One of the things I like most about studying religion is that I can talk to anyone about it. Everyone has an opinion or an experience to share. Taves would agree- her book is a study in interdisciplinary cooperation and exploration. Her basic theory is a melding of the psychological attribution theory, which she adapts into the “ascription model”, and a development of Emile Durkheim’s concept of the sacred into a concept she calls “specialness”. She theorizes that people create religions by building complex formations out of simple ascriptions they consciously and unconsciously apply to a variety of things and experiences. (9)
Last night, I was trying explaining Taves’ theories to my best friend, who serves as my sounding board for pretty
…show more content…
Her ascription theory hinges on “explain why subjects explain things the way they do.” (90). This fundamentally undercuts the subjects’ initial explanation. It forces its users to entertain the idea that their explanation might not be true, which does not gel well with making universal truth claims- like many religions do.
Although Tavis derides the sui generis/perennialist approach to religion, I suspect that approach is generally more compatible with the beliefs of the subjects. Although perennialists may disagree about why religion is unique, I suspect that believers would prefer to accept an explanation that their experiences are somehow inherently special rather than an explanation that says believers think their experiences are special.
Tavis’ book and the interaction I had with my friend made me revisit how necessary is it to make theories and definitions of religion palatable to believers. In the past, I’ve been ambivalent about whether definitions and theories of religions should be accepted by the communities they describe. The likelihood of getting believers to accept a single theory is slim anyway. If the theory advances some dimension religious scholarship, why should it matter? However, this experience made me realize that advancing scholarship might need to take second seat to the beliefs of the people we study. If my friend is comforted by believing that there was a special force that reached out to her when her grandfather died, why force her to examine it further? If her happiness and a deeper understanding of the experiences are mutually exclusive, why should her happiness be less