The Science of Religion and the Sociology of Knowledge: Some Methodological Questions

by Ninian Smart

Ambitiously undertaking to develop a strategy for making the study of religion "scientific," Ninian Smart tackles a set of interrelated issues that bear importantly on the status of religion as an academic discipline. He draws a clear distinction between studying religion and "doing theology," and considers how phenomenological method may be used in investigating objects of religious attitudes without presupposing the existence of God or gods. He goes on to criticize projectionist theories of religion (notably Berger's) and theories of rationality in both religion and anthropology.

On this basis he builds a theory of religious dynamics which gives religious ideas and entities an autonomous place in the sociology of knowledge. His overall purpose is thus "to indicate ways forward in the study of religion which free it from being crypto-apologetics or elevating poetry."

Originally published in 1973.

The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

174 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1973

Reviews

[Titus Hjelm · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this old book because of its title and references to Peter Berger's work. Somewhat misleadingly, Berger and the sociology of knowledge only feature in one chapter. Otherwise the book is an attempt to delineate what phenomenological study of religion--or 'scientific' study of religion--could and should be about. Smart writes well at times, using analogy and metaphor effectively, but also has a frustrating habit of getting sidetracked. I couldn't avoid the impression that much of the comparison was superficial (although I'm no expert on Sri Lankan Buddhism), and his philosophy of (social) science wasn't always impressive either. But overall, an interesting reminder of my religious studies days, before I became a reductionist sociologist, as Smart would probably say.