Wu Yungui: A Brief Discussion on Several Issues in Western Religious Studies
Religion is a socio-historical phenomenon that emerged once human social development reached a specific stage and abstract thinking reached a certain level. The rise, development, and evolution of religion have exerted a broad and lasting influence on many fields of human society. The breadth and complexity of religious content present numerous difficulties for research. It is generally felt that defining the essence and function of religion with a single concise term is difficult. However, as workers in the philosophy and social sciences, if we sincerely believe in Marxism—including scientific atheism—and strive to profoundly understand, master, and apply the Marxist view of religion in our research, we can make correct and rational judgments and interpretations of religious phenomena in human society. In constructing a Marxist religious studies with Chinese characteristics, we can draw upon and absorb results of scientific value from Western religious studies, but we must use the Marxist scientific worldview, historical outlook, values, and methodology to evaluate the theoretical foundations and research outputs of Western religious studies. We should prevent the use of "double standards" characterized by "each speaking their own language" when evaluating non-Marxist academic achievements.
In the late 1980s, the Chinese academic community began using the term "Religious Studies" (宗教学) for the first time. This marked a new stage in disciplinary development for religious research based on previous foundations. Due to a lack of experience, many Chinese scholars engaged in theoretical research on religion, while adhering to the Marxist view of religion as a guiding principle, hoped to draw on the research experience and academic achievements of Western religious studies, which has a history of over a century. Consequently, from the late 1980s onward, the religious studies community organized the translation of some forty to fifty classic Western works and began to use a large number of Western discourse concepts in their own writings. The publication of translated Western religious studies works helped expand our horizons and enrich our knowledge, thereby deepening our cognition of the breadth and complexity of human religious phenomena. However, it is noteworthy that this "Eastward transmission of Western learning" [1] also had negative effects. This is prominently reflected in two areas: first, many "translators' prefaces" evaluated the achievements of various Western sub-disciplines with affirming and laudatory language, rarely pointing out the limitations or improprieties of these results; second, in the process of researching and discussing Western theoretical methods, evaluations of Western religious studies were excessively high, sometimes even exceeding the self-evaluations of Western academia itself. Based on my own experience and observations during my time researching at Western universities, I will offer a few views on Western religious studies, which is "pluralistic yet not integrated into a whole."
I. How to Evaluate Max Müller’s Contribution to Western Religious Studies
Modern religious studies, which emerged in the West, has a history of over a century. Its birth is linked to the name of the famous Anglo-German scholar Max Müller (1823–1900). In 1870, he delivered four consecutive lectures at the Royal Institution in Britain on the construction of "the science of religion," which were later compiled and published under the title Introduction to the Science of Religion. The Chinese translation of this classic was published by Shanghai People’s Press in 1989. The senior scholar Mr. Lü Daji wrote a special "translator's preface" for this work, giving its academic value a high evaluation.
Briefly stated, Lü Daji affirmed and praised the academic value of Introduction to the Science of Religion from three aspects. First, the book proposed the concept of "the science of religion" [2] for the first time, providing a relatively appropriate name for this nascent discipline. Second, the book clearly defined the nature of religious studies. Religious studies differs from traditional Western theology, which is centered on fideism and "apologetics." It rejected the archaic notion that Christianity is sacred and supreme and thus exempt from non-fideistic research, asserting instead that all human religions are equal and legitimate objects of study. Third, the book proposed the fundamental method of religious studies: the "comparative religion" method. Comparison means classification—classifying according to the historical forms of various world religions to find the order and laws governing them. Mr. Lü Daji’s "translator's preface" was written in 1987, a time when religious research in China was still in its initial stages and few academic results had been published; thus, Chinese scholars generally adopted a very "low posture." In his preface, Lü Daji praised Max Müller as the well-deserved founder of "comparative religion." He further stated, "We are still standing at the starting line of researching Western religious studies and its history; there is great hope in retracing the footsteps of this discipline" [3].
