The Encyclopedia of World Religions

religion, theories of origin of S 383

what religions shared and more interested in how they differed. Social-scientific Some social scientists have been very critical of religion. For example, the psychologist Sigmund F REUD thought religion was a psychological illu sion. Sociologists influenced by Karl M ARX have seen religion as a force by which those with wealth and power dominate the poor and powerless. Other theorists have seen the contributions of religion more positively. The psychologist Carl Gustav J UNG thought religion was a powerful force leading to an integrated personality. The sociologist Émile D URKHEIM thought religion reinforced society’s most important values and thus helped it function. The anthropologist Claude L ÉVI -S TRAUSS thought myths embodied fundamental codes ( see MYTH AND MYTHOLOGY ). These codes defined how the people who told the myths conceived of the world. In the United States there has been a strong emphasis on studying religions “empirically.” This kind of study carefully constructs hypothe ses and then tries to test them. Those who follow this approach gather data through such means as questionnaires and surveys. Then they analyze the data with the help of statistics. At the beginning of the 21st century, two approaches in particular attracted social scientists in North America: an economic study of religious groups and a neuro scientific study of religious experiences and ideas ( see BRAIN , MIND , AND RELIGION ). CONCLUSION There is probably no single best way to study reli gion. People have different questions about reli gion that they want answered. The approach that they take depends at least in part upon the ques tions that they have. Further reading: Peter Connolly, ed., Approaches to the Study of Religion (London: Cassell, 1999); William E. Paden, Interpreting the Sacred: Ways of Viewing Religion (Boston: Beacon Press, 2003); Daniel L. Pals, Seven Theories of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

religion, theories of origin of For many people, the origin of religion ( see RELIGION , DEFINITION OF ), or at least of their own religion, is obvious. It began with the special revelation of divine truth to the founders of the religion ( see FOUNDERS , RELIGIOUS ), or with a special experience of enlightenment, such as that of the B UDDHA ( see RELIGIOUS EXPERI ENCE ). Others, however, have sought to understand religion in more natural ways ( see RELIGION , STUDY OF ). Even some who accept the basic truth of reli gion may acknowledge that human beings came to the realization of those truths through slow and natural historical processes. Still others may per ceive a combination of natural development and special revelation in the origin and progress of faith from the first humans to the present. There are also those who consider all religion to be a human invention. Such theories of the origin of religion go back to ancient times. Prodicus of Ceos (fifth century B . C . E .) and Euhemerus ( c. 330–260 B . C . E .) argued that the gods were really heroic humans who were later considered divine; this doctrine is called euhemer ism. Critias (fifth century B . C . E .) said, like many later skeptics, that religion was devised to frighten people into morality. Plato (427–347 B . C . E .) thought that religion, or at least religious myth, could be a “noble lie” used to promote morality and good social order. In China at about the same time, Hsun Tzu ( c. 300–228 B . C . E .) taught that Confucian reli gious rites ( see C ONFUCIANISM ) were not really for the sake of dubious gods but were performed as models of the social order and of “safe” ways of expressing emotion. By and large, though, the ancient and medi eval worlds accepted religion as based on divine revelation and authentic human experience, to be received by faith and interpreted by reason. In modern times, beginning with the 18th-century Enlightenment, alternative naturalistic views again arose. Philosophers such as Voltaire (1694–1778), while not entirely denying the existence of reli gious reality, regarded most of the superstructure THEORIES FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT