In a reflective essay of 3-5
pages, and using the Christiano text, Lesson 2 and online readings, your Meet
the Believers (MTB) exercise to date, and any other credible and authoritative
sources you might choose, please address the following questions in depth:
Why does religion exist for society as a whole, and what is its
relevance to the modern world? What are FIVE common theoretical approaches used in the scientific
study of religion, as discussed in Christiano’s 3rd edition
and/or Lesson 2? Please describe these in detail. How do we know that what we have observed as religious scholars is
true? How can the research methods we use help us accomplish this? Please
name/describe THREE methods in detail.Attached is lesson 2
2_soc_420_lesson_2_epistemology_fall_2016.doc
Unformatted Attachment Preview
SOC 420 Lesson 2: Epistemology and the Sociology of Religion
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
—Mahatma Ghandi (as cited at brainyquote.com)
First Things First—Basic Concepts and Required Reading
Welcome to Lesson 2 of our Sociology of Religion course! Hopefully you’re getting all the time you need
to fully process the concepts we’re reading about. In case you were curious: A “concept” is a topic,
subject, complex idea, etc. We read about the concepts of sociology, religion, and Rational Choice theory
in the previous unit, for instance. In this unit, we are reading about the concepts of social theories,
methods, epistemology, and so forth. Please start by reading the assigned text chapters. There are other
readings in the remainder of the lesson that are recommended, but also optional. As I’ve previously noted,
I generally err on giving you access to more information than you’ll probably need, rather than not
enough. In any case, there are some additional key concepts to cover in this lesson, so let’s jump into it.
The Wide Wonderful World of Epistemology
In the sociology of religion, especially as we consider the importance of studying religion scientifically
(for Assignment 2 purposes), it’s useful to understand a little of the discourse of epistemology, or how
we know something is true, valid, or correct. Remember, as in the last lesson, we in the sociology of
religion aren’t trying to figure out the truth, validity, and/or correctness of particular claims of belief or
doctrine. Rather, we are looking back at our own observations and asking ourselves if we got those right:
Did we really observe what we thought we observed? Was that measurement valid and reliable? Are our
conclusions valid and based on a correct interpretation of our data?
In the sociology of religion, our epistemological concern isn’t whether we know a given religious belief is
or isn’t true, valid, and/or correct—it’s whether we can reasonably know that our data, interpretation of
that data, and the conclusions that result from our analysis are true, valid, and correct. So, to pick a broad
example of a given religious belief, we aren’t trying to establish whether God exists. That’s impossible
for empirical science, as explained below. However, we are trying to establish whether we have correctly
understood, interpreted, and explained what it means that a given religious group believes God exists. (If
you follow that.)
In brief, in the sociology of religion, we also often ask ourselves: Do we know we’ve correctly grasped
the issue we’re researching? In other words, regarding the concept of epistemology, in the context of the
social research methods we often use and their validity but this time using the “plain English” translation:
Do we really know what we think we know? Do we “get it”? As we’ll see, part of the answer involves
the method we use to ask the question.
1
Another caution as well: Just because we are setting aside the notion of the truth of a given religious
claim does not mean that we are either affirming or denying it. We are NOT saying that any particular
religious belief—or for that matter, religious belief as a whole—is true or false. We are simply affirming
that the veracity (truth or falsehood) of any particular religious belief is beyond the power of scientific
verifiability or explanation. Instead, we are considering what it means that the belief exists. Back to the
example of the existence of God, science—especially social science—has no power to confirm or deny
God’s existence. The same is true of any other idea, concept, or principle of religious belief.
To confirm that God exists from a purely scientific standpoint, and assuming a monotheistic perspective
for the sake of argument (polytheism really, really adds new levels of complexity to this question), we
social scientists would likely have to accomplish this: Search the universe, find and observe God directly,
bring back evidence of God’s existence, explain to the satisfaction of our peers at minimum (though
probably also to everyone else, too) why we normally can’t see God directly, and rule out any
possibility that our observations can be attributed to any other cause.
