I've always been jealous of academics who have fancy job titles like sociologist or archaeologist.
They just sound so cool, but what do you do when you study religion?
Am I a religiologist? Well, one of the reasons why this is even an issue is because religious studies the- academic discipline - draws from multiple methods,
from anthropology, from sociology, and even some of the hard sciences like neuroscience,
bringing all of these tools to the table to study the single subject religion.
So, what are some of the main approaches to the academic study of religion and how do they differ?
Let's start with the sociological approach to religion. Sociology is the scientific study of society including the structures,
interactions, and collective behavior of human beings; and if we're talking about collective human behavior, religion is a great example.
So it shouldn't surprise you some of the foundational thinkers of
sociology studied religion.
Emile Durkheim, in his book "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life," tried to describe the origins and function of religion in society.
Sociologist Max Weber analyzed the role religion played in economic and social structures with his essay "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,"
and although later studies are a little more sophisticated than Durkheim and Weber, these scholars continue to shape the sociological
study of religion. Modern
sociologists such as Nancy Ammerman at Boston University study the social structures and practices of religion as it's practiced in daily life.
Asking questions like: How do new religious movements form? Why do humans participate in communal ritual?
And how do factors like gender race and ethnicity all influence religious identity? Studies like these use a combination of
quantitative and qualitative tools like analyzing demographic data, conducting surveys,
in-person interviews, or even archival research.
But all of these tools combined to identify and analyze religion as it functions in society.
But while guys like Durkheim and Weber were studying the intersection of religion and society,
scholars like Freud were taking a
psychological approach to religion studying, how the human mind, our thoughts, our emotions, and even the biological processes of our brain
influence religious belief and practice. Now, Freud famous compared religious rituals to
obsessive-compulsive behavior in his essay "Obsessive Actions and Religious Rractices," but modern scholars have generally debunked his more eccentric
approaches to religion, while at the same time building on his methodology of focusing on the human brain.
Some of these studies take a more
Freudian approach to religion, like Princeton emeritus professor Gananath Obeyesekere, who uses psycho-
analytical methods when studying the religions of his home country, Sri Lanka.
Other scholars take a more cognitive science approach. Pascal Boyer, for example, a professor of anthropology and psychology at Washington University
St. Louis, applies the study of evolutionary psychology to religion. In his book Religion Explained"
he argues that the tendency towards religion is hardwired into the human brain -
and you'll notice this sounds a lot like the hard sciences.
Contemporary figures in the scientific study of religion include Dimitris Xygalatas, who measures different levels of hormone production and extreme rituals, and
Patricia Sharp, who studies the neural underpinnings of meditation and mindfulness.
What unites this research in the scientific study of religion is not so much a single methodology,
but a tendency to emphasize reductionism and explanation.
During the 18th century, the philosopher David Hume argued that religious beliefs and behaviors could be explained
naturalistically, without and appealed the theological explanations or personal spiritual experience.
This simple idea has formed the core of the scientific study of religion:
That religion can be explained using the tools that we use to analyze any other aspect of human behavior
So, at this point you might be asking yourself, "Well, why do we even need to bother having a separate
discipline called religious studies?" And one reason why this is the case is because
religion is just too complex for one discipline to manage.
Remember: religion is embedded in all aspects of culture: our art, our politics, our literature,
gender, race, ethnicity, all influence it. Religious studies demands an interdisciplinary approach,
and it demands scholars and students who are able to apply different methods to the study of religion.
But none of these approaches are mutually exclusive.
You can be an anthropologist of religion who uses psychological approaches.
You can be a historian of religion who also uses archaeological data, like myself.
But this is actually an advantage to religious studies because different approaches ask different questions and reveal different sets of data.
So, whether you're a biologist or have interest in philosophy or politics, you probably can find a home in religious studies.
As always, thanks for watching.