified only if there is conclusive evidence for it. It follows that if the [[Ontological argument|arguments for there being a God]], including any arguments from religious experience, are at best probable ones, no one would be justified in having a full belief that there is a God. And the same holds for other religious beliefs, such as the belief that God is not just good in a utilitarian fashion but loving, or the belief that there is an [[afterlife]]. Likewise it would be unjustified to believe even with less than full confidence that, say, [[Krishna]] is divine or that [[Mohammed]] is the last and most authoritative of the prophets, unless a good case can be made for these claims from the evidence.<br/> 
Evidentialism, then, sets rather high standards for justification, standards that the majority do not, it would seem, meet when it comes to religious beliefs, where many rely on “faith” [...]. Many others take some [[Sacred text|body of scripture]], such as the [[Bible]] or the [[Koran]] as of [[Argument from authority|special authority]], contrary to the evidentialist treatment of these as [[Cultural relativism|just like other any other books making various claims]]. [...]<br/>
This century has seen a turn in the debate, with emphasis on the implications of disagreement, “How can sincere intelligent people disagree? Should not we all suspend judgement?”|||Peter Forrest|"[http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/religion-epistemology/ The Epistemology of Religion]", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2014 Edition).}}

==History==
The objective study of religion and comparative approach towards it first occurred amongst the [[Greco-Roman religion|ancient Greeks and Romans]], and studying the history of religion in general, was popular for a time amongst [[Muslim]] scholars during the [[Middle Ages]].<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies#History At least according to WP]</ref> It was not until the 19th century that religious studies began to emerge as its own discipline distinct from the study of history, with the rise of [[secularism]], the decline of the old forms of organized [[Christianity]], and the study of comparative religion.

==Fields of study==
===Descriptive religion===
Because religious studies in its modern form was developed (like [[anthropology]] in general) in a European/Christian context, as explorers contacted a host of different peoples practicing diverse religions and customs, and brought descriptions of what they had seen back to a Christian-dominant civilization, the most common aspect of religious studies is "descriptive" or Classification Studies. This was originally done for the purpose of figuring out how the people in question could be converted to Christianity, but as the field became more academic, the [[Christian evangelism|evangelism]] aspect was greatly de-emphasized.<ref group=note>There are cases where Religious Studies are used to promote Christianity.</ref>

For the same reason, many such classification studies may assign a religious character to facets of another people's culture that the practitioners themselves do not see as religious,<ref>http://tiny.cc/g6hdfw</ref> or over-emphasize comparisons of ethnic religions to [[Christianity]].<ref group=note>For example, flood myths are very widespread, but it's doubtful that many of them outside of the Middle East bear any relationship to the [[Biblical]] flood myth.</ref>

===Comparative religion===
<center>
[[Jesus]] [[Christian evangelism|saves]].<br>
[[Moses]] [[Economics|invests]].<br>
[[Krishna]] [[Orgasm|spends]].
</center>

The precursor to religious studies as a discipline is the field known as "comparative religion". In the latter part of the 20th century, there emerged from these neat descriptions and classifications a new field, where the aim was to find basic structural similarities in some or even all religions. Out of the comparative study of religion came ideas about "birth-death-rebirth deities", [[The Sacred and the Profane|the sacred and profane]] as seen by [[human]]ity, sacred and transitional space, [[Goddess movement|association of women with early divinity]], the influence of religions on each other, and the importance of [[myth]] and ritual to human society, as examples.

[[Goddess religion|Not all of the theories]] stood the test of time equally, of course. [[Mircea Eliade]], Max Weber, [[Emile Durkheim]] and other influential early sociologists and anthropologists of religion contributed heavily to the understanding of how comparative religion should work as an academic discipline.

One significant problem with comparative religion is the simplification of religion and [[mythology]] to make the point that "all religions are fundamentally the same". Mircea Eliade (of ''[[The Sacred and the Profane]]'' fame), Sir James Frazer (of ''[[The Golden Bough]]''), [[Carl Jung]] and [[Joseph Campbell]] have all been highly criticized for their [[reductionist]] deconstruction of religion and myth.

===History of individual religions===
The history of any given religion, as told by historians rather than its own [[Religious leaders|clergy]], has become an increasingly important aspect of religious studies. Christianity, for example, has never been under such deep critical scrutiny as it has been under during the 19th-21st century.