Logic is useful, especially when
correctly applied, in the discourse of
epistemology. Illustration from
researchmeth.wikispaces.com
Interestingly, empirically ruling out God’s existence is even more
difficult, and much more so. To do that, we social scientists would
have to search the entire known universe, fail to find God, show
that our search was sufficiently thorough to account for any other
possibility for our failure to find God—perhaps God was actually
in one spot while we were searching another, or our tools or
methods weren’t sophisticated enough to allow us to discover God,
and so forth—and altogether rule out the existence of God by
establishing alternative explanations for every single phenomena
that have been historically attributed to God. This must also be
done to our satisfaction, to that of most of our peers, and to the
public. It is similarly difficult, if not impossible, to empirically
verify any particular precept of religious belief or doctrine.
So in short, this suspension isn’t a denial of religious belief, just as
it isn’t an affirmation. It’s simply an honest and candid admission
that either confirming or denying the epistemological truth of
actual religious beliefs is well beyond the scope of empirical science. By setting aside or “bracketing” the
truth of particular religious beliefs, in as unbiased fashion as possible, we merely acknowledge the
limitations of the tools we have on hand. Logic and the scientific approach, whether inductive or
deductively oriented, are highly useful in empirical science—but they can only take us so far. We also
need to use these tools correctly in the appropriate context, sadly unlike our unfortunate penguin friend
shown above.
In any case, that’s the approach we take. Still, we try to minimize as many of our own biases as we can.
We remain human, so we cannot eliminate our biases altogether. We can’t magically transform ourselves
into someone else—we have never been anyone else, and never will be. We cannot see beyond our own
perspectives; we simply need to admit what our own biases have been and strive to minimize those so we
can be as unbiased as possible as we investigate.
2
So this, combined with the information in the previous lesson about the sociology of religion, should let
you know how you should approach your assignments. Conduct all your observations, including your
Meet the Believers exercise (Shameless Plug Alert: Please don’t put that off—get started ASAP!), with
a mind open to multiple possibilities. Then as you write, show what you have learned from our course
readings, and compare and contrast concepts in an insightful and minimally biased way. In your MTB
report, as with all other assignments, focus on what you’ve learned and your understanding of the
concepts first and foremost. Share your experiences and observations as an observer trying to—as we
discussed in the first lesson—reveal that which has been hidden.
OK, let’s keep going into the wide wonderful world of epistemology…
Some Absolutely Crucial Sociological and Epistemological Concepts
So far, so good. To continue, let’s define and briefly discuss a set of concepts that will become vital to our
understanding of the sociology of religion. The first is religion itself, which involves not only belief and a
worldview associated with that belief, but a system of practices and objectives that are associated with
those beliefs. For a bit more background on that, two articles from The Hartford Seminary illuminate the
issues of the difficulty of defining religion and the origin of “Religious Studies”.
In any case, belief is a key dimension of religion that needs a bit of elaboration. According to MerriamWebster, belief is defined as:
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon
especially when based on examination of evidence
Religious belief encompasses all of these three senses of the word—trust and confidence, along with a
particular worldview; a body of tenets, principles, or doctrines; and a conviction of the reality of those
principles and/or a particular being. In the American context, a claim to religious belief is strong and
continues to be so, even in the modern age, though religious practice seems to be a bit more problematic.
The second term is spirituality. Some believers see little difference between religion and spirituality,
though many observers in our day and age actually see a fair amount of difference between the two. (For
instance, this paper from the University of Miami offers an interesting comparison and contrast.) As
currently defined, in any case, spirituality is thought of as a much broader endeavor than religion, and one
that can possibly encompass it. Hence, religion is a part of spirituality in most theoretical frameworks. As
for exactly what constitutes spirituality, it is often thought of as a quest—a holistic search for meaning
and purpose above and beyond the material aspect of life, whether symbolic or metaphysical. This
“quest” can take the sense of a search for self-authenticity, care for others, construction of meaning, an
experiential encounter with the unexpected, or a desire for interconnectedness and wholeness. (See this
discussion from a UCLA-hosted forum, for example.)
