There are more than 6,000 religions in the world, most of which are very different from the literate Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that many people think of when they hear the word religion. In order to make statements or generalizations about religion—the concept of religion, rather than a specific religion or group of religions—we need to engage in a comparative study of religion. The study of religion as a general human phenomenon involves a comparison of all religions in an attempt to discern commonalities, general patterns, and associations with cultural and ecological features.
There are many academic disciplines in which the study of religion is a sub-discipline. In these disciplines, religion is studied as a part of a larger system. Many introductory textbooks in anthropology, sociology, history, psychology, geography, philosophy, archaeology, art history, and political science may contain a chapter or two on religion. While the study of religion as a subject in its own right is often relegated to theology, theology generally focuses on the study of a single religion from the perspective of a believer.
Comparative religion is an interdisciplinary approach which utilizes the methods and insights of a number of social science disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology, sociology, history, psychology, geography, and philosophy. Comparative religion tends to use a scientific approach to the study of religion. Sociologist Robert Wuthnow, in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, writes:
“Science teaches us the value of empirical rigor and the need for systematic investigation. The scientific method involves thinking of ways in which our cherished assumptions about the world may prove to be wrong.”
In the comparative religion approach, religion is often seen as a part of a larger system—a culture, a society, or a social system. In his book
Religion: The Basics, Malory Nye, a professor of multiculturalism in Dundee, Scotland, writes:
“What the study of religion and culture is not about, however, is finding ‘ultimate’ truths or answers. Liberation, salvation, morality, belief, and many other such key concepts may be subject matter under examination when studying religion, but we can speculate ad infinitum as to which set of ideas is closer to the ‘truth’.”
The anthropologist Paul Bohannan, in his textbook
Social Anthropology, provides a caution with regard to comparative religion:
“The error of most students of comparative religion is that they unconsciously—or even consciously—create, on the analytical and intellectual level, the universalism what the religion lacks on the folk level. In short, they create a pseudo-Scripture modeled on those that characterize the universalistic religions they know, thereby sharply misrepresenting the nature of tribal religion.”
In doing any comparative study of religion, it is common to group religions into types or categories in order to more easily compare and discuss them.
Many writers, when discussing religion, focus on world religions: those religions which are found throughout the world and which transcend cultural boundaries through proselytization and/or migration. Most frequently world religions have: (1) major texts, including sacred books, (2) foundational ideas, beliefs, and worldviews, (3) particular histories and leaders, and (4) a sense of distinct identity.
World religions would include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism. Some of these are monotheistic (having a single god), such as Judaism and Islam; some are polytheistic (having multiple gods or god-figures), such as Hinduism and Christianity (when studied as it is practiced in many areas); and some are atheistic (having no god), such as Buddhism (when studied from the viewpoint of Buddhist texts).
In spite of what some religious writers seem to imply, the world religions are not the only religions and a focus on them misses the connection with culture. That is, Christianity in the United States is culturally different than Christianity in Mexico; Buddhism in Japan is different than Buddhism in the United States. Malory Nye writes:
“A study of Christianity entails a study of Christians in a particular time and place, for example in twenty-first century America, or medieval Europe. The assumption we often make that the Christian traditions found in such different contexts amount to the ‘same thing’ (the same ‘religion’) needs to be reassessed. Instead we should start with the assumption that these different Christianities can only be understood in their own particular terms.”
Since world religions tend to have sacred texts, some scholars focus their comparative study of religion on these texts. Malory Nye writes:
“A study of religion, however, that concentrates solely on the texts themselves and how the text should be understood in terms of its authors and its intended meaning is seriously in danger of missing the point.”
Ethnographers often find that there is a difference between the way the religion is practiced by the people and the way it is described by the religious scholars. A comparative study of religious texts may yield little insight into how people actually use the religion, how they incorporate it into their daily lives.
One approach to understanding the many religions in the world is to categorize them as being either universalizing or ethnic. Universalizing religions are those which cross-cut cultures and actively seek converts. Nearly all of the religions considered world religions are universalizing. This would include Christianity, Islam, Baha’i, and Scientology. On the other hand, ethnic religions are closely associated with specific ethnic groups. These religions often do not have names and do not actively seek converts. People “join” ethnic religions by being born into them. Some examples of major named ethnic religions would include Judaism and Shinto. Writing about the ancient Viking religion in Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga, Anne-Sofie Gräslund reports:
“The Old Norse religion dating to before A.D. 1000 may be classified as an ethnic religion, meaning that it belongs to a specific people or group of people, in contrast to, for example, a religion like Christianity, which has become a universal or multiethnic religion.”
With regard to seeking converts by the universalizing religions, the 14th Dalai Lama, in his book
Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World’s Religions can Come Together, writes:
“The entire ethos of missionary activity—that is, the focus on bringing about active conversions of people from other faiths or no faiths—is grounded in the ideal of bringing the ‘one true way’ to those whose eyes remain unopened.”
He also notes:
“Historically religions have gone to great lengths, even waging wars, to impose their version of what they deem to be the one true way.”
In her work on
America: Religion and Religions, Catherine Albanese defines two kinds of religions:
“The first kind is ordinary religion—the religion that is more or less synonymous with culture. Ordinary religion shows people how to live well within boundaries. The second is extraordinary religion—the religion that helps people to transcend, or move beyond, their everyday culture and concerns. Extraordinary religion grows at the borders of life as we know it and seeks to cross over. In the West, extraordinary religion helps people to contact God.”
In looking at the role of religion in modern urban-industrial societies, the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary religions can provide some useful insights.
In the comparative study of religions, some writers may refer to religions which are considered outside of the mainstream as “cults.” This term is often used from an ethnocentric perspective to indicate that the religion is somehow not valid, or less valid than other religions. Religion professor Philip Jenkins, in his book Dream Catchers: How Mainstream America Discovered Native Spirituality, writes:
“When studying fringe religions, observers often quote the remark that ‘Cults live on the unpaid bills of the churches,’ which is to say that new religious movements arise to meet demands not being satisfied by existing providers.”
Jenkins also writes:
“A religion is not less valid because it is newly minted, not even because in early development it may contain elements of deceit.”
And finally, Murray Leaf, in his book
The Anthropology of Eastern Religions: Ideas, Organizations, and Constituencies, points out the problem with comparative religion:
“The most conspicuous problem in contemporary comparative religion is that they underrate diversity. Lacking a framework grounded in sociocultural analysis, the most common inclination has been to organize such overviews around the aim of trying to find ‘the distinctly religious.’”
Comparative religion is not about proselytizing or attempting to convert people from one religion to another: it is an attempt to understand human behavior in a very broad sense.