Q) How is the Sociological study of religion distinct from other perspectives?

Write with special

emphasis on Theology.

Religion has existed in some form or another in all human communities since the beginning of
time. Ancient ritual objects, ceremonial burial sites, and other religious artifacts have been
discovered during archaeological excavation. Religious disagreements have caused a great
deal of social turmoil, even war.Which states strongly of evidence that even though the study of
religion is a fairly new branch, the secrets of unraveling religion from different views &
perspectives have existed since time immemorial.

Andre Beteille distinguishes between how a theologian works and how a sociologist
investigates as he begins the study of religion. He describes sociology as an empirical study
that is more factual and hence non-judgmental, but theology is a normative study that is
founded on norms and is therefore judgmental. A theologian seeks out truth based on beliefs
and practices, whereas a sociologist's main goal is to observe, characterize, analyze, and
explain how religious beliefs and practices function. The first focuses on the internal meanings
of beliefs, whereas the second investigates connections and emphasizes how religion manifests
externally or through institutions.

Heavily influenced by Max Weber, Peter Berger was interested in the meaning of social
structures. In The Sacred Canopy, he drew on the sociology of knowledge to explain the
sociological roots of religious beliefs.According to Berger’s view , people used religion in the
past to give their lives direction and order, to make sense of the world, and to provide a
"common universe of meaning." He describes religion as a "holy canopy" that covers society
and aids people in navigating life's uncertainties. Berger argues that the desire for meaning is
an anthropological requirement and that religion emerges as a social reaction to the prospect of
chaos and disarray where religions serve as the compass that explains everything that
surrounds humans and leaves very few questions unanswered.

He also puts across his view about the lines drawn between the sacred and the profane.In
Berger's view, the sacred refers to a kind of enigmatic and intimidating power that can be
ascribed to particular things, locations, or even intervals of time. It is something unusual that
transports people from their typical daily world to something spectacular. In order to replicate the
original mystical experience, religious rituals assist us in recalling our experiences in this
hallowed world. His early stance, drawn from Marx’s view, which held that secularization began
with the Enlightenment, was based mostly on the idea that as society becomes more modern,
religion loses its significance. After putting up and discussing this hypothesis, Berger concluded
that there is no direct causal link between modernity and secularization and that, in some
places, religion is more alive than ever, in accordance with the theories and reflections of other
sociologists.Berger discovered that modernity does not lead to secularization; rather, it leads to
pluralization, because different belief systems coexist in the same society and setting.

Andre Beteille examines the sociological method for studying religion where he claims that the
approach and techniques used to study society as a whole are the main focus of sociological
research on religion. He holds the opinion that studying religion as a subject for sociology is
appropriate since we shouldn't study it merely because it exists..The sociologists who have
examined religion have included evolutionists, functionalists, structuralists, and many more
viewpoints. According to Beteille, there is such a thin line separating different techniques that it
is simple to switch between them without noticing. However, it's equally important to draw
distinctions.

Both sociology and anthropology share two key components of the sociological approach: the
broad use of comparative methodology and the examination of religious beliefs, practices, and
institutions in connection to other cultural aspects. Both Emile Durkheim and Radcliffe Brown
believed that the study of their respective case studies—the Australian Aborigines and the
Andaman Islanders—should be conducted using a comparative methodology. This would allow
them to establish some general laws about society and institutions, including religious
institutions. In their view, social anthropology and sociology could be tied to the natural
sciences.

As was already established, the sociological approach's second key characteristic is that it
examines religious facts in relation to other social realities. The sociological method, in Beteille's
opinion, does not favor one's own religion over those of other people, nor does it favor religion
among the other spheres of social life. Since the focus of sociological study is on the
connections between various institutional domains, it is impossible to properly understand
religion on its own without also considering its connections to domestic, economic, and political
life.

Beteille uses the study of religion and society among the Coorgs in South India by M.N. Srinivas
as an illustration of the sociological approach to describe it. Srinivas is attempting to understand
social structure by observing caste, village, and tribes. Later, he clarifies the difference between
the book-view and field-view of society, giving us a field-view of Hinduism in the process.
Sociologists work to understand and describe how individuals behave as well as the meanings
they give to their actions. But every academic approaches their work from a different angle.
Durkheim, for example, thought that it is important to observe social phenomena from the
outside before delving into their underlying significance.

Unlike Durkheim, Max Weber supported the social inquiry approach and interpretive sociology,
which aid in understanding and interpreting social behavior. He regarded himself to be
religiously unmusical despite his extensive work on religion since he placed a strong emphasis
on ideals like objectivity and value-neutrality. A person should be able to understand and
interpret religious institutions, beliefs, and practices from an outsider's point of view without
being overly devoted to the principles of their own religion in order to be considered
value-neutral. This is not to say that one should ignore the role that values play in social life.

In conclusion, Beteille drew two important lessons from sociology of religion, first is that
achievement of value-neutrality is a very tedious and strenuous task considering the fact how
desirable it is and what is achieved is never complete. The second is that sociology cannot
provide a complete picture of the world as a whole in terms of either facts or values as it is
necessary to take into account the differences and diversity of thoughts present around in the
society. Hence, no one can understand the complete meaning and significance of religious
beliefs or practices without adding some amount of concern and sympathy towards the subject.