3
Third, let’s discuss religiosity. Briefly defined, this is the way people practice their religious beliefs, or
religious behavior. Sometimes researchers vary this somewhat; for instance, researchers Nathaniel
Lambert and David Dollahite use it this way in this study of religion and marital conflict: “For the
purposes of this study, we define religiosity as a person’s spiritual beliefs, religious practices, and
involvement with a faith community.” Religiosity can be understood as having private and public
dimensions. Private religious behavior is what believers tend to do out of the public eye, such as prayer,
reading sacred texts, fasting, and so forth; public religiosity is what is done in a group setting, such as
church attendance, service to the community, preaching to others, and so forth.
Also, to move on to even more profound matters, let’s address at length another common misperception
in our modern world. We have discovered that many, many phenomena in life are dependent on our
perception and/or social context, but many among us have erroneously concluded that this means
everything is dependent on culture and/or personal perspective. As some seem to believe, our old ideas
about Absolute and Unchanging Truth—so mid-20th century! If not 1700s!—have therefore been proven
completely wrong, and Objective Truth no longer exists. Ummmm… just three words for you: No, no,
and no. We may have at various times in our philosophical discourse been somewhat confused about the
nature of Absolutes and Absolute Truth and what constituted It/Them, but please make no mistake at all:
There are Absolutes. (Consider the converse statement, “There is no such thing as an Absolute,” and
ponder the absurd self-contradiction. It’s absurd for a pretty darn good reason!)
The fact is: Objective Truth in some form must necessarily exist. Without it, not only would all nature
and our everyday experience be sheer chaos, but existence itself would be impossible. So again, please
make no mistake whatsoever: There IS Objective Truth. We don’t have time or space to go over the entire
logical argument right now, and it’s not our focus anyway, though DesCartes (“I think, therefore I am”)
had this part of it mostly right (though he was mistaken in some other areas); Gandhi knew this as well, as
in the words at the top of the lesson. There’s a fairly intense philosophical discussion on this point at this
link from Notre Dame University, too.
But as a short “for instance,” let’s examine one subjective-relative thesis; George Berkeley’s argument
that perception determines existence, so that objects that we don’t perceive don’t truly exist for us, will do
nicely. This idea of existence depending on subjective perception is an interesting theoretical concept, and
allows us to debate whether trees falling in forests without anyone nearby actually make sounds, among
other fun and games. (Berkeley most definitely said No, BTW—not only for the sound, but for the
tree! In his view, neither truly exists, since nobody knows about either of them!) Berkeley’s arguments
came long ago—see this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article for more about him—and his
thinking influenced subsequent arguments over the centuries. So our modern day public philosophy is
largely based on subjectivism and relative collectivism of this sort.
Yet, useful and crucial as it is to understand subjective perception and cultural interpretation, neither
contradict the existence of the Objective. The fact is this: The Berkeleyan thesis is easily refuted by actual
experience. Imagine you’re running somewhere in the dark, where you can’t see what’s in front of you.
Unfortunately, this includes a brick wall that runs across your path. That solid and extremely hard wall
directly ahead of you is still very much there, whether or not you perceive it or know about it or choose to
believe in it yourself. It even exists regardless of whether you or your culture of origin builds, values or
4
even believes in brick walls. In any case, the wall isn’t going anywhere, regardless of your perceptions
or beliefs about it, with a sad but predictable result if you don’t slow down or change your own direction
to avoid it. True, tolerance and human understanding do require substantial allowances for individual and
cultural perception. But our individual and cultural perception neither cause nor determine the Ultimate
Realities we find in the world around us, Seen or Unseen. In any case, Absolute Truth is the Truth, even if
(as Gandhi said) only one person correctly knows and perceives what that Truth is.
So as we consider epistemology, please keep in mind that there’s a distinct relationship between
Objective (Big-T) truth and subjective (little-t) truth. We know well about subjective little-t truth—of
course, we know what we know, subject to our own perceptions, assumptions, and previous learning.
Hey, we all call it like we see it and/or tell it like it is—or at least as we think it is —so let’s not
explore subjectivity at great length. We already know what it’s all about—or at least we hope so. But
Objective Big-T Truth is a different matter, and we’re frequently confused about what these Truths are,
especially when we plunge into metaphysics and spirituality.
Here’s what Objectivity is all about: The Big-T Truths, as it were, are the Truths in an Ultimate Objective
sense, which hold true no matter what: We exist. The sky is blue. Pure water boils at 212 degrees
Fahrenheit at sea level. Sodium and chloride atoms react with each other to form table salt. Science helps
us discover some of these Absolutes; other Objective Truths in the religious world we may consider selfevident, as (for instance) The Word of God.
However, please keep in mind a core irony of our religious existence: Many of our reasons for evaluating
any given religious principle as Objective Truth are ironically subjective. We who are religious believers
really do believe we know The Truth, at least on some level and to some extent—or we wouldn’t really
believe it! Yet we all perceive the Objective from a subjective standpoint! In the words of Paul in the
New Testament, we see “through a glass darkly.” We also often fail to recognize the extent to which our
customs, traditions, and fallible perceptions color our individual understandings of what that Truth really
is and what it entails. So in addition to our subjective perception of Truth, we also have other people
explaining The Truth to us and interpreting it!
This is yet another reason we in the sociology of religion “bracket” the question of the Ultimate Truth of
various religious claims. We can only go so far as the best evidence we have takes us, and there
eventually comes a point in our journey of discovery where evidence—perceived and interpreted, as it
is—is no longer feasible to help us know what is correct and valid. (Søren Kierkegaard’s proverbial “leap
of faith” comes to mind, for instance.) Also, if you follow one of Peter Berger’s primary arguments in The
Sacred Canopy, much of religion lies in the interaction of the Nomos (social order) and the individual, as
truth and reality are socially and individually constructed as these two levels interact. So if our focus is on
those dimensions, Objective Truth doesn’t really come into play to begin with!
In any case, these Objective Truths, as Absolutes, involve what we consider always and absolutely True,
never changing, always dependable, always constant. Many metaphysical (other-worldly) teachings, for
instance, are often considered Objective. Moreover, as mentioned in the previous lesson, many people
who hold particularly strong religious convictions or come to experience particular events such as ghostly
encounters or near-death-experiences thereafter consider those religious/metaphysical experiences as
more Real than the events and circumstances of the everyday world. As in Lesson 1, Berger also explored
5
this phenomenon in The Heretical Imperative, though we won’t recap this at length here. In short, instead
of our ordinary view of the religious world being a fanciful illusion and our world being real, for them,
their experience becomes real and the mundane world becomes the fanciful illusion.
For instance, the 2001 film The Other Side of Heaven is based on the real-life experiences of John
Groberg, as recorded in a memoir written a couple of decades before that, The Eye of the Storm. As a
Mormon missionary in Tonga in the mid-1950s, Groberg nearly starved to death after a hurricane
devastated the island where he was living and relief efforts were delayed for several weeks. But he was
saved when a local minister—in a wonderfully altruistic act of surpassing generosity—offered him the
last of his own food shortly before
dying of starvation himself.
Groberg also wrote that in his state
of advanced hunger, he’d had some
metaphysical experiences in which
he’d actually seen and visited a
spiritual world beyond this one.
That confirmed his faith, for him,
and that world he’d said he’d
visited thereafter became his
Reality. Without giving specifics of
the spiritual encounters, he
observed in his memoir, repeated in
the film: “There is a connection
between heaven and earth. Finding
that connection gives meaning to
Photo from fanpixfamousfix.com. Anne Hathaway and Christopher Gorham
(left), who played Jean and John Groberg in The Other Side of Heaven, pose
everything, including death.
with their real-life counterparts during a break from shooting the film in 2000.
Missing it makes everything
meaningless, including life.”
Subjectively perceived and understood Objective experiences such as Groberg reports are typical of many
believers who report beyond-this-world encounters, from experiences recorded in texts considered sacred
(the Bible, Baghavad Gita, the various writings of Buddha, and so forth) to Joan of Arc’s visions to the
mystical writings of Zen Buddhism and many other metaphysical claims of believers. Verifiable or not—
and virt …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments