SOC 420 Lesson 2 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1: Epistemology and the Sociology of Religion Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth. —Mahatma Ghandi (as cited at brainyquote.com) First Things First—Basic Concepts and Required Reading Welcome to Lesson 2 of our Sociology of Religion course! Hopefully you’re getting all the time you need to fully process the concepts we’re reading about. In case you were curious: A “concept” is a topic, subject, complex idea, etc. We read about the concepts of sociology, religion, and Rational Choice theory in the previous unit, for instance. In this unit, we are reading about the concepts of social theories, methods, epistemology, and so forth. Please start by reading the assigned text chapters. There are other readings in the remainder of the lesson that are recommended, but also optional. As I’ve previously noted, I generally err on giving you access to more information than you’ll probably need, rather than not enough. In any case, there are some additional key concepts to cover in this lesson, so let’s jump into it. The Wide Wonderful World of Epistemology In the sociology of religion, especially as we consider the importance of studying religion scientifically (for Assignment 2 purposes), ( it’s useful to understand a little of the discourse of epistemology, or how we know something is true, valid, or correct. To introduce this topic, let’s consider a classic poem by English poet John Godfrey Saxe, based on a Hindu parable: “The Blind Men and the Elephant.” (See the link for both the poem and some insightful commentary.) First published in 1872, the poem recounts an analogy of six blind men who encounter an elephant. Not knowing the whole animal, each man goes to a part of it and says what he thinks the elephant is based on that. One finds a leg and says the elephant is a tree, and so forth. The elephant is also characterized as a fan (ear), wall (side), spear (tusk), rope (tail), and snake (trunk). Then the men argued about what the elephant really was, still never truly seeing or understanding the entire elephant itself. All of them had perceived a part of the elephant, but none of them had actually seen or comprehended the elephant’s nature, character, and totality. And so, as Saxe concludes: “Each was partly in the right / And all were in the wrong!” Saxe, as he states near the end, was directly commenting on religious squabbles. The point he was trying to make was that people try to pick and choose which religion they favor, perceiving a small part of the totality of Objective Truth, though nobody sees anything close to all of it. But we can apply his overall ideas to epistemology. We don’t necessarily see all of the whole picture when we try to know something or investigate a question that interests us, either. But we try to understand as much of the problem as we can—given the substantial risk .

1. SOC 420 Lesson 2 SEQ CHAPTER h r 1: Epistemology and
the Sociology of Religion
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
—Mahatma Ghandi (as cited at
brainyquote.com)
First Things First—Basic Concepts and Required Reading
Welcome to Lesson 2 of our Sociology of Religion course!
Hopefully you’re getting all the time you need to fully process
the concepts we’re reading about. In case you were curious:
A “concept” is a topic, subject, complex idea, etc. We
read about the concepts of sociology, religion, and Rational
Choice theory in the previous unit, for instance. In this unit, we
are reading about the concepts of social theories, methods,
epistemology, and so forth. Please start by reading the assigned
text chapters. There are other readings in the remainder of the
lesson that are recommended, but also optional. As I’ve
previously noted, I generally err on giving you access to more
information than you’ll probably need, rather than not enough.
In any case, there are some additional key concepts to cover in
this lesson, so let’s jump into it.
The Wide Wonderful World of Epistemology
In the sociology of religion, especially as we consider the
importance of studying religion scientifically (for Assignment 2
purposes), ( it’s useful to understand a little of the discourse of
epistemology, or
how we know something is true, valid, or correct. To
introduce this topic, let’s consider a classic poem by English
poet John Godfrey Saxe, based on a Hindu parable:
“The Blind Men and the Elephant.” (See the link for
both the poem and some insightful commentary.) First published

2. in 1872, the poem recounts an analogy of six blind men who
encounter an elephant. Not knowing the whole animal, each man
goes to a part of it and says what he thinks the elephant is based
on that. One finds a leg and says the elephant is a tree, and so
forth. The elephant is also characterized as a fan (ear), wall
(side), spear (tusk), rope (tail), and snake (trunk). Then the men
argued about what the elephant really was, still never truly
seeing or understanding the entire elephant itself. All of them
had perceived a part of the elephant, but none of them had
actually seen or comprehended the elephant’s nature, character,
and totality. And so, as Saxe concludes:
“Each was partly in the right / And all were in the
wrong!”
Saxe, as he states near the end, was directly commenting on
religious squabbles. The point he was trying to make was that
people try to pick and choose which religion they favor,
perceiving a small part of the totality of Objective Truth,
though nobody sees anything close to all of it. But we can apply
his overall ideas to epistemology. We don’t necessarily see all
of the whole picture when we try to know something or
investigate a question that interests us, either. But we try to
understand as much of the problem as we can—given the
substantial risk that it’s entirely possible we might be
completely misunderstanding the true scope of the problem at
hand. We may have much more to learn about what we’re
investigating. As in the poem’s analogy, maybe we just aren’t
seeing the whole elephant for what it Really Is.
In any case, remember, as in the last lesson, we in the
sociology of religion aren’t trying to figure out the truth,
validity, and/or correctness of particular claims of belief or
doctrine. Rather, we are looking back at our own observations
and asking ourselves if we got
those right:
Did we really observe what we thought we observed?
Was that measurement valid and reliable? Are our conclusions
valid and based on a correct interpretation of our data?

