The Encyclopedia of World Religions

380 S religion, history of

Another early scholar was Gerardus van der Leeuw (1890–1950). He developed the phenom enology of religion, in both senses of the term. At the heart of religion he placed power, and he dis cussed the basic forms of religion in terms of the religious object (e.g., G OD ), the religious subject, and the interaction between the two. Otto and van der Leeuw were Europeans. Important for the development of the history of religion in the United States was a scholar named Joachim Wach (1898–1955). He sought refuge in the United States from Nazi Germany because of his Jewish ancestry. Wach talked about religion as an expression of the experience of “ultimate real ity.” That experience, he said, expresses itself in three basic forms: “theoretical,” that is, in beliefs and stories; “practical,” that is, in RITUALS and ETH ICS ; and “sociological,” in the structures of reli gious communities. Somewhat different was Mircea Eliade, who has already been mentioned. He was particularly interested in the patterns according to which the Sacred, as he called it, manifested itself in human consciousness. Important for his thinking is the idea that religious people define their lives by ref erence to patterns established at the creation of the world. He called these patterns “archetypes.” Ninian Smart, among his many contributions, suggested that religion had six dimensions: ritual, mythological, doctrinal, ethical, social, and expe riential. He also often talked about “worldviews” rather than religions. He did so because, although communism presented itself as scientific and anti religious, it actually had many of the same features as religions. Eliade and Smart taught in the United States starting in the 1960s and 1970s. They trained many scholars. One weakness that their students noticed in their teachers’ work was that it was too general and superficial. As a result, historians of religions trained since the 1960s have tended not to think in such grand terms. Instead, they have focused on specific topics within a religious tradition, such as the stories and worship of the Hindu god G ANESA or the practices of female shamans in Japan ( see SHAMANISM ).

something that is not religion. Many people find that this position makes sense, but many schol ars find it debatable. Historians of religion are interested in any way of understanding religion that adopts this position. One way that does so is the study of history. For example, when and where did B UDDHISM arise? What did the B UDDHA do? What did he teach? Who were his followers, and how did they guide Bud dhism after his parinirvana (what non-Buddhists call his death)? That is all useful historical knowl edge. Another approach is sometimes called phe nomenology, and the use of that word a second time makes for some confusion. This approach can also be called typology, morphology, or per haps even just comparative study. It tries to iden tify what is common among religions and what is unique to each. For example, what are the basic patterns of SACRIFICE practiced in religions? What are the basic kinds of MYTH ? Most historians of religion have also been interested in psychology, sociology, and anthro pology. What they have meant by the psychology and sociology of religion has, however, often been somewhat different from the kinds of psychology and sociology taught in American high schools and universities. PROMINENT HISTORIANS OF RELIGION It is not possible to name all of the historians of religion who have made important contributions. Mentioning a few prominent names may give a further idea of what this way of studying religions is about. Rudolf O TTO (1869–1937) was a Christian Protestant theologian and philosopher who pro vided some basic ideas in the history of religion and also inspired many scholars to pursue it. He is best known for claiming that religion is the result of a unique kind of experience that human beings have. In a famous book, The Idea of the Holy, he called this experience “numinous.” He said that the experience of the numinous, which Jews and Christians might think of as the direct experience of God, is totally unlike any other experience that human beings have.