There will be an emphasis on historical development and the origins of
things and the beginning of things. A lot of the content will come from the
lecture and 1-2 questions from the tests, however 90% of it will be from the
lectures. Attendance will be taken at tutorials and it will count for
*Field report (10%) will be due at the end of the first term.
Sociologies of politics: arts, war, science, literature and of course religion.
The sociological study of religion attempts to identify:
o The sociological factors of bases for religious beliefs, actions,
experiences, communities, etc.
o The relevance of significance of religion in social life and history
o …but the sociological study of religion confronts unique interpretive
Ontology- concerned with the nature of “being”, reality or existence,
casual and constitutively (what the world is and how it works)
Epistemology- concerned with the nature of knowledge; how we know
How do we make out assessments of reality?
How can we figure out the nature of reality?
Emmanuel Kant: “things in themselves and things as they appear”
Natural scientists: to their reality is an external one (exterior)
Social scientists: both exterior and interior
o We can intuit and project and relation to other hum an
o We can enter into the conscious life of others
o Religions is based on a distinction ontology- the claim that
there are supernatural beings or powers or a super-sensible reality,
An Absolute, Divine, or Transcendent realm that is ultimately
primary and causally responsible for both the Natural world and the
o Social science has no direct or objective “access” to that
purported Transcendent reality; it cannot be visited for
purposes of measurement or examination
o Religion is based on and creates an epistemological dualism
or split o Epistemologically, faith statements- i.e, the claims of believers to
spiritual or divine truths are not fundamentally factual or empirical.
Rahter, they essentially declarative
What is sociology?
Looks at how conditions around us influence us socially
Study of social life of humanity and social relations
In the organization of knowledge sociology would be in: humanity and
Social sciences features more argument and theoretical disagreement
Actuarial science agrees on the basics and fundamentals
Social sciences disagree on the fundamentals
Economists see the world as having a economic base which is driven by
power, privilege, and overall maximization (universal: human nature at
Anthropologists see the world as human social existence is based on
o What people see, think, and value is cultural (local, cultural
Sociologists vs. Psychologists
Sociologists see psychological condition is because of social
Psychologists are divided internally and tend to pull causation out of
Sociology looks for social factors of religion
Religion is a social force for politics, arts, gender politics, etc.
Religion is a social reality for social life
Ideology- what people regard as their ideology is driven by political
Physics does not have very many ideology. WHY?
o Because of the relationship between physicists and the
subject matter they are studying
o Verses economists‟ relations to what they are arguing
o Therefore we are studying ourselves, which has a connection.
Biologists, physical scientists are studying other beings o In social science it is very difficult to remove oneself from that
Religion is based on a distinct ontology: the claim that there are
supernatural beings or powers, or super-sensible reality, an Absolute,
Divine or Transcendent realm that is ultimately primary and casually
responsible for both the Natural world and the Social World
Science has no direct or objective “access: to that purported
Transcendent reality. It cannot be visited or entered for purpose of
measurement or examination (unlike the/this worldly realities of politics,
art, war, etc.)
Religion is the only domain of social action where humans say that there
is another world:
Our world (biological, social) verses another reality (under the sway
of cosmic powers)
The most major traditions emphasis of transcendence
Religions tend to base on other realities
Religion is based on and creates an epistemological dualism or
split: religious believers claim that reality of the Divine or Transcendent.
But social scientists and historians have no way of accessing or testing
the legitimacy or accuracy of the belief. That is to say, for science, the
Devine or supernatural is not empirically verifiable or falsiable!
Epistemologically, faith statements---i.e. The claims of believe to spiritual
or divine truths are not fundamentally factual or empirical. Rather, the
are essentially declarative (“God is love”, “Nirvana is ultimate love”).
Performative (“I have been saved by the load”) or emotive, i.e.
expressing or soliciting feelings of awe, reverence, dependence, joy, etc.
Religious language or discourse is akin to poetry
Accordingly, the evidence of proofs for faith statements are
“internal” to each particular religious traditions
o The specific faith claims of one tradition are not convincing to
those believing in other traditions, nor to skeptics and
atheists Parable of the Two Explorers and the Gardner’s (paraphrased on the
This epistemological situation results in:
1. An “insider”-“outsider” polarity (Believers vs. Non-believers)
2. A split of polarity between subjective and objective ways of knowing. i.e.
Religious experience is sustained by cultivated faith in the claims of a
tradition; those without that fail will never be able to experience or
comprehend the “true” nature of that religiosity or so say the insiders
The Dilemma or Tension:
Social science cannot access that posited domain of the Divine or
Transcendent, et believers claim their actions and experience are derived
from the source. Social science accounts which attitude the actions and
beliefs of believers to sundry social and historical forces that this appear
“reductionist” and superficial to the religious actors themselves.
In other words: is religion ideology, a delusion or a fantasy? Or is it divine
truth? This insider-outsider polarity cannot be overcome, given the
distinctive ontological claims of faithful followers
Social scientists must accordingly “bracket” the ontological claims of
religions---what Berger calls “methodological atheism” and Smart
called “methodological agnosticism”---and focuses solely on their
historical, social, and psychological consciousness and effects
That is historical social science studies the consequences and implication
of religious belief and not the validity of it (that is a concern for theology
and philosophy of religion).
Social scientists must accordingly “bracket” the ontological claims of the
religion-what Berger calls methodological atheism and Smart
methodological agnosticism- and focus on solely on their historical,
social, and psychological consequences and effects
Historical social science studies the cause and consequences of religious
belief-not the validity of it (that is a concern for theology and philosophy
Social science example of the dilemma: Carlos Cestoidean (1925-
1998), who began his research on the world of Yaqui magicians/sorcerers
in conventional anthropological fashion, but through his association with the Bruno Don Juan Matus and other shapeshifters, came to agree that
science could not properly access the “separate reality” they functioned
in. With the aid of psychotropics and spirit training, Castaneda “crossed
over” (from the tonal to the nagual, the „everyday‟ to the „spirit‟ world),
became a mystic of sorts, and related that magical world from the
“inside” in a series of popular best-sellers. The social science community,
however is highly skeptical of the objective value or realism of
Castaneda‟s “reports”. The case this illustrates the basic dilemma of
insider vs. outsider, subjective vs. objective ways of knowing: scientific
standards are deems inadequate or distortional by believers/insiders,”