Religious studies scholars tend to ask questions such as:

* Where did the religion's ideas come from?
* What kind of [[Politics|political games]] influenced the decision to codify particular [[dogma]]?
* When and where and by whom were texts written?
* Who was the target audience and what was the cultural context of the original text?

While this is possible to do from within the religion, generally, people studying a religion's history critically and objectively will at least be doubtful about whether that religion is true. This was certainly the case with the Christians who studied ethnic religions during the Age of Discovery and beyond, which has in many instances led people to question the studies' accuracy.

===Sociology and religion===
{{main|Sociology of religion}}

[[Anomie]] and the codification of religion are a major theme in religious studies. This frequently takes the form of analysis of religious conversion experiences and the relationship between religious adherence and participation and the [[culture]] at large.

===Cognitive science of religion===
Stewart Guthrie proposed the first cognitive theory of religion in 1980.<ref>Stewart Guthrie. [http://www.academia.edu/209728/A_Cognitive_Theory_of_Religion A Cognitive Theory of Religion.] ''Current Anthropology'', vol. 21, no. 2, April 1980.</ref> The [[cognitive science]] of religion (sometimes abbreviated "CSR") as a research program formed during the 1990s and 2000s as an outgrowth of work in the tradition of Guthrie, growing to incorporate interdisciplinary research from cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, [[evolution]]ary theory, and [[philosophy]] of religion and [[philosophy of mind|mind]].<ref>[http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/RelCogSci08.htm What is Cognitive Science? And What Does It Have to do with Religion?] John F. Kihlstrom, UC Berkeley</ref> CSR attempts to integrate multiple dimensions of religion into a broad framework, including cognitive mechanisms, learning heuristics, ritual displays, group competition, and [[cultural evolution]].<ref>Scott Atran and Joseph Henrich. [http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/BIOT_a_00018.pdf The Evolution of Religion: How Cognitive By-Products, Adaptive Learning Heuristics, Ritual Displays, and Group Competition Generate Deep Commitments to Prosocial Religions.] Biological Theory 5(1) 2010, 18–30.</ref> Key concepts include Justin Barrett's hyperactive agency detection device (HADD),<ref>Justin L. Barrett. [http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/philosophy/people/staff/academic/papineau/files/teaching20089/biocogsci/biocogsci2008-9/ER2Barrett-Naturalfoundationsofrerligion.pdf Exploring the Natural Foundations of Religion.] ''Trends in Cognitive Sciences'', vol. 4, no. 1, Jan. 2000</ref> William Irons' concept of religious ritual as a sign of hard-to-fake commitment,<ref>William Irons. [http://www.williamirons.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Religion-as-a-Hard-to-Fake-Sign-of-Commitment.pdf Religion as a Hard-to-Fake Sign of Commitment.] In ''Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment''.</ref>
and Harvey Whitehouse's imagistic and doctrinal modes of religiosity.<ref>
Harvey Whitehouse. [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/mtsr/2002/00000014/f0020003/art00001 Modes of Religiosity: Towards a Cognitive Explanation of the Sociopolitical Dynamics of Religion.] ''Method & Theory in the Study of Religion'', Volume 14, Numbers 3-4, 2002 , pp. 293-315(23)
</ref> 

The first book-length study of a single religion from a cognitive perspective is Jennifer Larson on the ancient Greeks;<ref>Jennifer Larson, ''Understanding Greek Religion'' 2016 Routledge London, 978-0-41568-846-8.</ref> she emphasizes that Greek Religion was about <i>doing</i> (can you sing a hymn? do you know the dance steps? are you wearing the proper costume for the festival?), and very little about <i>belief</i> (which cannot be objectively measured).

===Magic and ritual===
{{main|1=Magical thinking|3=Superstition}}

[[Magic]] is another area of interest for scholars of religious studies, especially those who focus on anthropology. Because of the functionalist approach that dominates in the field, all forms of folk magic, [[miracles]], and even common religious rituals such as [[baptism]] and other [[Sacrament|rites of passage]] are treated as existing pretty much on the same level and as treating virtually identical psycho-social needs.

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Anthropology]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Categories: Anthropology, History, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Sociology