Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs

by Ninian Smart

For courses in Introduction to World Religions and Introduction to Religious Studies. This text offers a balanced, wide-ranging, and realistic approach to the study of modern religion. It explores and analyzes the many dimensions not only of the major religious traditions , but also those of the civil religions (e.g., nationalism) that often compete and combine with them in the modern world.

Genres: Religion, Philosophy, School, Nonfiction

176 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

Reviews

[Elizabeth Vilchis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Smart’s comparative method is useful for studying religion among many circles. He really stressed the importance of approaching any and all religions with an unfiltered lens of judgment. He discussed the implications of not doing this historically in Academia, while also describing the consequences of continuing that approach. This is incredibly important in many aspects of life, but particularly in the field of religious studies, that has been plagued since its inception with Judeo-Christian lenses and findings. In turn, his comparative method proves to be particularly useful, calling for epoche and empathy to be structurally sound in any religious research approach because comparison is inevitable, but judgment should not be. This methodical agnosticism was Smart’s answer to the dangerous historical research trends where religions, “...were typically described in a relatively hostile or deprecatory manner if they were foreign” (Smart, Worldviews). Responsible academics would find themselves in alignment with Smart’s methodology. Since Smart’s approach was very gentle and open-ended, it leaves lots of room for interpretation, which is the same nature of the human experience. All humans experience life differently, therefore the analysis of worldviews will mirror those experiences. His approach was very Eliadean, but somewhat dramatically better, in my opinion.
Smart’s approach was different from Eliade’s in a few important ways. While they both focused on the experiential aspect of religious concepts and analyses, Smart emphasized the importance of discarding our personal bias and lenses. Both approaches consider phenomenon and the transcendent. Yet, Smart offered a great deal more analysis to multiculturalism, the global village, and historical matters. In addition, Smart weighed in on academic trends and their respective implications in the field. In so doing, Smart offered a greater way to analyze the multitude of diversity throughout all religions, as well as within them. He argued this through applying 7 principles necessary to the approach:1)doctrinal/philosophical, 2)narrative/mythical, 3)ethical/legal, 4)ritual/practical, 5)social/organizational, and 7)material/artistic (Smart, Worldviews). So, while Smart’s approach has heavy tones of Otto and Eliade, while also addressing tones of previous scholars like Weber, Durkheim, and Marx, his approach is much more open-minded, inclusive, and has all-around more etiquette, with less bias. Overall, Smart’s approach not only calls for, but demands a level playing field in worldview analysis, by discarding our own personal beliefs and directly reporting without bias of something we’re not apart of. In addition, he argued that religion overlaps not only cultures and traditions, but a multitude of life concepts for the individual. This broadened the ways in which worldviews can be seen, claiming that comparison was a human experience, but to be approached with caution (Smart, Beyond Ideology). Furthermore, he very vaguely touched on the notion of syncretism, while not outright saying so. Moreover, he approached historians with a deserving tone regarding the study of religion, without hijacking the name of their field, like a previous scholar we’ve studied.
I could make use of Smart’s theory in studying Indigenous religions very well. In fact, I already have been for years, without knowing this particular method was initiated by someone in particular. I’ve long removed the religious lens in which my culture and raising bestowed upon me when researching Indigenous religions. It was necessary to do this, not optional. I think that’s what Smart was trying to argue, in fact. I think he was reporting on his own personal journey and why this method was necessary. I read several paragraphs that alluded to him coming to this theory as a personal journey in worldview analysis. That mirrors my own research and personal experience, honestly. It’s incredibly hard to study an Indigenous religion that had a pantheon of deities who required sacrifices of human blood, through a monotheistic, “Thou shalt not murder”, “Murderers go to hell”, “ask for his forgiveness”, lens. It was impossible for me. How could I have reported accurately and presented reasonable and worthy research if I approached that with the religious convictions that I grew up with? I couldn’t. So, I already use Smart’s method and have been for years, unknowingly. As far as the multidimensional part of his methodology goes, I could say that I have been executing that fairly well, too. When a person is religious, it overlaps into other aspects of their life. That can’t be ignored and must be considered with all of its implications, to provide a decent wholesome finding. So, when trying to understand the economic dimension of the ancient Mexicas, it’s important to seek out where their religious beliefs overlapped with their economy. Their economy was agricultural, therefore their agricultural/fertility deity was important to them, as well as the respective rituals and rites thereof. These overlapping concepts are immeasurable in the life of humans because nothing exists in a vacuum.


Ninian Smart, “Towards a Theory of the Configurations of Religion.” In Ninian Smart, Beyond Ideology: Religion and the Future of Western Civilization ( Harper & Row, 1981) , 46-68.
Ninian Smart, “Introduction” and “Exploring Religion and Analyzing Worldviews.” In Ninian Smart, Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs ( Prentice Hall, 1995) , 1-32.

[Maiko-chan [|] · Rating 1 out of 5]

Only had to read the intro for my humanities class and I am very thankful I won't have to force myself to read more of this. While it is "good" in a sense that it is a typical textbook that has its uses in the classroom and in student discussion, it is bad in the sense that the author engages in awkward purple prose in an attempt to engage the reader that instead served as a means of distancing me.

[Ly Linh Tran · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just an okay B book. The author didn’t provide a lot of examples to illustrate his points and some parts are quite hard to read.

[Annie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Surprisingly pretty good for a "textbook". Didn't agree with everything, but it was an enjoyable and interesting.

[Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read all but last two chapters since it was a rental and I needed to return it. Enjoyed it very much.