The Notion Of Religion In Comparative Research

Nel 1990 si tenne a Roma il XVI Congresso del I.A.H.R. che ebbe come tema la nozione di "religione". Venne particolarmente analizzato l'uso di tale termine da parte degli studiosi di lingua europea nei rapporti con le culture non europee e viceversa.

It was Max Müller who coined the famous motto of the comparative study of religion "He who knows one, knows none." Since its first beginning in the second half of the nineteenth century, the history of religions has always somehow invoked comparative insights as its very raison d'être. The nature of these insights has been under constant debate and at times, scepticism and devastating critique of the more pretentious comparative projects made regionally specialized studies seem the only legitimate enterprise within the discipline. The fact remains, however, that the major general issues addressed by historians of religions are rooted in considerations of a comparative nature. The dossier of papers from an international conference held at the University of Copenhagen discusses tradition as well as new approaches to the fundamental issues of the aim, scope and validity of comparative studies in history of religions. No longer bound to monolithic visions of history and human nature, these papers critically explore the limits and the roles of comparison in the study of religion.

The Science of Religion: A Defence offers a brilliant overview of Donald Wiebe’s contributions on methodology in the academic study of religion, of the development of his thinking over time, and of his intellectual commitment to 'a science of religion'.

What are the global and cross-cultural phenomena of religion anyway? They are not things-in-the-world, not things "in themselves," and yet we know they are very real because they constitute the means by which we make up our lives. As thought, language, society and culture are not illusions, neither is religion. This book is about the present plight -- and future possibility -- of a general and comparative study of religion as a field of inquiry in the human sciences. Jensen proposes a different look at the phenomenon of religion, and perhaps so much of a re-interpretation that it may appear to be a different phenomenon altogether. In his "new key," Jensen shifts the attention from metaphysical "givens" and psychological experiences to the social, symbolic and linguistic constructions of human habitats. Jensen's fundamental ambition is to illustrate how and on what conditions it is possible to study not just specific religions as ethnographic or historical facts, but also to study religion as a general human and social activity. This book is not only meant for those who are theoretically inclined, but also, and perhaps even more so, for those who are not. The Study of Religion in a New Key can be characterised as a handbook for non-philosophers in how to perform a theoretically grounded general and comparative study of religion. Others who will find this book indispensable are historians of religions, anthropologists, philosophers, sociologists and theologians.

In this assessment of the field of compartive religion, this text surmounts the seemingly intractable division between postmodern scholars who reject the comparative endeavour and those who affirm it. It brings together leading historians of religion from a range of backgrounds and vantage points.

A Comparative Study of Religions has been written by a scholar who has occupied himself with the subject of religion for over fifty years. But no finality can be claimed. e reason is that religion deals with what is transcendent in the sense that it deals with what man is going to be. Advaitism terms this futuristic end as becoming Brahman, Jainism as regaining one Ís pristine glory, theists as becoming gold fit for heaven. However, Bergson and other evolutionists would say that religion is a collective and cooperative effort of men to become gods. This simply means the divinising of man what Aurobindo calls 'supermind'. They refer to a state beyond human ills, beyond human infatuation and beyond the befogging of human intellect. This is known in Jainism as sarvajnata. One thing is clear that fighting with other human beings in the name of religion is subhuman. As religious men, we are fellow travellers in the direction of the realm of spirit. Here the nomenclature of Hindus, Muslims, Christians etc., ceases to be meaningful. Of course, we have to go very far and we have not made any beginning yet. However, at present, the advaitic principle of differences Brahman can serve the purpose of harmonizing all religions. Here we have adopted this principle. Secondly, the key concepts of different religions have been shown to mingle with one another.