Viewed today, Mr. Lü Daji's high evaluation of Introduction to the Science of Religion inevitably seems a bit "over the top," as his comments were based only on his reflections after reading that specific work. Max Müller believed that "the science of religion" consisted of two parts: "comparative theology" and "theoretical theology." The main content of the Introduction was "comparative theology," while "theoretical theology" required reaching conclusions only after conducting comparative research on all human religions. Eight years after the publication of the Introduction, Max Müller published The Origin and Growth of Religion. The basic content of this book was the "theoretical theology" he had mentioned earlier, which is equivalent to what we call the "philosophy of religion" today. It was precisely this part that sparked debates over the fundamental theoretical issues of religious studies. For religious studies to become a coherent and convincing "science," the primary point was to provide a clear and complete definition of "what is religion." Max Müller proposed that "religion is a mental faculty or disposition which, independent of, nay in spite of, sense and reason, enables man to apprehend the Infinite under different names, and under varying disguises." He further explained, "Without that faculty, no religion would be possible" [4]. This so-called "Infinite" refers to all the deities worshipped by various world religions—that is, a common "God." The careful selection of the term "Infinite" as a surrogate for deities is a presupposition, because Western metaphysical ontology claims that the pursuit of the "infinite substance" is an inherent part of human nature. The book only mentions the "Infinite God"—the "Infinite Substance"—in one place. Another meaning of "Infinite" is "transcendent reality," which later evolved into "ultimate reality" and "ultimate concern." All such definitions no longer discuss whether "God" or "deities" exist, but rather argue for the necessity and universality of religion solely from the perspective of the believer's subjective experience. This occurred because, since the modern era, the subjects of Western religious studies have almost all been theists, some of whom were originally theologians. In their view, whether God exists was not a matter for discussion and did not belong to the content of religious studies.
Max Müller's definition of religious belief as an inherent human "instinct" was questioned by many positivist philosophers, for which he offered defensive explanations in his works. He emphasized that one of the elements of all human religions is the recognition of the existence of deities, and "the Infinite" is merely a surrogate for those deities. From this, he posited that human consciousness has three functions—sensation, reason, and faith—and "instinct" is the specific function for understanding religious faith. The reason Müller used "the Infinite" to represent "deities" and relied on the theory of "instinct" to prove the necessity and possibility of religious faith is closely related to the trend in modern Western philosophy, influenced by the Enlightenment, to place high value on rationalism. The famous classical German philosopher Immanuel Kant, to prevent "rational dogmatism," proposed the dualistic separation of the noumenon and the phenomenon. He argued that sensory experience and rational knowledge could only perceive the surface phenomena of things, but not the noumenon, which he called the "thing-in-itself." From this, one could conclude that reason can neither prove the credibility of God as "ultimate reality" nor deny that God exists. The objective effect of Kant’s metaphysical agnosticism regarding the noumenon was to reserve space and preserve territory for traditional theology. Therefore, the foundational theory Max Müller proposed for religious studies—using irrational "instincts," "talents," "potentials," and "intuitions" to explain religion—opened a channel for "finite humanity" to perceive, communicate with, and respond to the "Infinite God." It is evident that the fallacies and conservatism of the foundational theories of comparative religion should not be ignored.
II. How to Recognize and View the Relations and Debates Between Different Disciplines in Western Religious Studies
In his History of Western Religious Theory [5], Mr. Lü Daji provided a detailed discussion of the various Western schools and disciplines that emerged in the second half of the 19th century, involving four disciplines or schools: comparative religion, the anthropology of religion, the sociology of religion, and the psychology of religion. In another work, A New Edition of the General Theory of Religious Studies [6], Lü discussed the development and periodization of Western religious studies. He considered comparative religion to be the foundational discipline, with the history of religion, sociology of religion, psychology of religion, and phenomenology of religion as branch disciplines. After a brief review of the historical process of the formation and development of each discipline, the author affirmed certain results of scientific value in Western religious studies, while also pointing out its theoretical and historical limitations in his "reflections." The most prominent limitation is that, under the influence of positivism, many religious scholars restricted the scope of research to the field of religious phenomena, neither advocating for the study of the essence of religion nor discussing the laws of religious development.
These two works, which Mr. Lü Daji spent over twenty years completing, are rich in content, clear in structure, refined in language, and profound in theoretical analysis, making an important contribution to the construction of religious studies in our country. I believe two issues are worth deeper exploration. First is how to understand the disciplinary system of Western religious studies—that is, the primary and secondary relationships between disciplines. Second is how to understand the debates between different disciplines. Chlarifying these two issues will help us comprehensively understand and evaluate the status, role, and actual influence of Western religious studies.
Although Western religious studies has over a century of history, it has never had a clear, unified name. Max Müller eventually abandoned the concept of "the science of religion" in favor of "comparative religion" and "comparative study of religion." Influenced by this, some scholars in our country tend to view "comparative religion" as the foundational discipline and the slightly later-emerging history of religion, sociology of religion, psychology of religion, and anthropology of religion as branch disciplines. This is not actually the case. Shortly after its emergence, Western religious studies formed a situation of methodological pluralism and a variety of disciplines that failed to integrate into a unified disciplinary system. In response to this situation, some scholars proposed a "union" of disciplines that could be regarded as religious studies in its entirety. Others advocated for the creation of a "hermeneutics of religion" based on linguistics to eliminate the chaotic state of "each speaking their own language."
There are many reasons why Western religious studies failed to form a "diverse yet unified" disciplinary system, the main one being that different schools held conflicting views on the nature, content, and theoretical methods of religious studies. To this day, although no new schools have emerged, no consensus has been reached on the disciplinary system, academic system, or discourse system. The debates between different schools of Western religious studies can be summarized as follows.
First is the debate between comparative religion and the history of religion. Comparative religion is actually based on the history of religion, but it focuses more on using comparative linguistic methods to classify, compare, and describe various religious phenomena and forms in human history to demonstrate the universality and particularity of religious phenomena. Comparative religion emphasizes the "horizontal" distinctions and connections between religions in history rather than the "vertical" developmental process, thus distinguishing it from the history of religion. The history of religion accepted the comparative methods and linguistic tools of comparative religion, but it focused more on "vertical" historical research using verifiable historical documents, sacred scriptures, myths, and archaeological discoveries. Some historians of religion argue that if Max Müller’s Introduction to the Science of Religion were translated into German, it should be translated as Religionswissenschaft (History of Religion) rather than "Science of Religion," because "science" is empirical while religion is "irrational" and cannot become a "science." Furthermore, the history of religion emphasizes objective research; the researcher must maintain a certain distance from the object of study, and a believer’s interpretation of their religion cannot serve as the basis for an academic argument.
Next is the dispute between the history of religions and the phenomenology of religion. The emergence of the phenomenology of religion is linked to the name of the Dutch scholar of religion Gerardus van der Leeuw (1890–1950). He served as the first president of the International Association for the History of Religions. In 1924, he published An Introduction to the Phenomenology of Religion, gaining academic recognition for this discipline in the West. The theory of the phenomenology of religion was deeply influenced by the phenomenology of the German philosopher Edmund Husserl. So-called "phenomena" refer to "pure consciousness" after the removal of temporal-spatial factors and empirical components; religious phenomena are treated the same way. Applying phenomenological methods to the study of religious phenomena involves, first, "bracketing judgment" (epoche)—that is, merely describing various religious phenomena such as rituals, customs, sacrifices, and prayers without making value judgments. Second, it involves "essential insight" (eidetic vision)—grasping the "essence" of religious phenomena through non-rational "intuition" or "immediate perception." Many historians of religion have expressed explicit opposition to this phenomenology of religion that only describes and avoids all value judgments, regarding such a methodology as meaningless. Although the phenomenology of religion falls within the scope of the history of religions, it is considered undesirable because it strips away the time, space, and specific historical environment of religious phenomena.
Finally, within Western religious studies, one often observes the phenomenon of "each speaking their own language" and endless debate both between different sub-disciplines and within the same discipline. One such debate is between "diachronic" and "synchronic" research. The comparative study of religion, the history of religions, the phenomenology of religion, and the anthropology of religion are diachronic disciplines; they conduct empirical research based on the historical facts of human religion. In contrast, the sociology of religion and the psychology of religion are synchronic disciplines characterized by "freezing" the concept of time and studying religious phenomena from the perspectives, levels, and methods of non-religious disciplines like sociology and psychology. The history of religions generally does not exclude the participation of disciplines like sociology and psychology, but some scholars in synchronic disciplines believe that the history of religions does not belong to the field of religious studies. Conversely, some scholars of the history of religions believe that one should not indiscriminately accept the entry of non-religious disciplines into historical research, as this muddies the content of the history of religions.
A second issue is the opposition to "reductionism." This voice is frequently heard within the history of religions and the phenomenology of religion, and is even more prominent within the latter. Opponents emphasize that religion is a "sacred whole" and that religious phenomena should not be reduced to social or psychological phenomena; they can only be understood and accepted if they are recognized faithfully as "religious phenomena." Anything else is seen as a manifestation of "reductionism."
Third is the "realist" versus "non-realist" interpretation of religion. In his book An Interpretation of Religion [11], the Western scholar John Hick introduces and discusses various Western interpretations of human religious phenomena, such as phenomenological and epistemological interpretations. Regarding epistemological interpretations, the author makes a sharp distinction between "realist" and "non-realist" interpretations of God and deities. The author believes that for the three "revealed religions"—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—the realist characteristic of the "God" or "Allah" they believe in and speak of is a "hypothesis": that God or Allah exists as an "infinite," "transcendent," and "personal" entity whose nature is divine. The most important representative of the non-realist interpretation of religion is Ludwig Feuerbach. The author argues that a "non-realist" interpretation differs from atheism and is itself a religious concept. Feuerbach's contribution to religious theory was his theory of "projection"—the idea that the God and spirits people believe in and worship are actually "projections" of human self-consciousness. That is to say, divinity is an "alienation" and manifestation of distorted "humanity." This interpretation can also be called a "reductionist" explanation.
As early as 1963, Chairman Mao Zedong, in an important instruction on strengthening religious research, explicitly stated that the study of religion must critique theology to reflect the guiding role of the Marxist historical materialist outlook. The following year, based on the spirit of that instruction, the Institute of World Religions [7] was established. Under the leadership of the famous philosopher and religious scholar Mr. Ren Jiyu, the Institute attached great importance to the significance of studying and mastering the Marxist view of religion. Before 1976, the Institute essentially performed only two tasks: first, collecting data on the current state of religion and compiling an "internal publication" titled Trends in World Religions which contained only five articles; second, organizing the compilation of a "collection" of writings on religion by classical Marxist authors. There were two versions: a trial edition in 1978 and a formally published version in 1979 [12]. This latter "theoretical engineering project" was particularly important, as it fully embodied the principle that scientific research must adhere to the correct political, theoretical, and research directions.
Today, after decades of scientific research practice, we have gained a deeper understanding of the rich connotations and significance of the Marxist view of religion, which has yielded results reflected in academic works. In the following sections, I will provide a brief overall evaluation of Western religious studies.
First, religious studies as it emerged in the modern West has yet to establish a unified name or a common methodology. Its research content is limited to various religious phenomena and basically does not touch upon the essence of religion; this is its theoretical limitation. The primary reason for this is that the main subjects of Western religious research are relatively enlightened theists. The limitations of their worldview, historical outlook, and values have led to an incomplete disciplinary, academic, and discourse system. However, the rise of Western religious studies expanded the horizons and fields of research, conducting extensive studies on Eastern religions beyond Christianity—particularly Islam. This has left behind over 3,000 works covering Islamic scriptures, Hadith, doctrine, law, sects, religious philosophy, Sufi mysticism, religious culture, and lifestyles, as well as the history of Islam's spread and development worldwide, along with dictionaries, reference tools, and historical documents. As a component of "Orientalism," these research results have had a broad impact. "The first step is always the hardest" [8]; the role of Western religious studies in promoting the study of religion deserves affirmation.
Second, among the various disciplines of Western religious studies, the "history of religions" is the most important; it is essentially the foundational discipline. Utilizing the linguistic tools and comparative methods of comparative religion, the history of religions has conducted systematic research into the origins, development, evolution, and various forms of religions worldwide, achieving fruitful results. Methodologically, the history of religions emphasizes empirical research, using only analyzed and verified ancient religious texts and historical documents as the basis for historical study, maintaining a relatively rigorous academic style. Historians of religion emphasize that the researcher must maintain a certain distance from the object of study; the stories and statements told by religious believers themselves cannot serve as the basis for historical research. The history of religions differs from traditional Christian theology; the latter is a "normative" discipline that must not violate theological dogmas, while history belongs to "empirical research" and can only rely on verifiable historical documents. Myth and legend cannot be used as research materials. Compared to other disciplines, the history of religions has a broader influence. Founded in Paris in 1900, the International Association for the History of Religions is very active and holds regular congresses. China's religious academic community has now become a member. In 1992, the association held a symposium in Beijing on the theme "Religion and Modernization." A collection of the symposium's papers was subsequently published in English and was well-received.
Third, the relationship between Western religious studies, philosophy, and theology can serve as an important basis for observing and judging its "self-positioning." Since the dawn of the modern era, Western religion and philosophy have maintained a relationship of "neither too close nor too far" [9]. The same is true for Western religious studies. Due to its own non-rational nature, it distances itself from rationalist philosophy and thus does not consider the philosophy of religion to be a part of religious studies. Yet it cannot absolutely exclude philosophy, because defining religious studies from an ontological perspective is inseparable from philosophy, as is the theoretical interpretation of methodology. Thus, one sees that Western religious studies can only choose philosophical ontological terms like "infinite reality," "transcendent reality," and "ultimate reality" to refer to the deities commonly believed in by various religions. Furthermore, a tendency toward speculative philosophy is evident in its methods of explanation and demonstration—using phrases like "without the infinite, there is no finite." Western religious studies seeks to break free from traditional religious theology to become an independent and autonomous humanities discipline, yet historians of religion have repeatedly stated that the nature of religious studies is "non-theological" rather than "anti-theological." Since theological thought is also "changing its clothes" [10] and undergoing significant shifts, a certain "compromise" has actually been reached between the two. Following the rise of modern Western religious studies, except for a few countries like France and the Netherlands that established independent religious research institutions, most Western religious research bodies are attached to the divinity schools of venerable universities. For example, Harvard's "Center for the Study of World Religions" is located across from Harvard Divinity School and is headed by a senior professor from the Divinity School. The master's students recruited by the Divinity School include both monks from abroad and Muslims from Islamic countries. The "case" of Harvard’s Center for the Study of World Religions shows that Western religious studies is "changing," thus the concept of "comparative religion" has shifted to "world religions"; traditional religious theology is also "changing," so divinity schools no longer focus solely on training ministers and priests but also teach courses that previously did not belong to theology, including knowledge of the religious cultures of Eastern countries and peoples such as Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism. The purpose of comparative religious research is not to judge the "superiority or inferiority" of different religious traditions, but to advocate that different religions should respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, and work together toward the future.
The Marxist view of religion is an important component of the Marxist worldview, historical outlook, and values. In learning the Marxist view of religion through practice and applying it in scientific research, the most important point is to strive to master the basic theoretical system of Marxism. Regarding religious research, I believe two famous maxims from classical Marxist authors are extremely important: one is that "religion is an inverted world-consciousness" because "man makes religion, religion does not make man"; the other is to explain religion by history, rather than explaining history by religion. In summary, the study of religion must adhere to the basic principles of historical materialism; otherwise, it will lose its direction.