3. In the sociology of religion, our epistemological concern isn’t
whether we know a given religious belief is or isn’t true, valid,
and/or correct—it’s whether we can reasonably know that our
data, interpretation of that data—and the conclusions that result
from our analysis—are true, valid, and correct. So, to pick a
broad example of a given religious belief, we aren’t trying to
establish whether God exists. That’s impossible for empirical
science, as explained below. However, we
are trying to establish whether we have correctly
understood, interpreted, and explained what it
means that a given religious group
believes God exists. (If you follow that.) ( As I
mentioned elsewhere, we’re considering that a
social fact. It’s debatable based on the scientific method
whether God exists, or even whether the scientific method can
assess that issue to begin with (more in just a bit), but it’s
unquestionable that many people
believe God exists. That’s a social fact.
In brief, in the sociology of religion, we also often ask
ourselves:
Do we know we’ve correctly grasped the issue we’re
researching? In other words, regarding the concept of
epistemology, in the context of the social research methods we
often use and their validity but this time using the “plain
English” translation: (
Do we
really know what we
think we know? Do we “get it”?
As we’ll see, part of the answer involves the method we
use to ask the question.
Another caution as well: Just because we are setting aside the
notion of the truth of a given religious claim does not mean that
we are either affirming or denying it. We are NOT saying that
any particular religious belief—or for that matter, religious

4. belief as a whole—is true
or false. We are simply affirming that the veracity
(truth or falsehood) of any particular religious belief is beyond
the power of scientific verifiability or explanation. Instead, we
are considering
what it means that the belief exists as a social fact.
Back to the example of the existence of God, science—
especially social science—has no power to confirm or deny
God’s existence. The same is true of any other idea, concept, or
principle of religious belief. To confirm that God exists from a
purely scientific standpoint, and assuming a monotheistic
perspective for the sake of argument (polytheism really,
really adds new levels of complexity to this question), (
we social scientists would likely have to accomplish this:
Search the universe, find and observe God directly, bring back
evidence of God’s existence, explain to the satisfaction of our
peers at minimum (though probably also to everyone else, too) (
why we normally can’t see God directly, and rule out any
possibility that our observations can be attributed to any other
cause.
Interestingly, empirically ruling out God’s existence is even
more difficult, and much more so. To do that, we social
scientists would have to search the entire known universe AND
whatever we DON’T know, fail to find God, show that our
search was sufficiently thorough to account for any other
possibility for our failure—perhaps God was actually in one
spot while we were searching another, or our tools or methods
weren’t sophisticated enough to allow us to discover God,
etc.—and altogether rule out the existence of God by
establishing alternative explanations for
every single phenomena that have been historically
attributed to God. This must also be done to our satisfaction, to
that of most of our peers, and to the public. It is similarly
difficult, if not impossible, to empirically verify any particular
precept of religious belief or doctrine. Heck, modern scientific-

5. minded adventurers have
trouble enough trying to detect, much less confirm, the
existence of Bigfoot on our own Earth, even using highly
advanced technology and modern empirical methods, let alone
many of the rest of us trying to search the entire universe for
deity! (
So in short, this suspension isn’t a denial of religious belief,
just as it isn’t an affirmation. It’s simply an honest and candid
admission that either confirming or denying the epistemological
truth of actual religious beliefs is well beyond the scope of
empirical science as we know it. Remember, we don’t see the
whole elephant! By setting aside or “bracketing” the truth of
particular religious beliefs and seeing them as social facts, in as
unbiased fashion as possible, we merely acknowledge the
limitations of the tools we have on hand. Logic and the
scientific approach, whether inductive or deductively oriented,
are highly useful in empirical science—but they can only take
us so far. We must also use these tools correctly in the
appropriate context, sadly unlike our unfortunate penguin friend
shown above. (
In any case, that’s the approach we take. Still, we try to
minimize as many of our own biases as we can. We remain
human, so we cannot eliminate our biases altogether. We can’t
magically transform ourselves into someone else—we have
never been anyone else, and never will be. We never stop being
ourselves, and we cannot see beyond our own perspectives; we
simply need to admit what our own biases have been, learn to
see beyond them, and strive to minimize those biases and
assumptions so we can be as unbiased as possible as we
investigate.
So this, combined with the information in the previous lesson
about the sociology of religion, should let you know how you
should approach your assignments. Conduct all your

6. observations, including your Meet the Believers exercise
(Shameless Plug Alert: Please don’t put that off—get started
ASAP!), ( with a mind open to multiple possibilities. Then as
you write, show what you have learned from our course
readings, and compare and contrast concepts in an insightful
and minimally biased way. In your MTB report, as with all
other assignments, focus on what you’ve learned and your
understanding of the concepts first and foremost. Share your
experiences and observations as an observer trying to—as we
discussed in the first lesson—reveal that which has been hidden.
Such as elephants. �
OK, let’s keep going into the wide wonderful world of
epistemology…
Some Absolutely Crucial ( Sociological and Epistemological
Concepts
So far, so good. To continue, let’s define and briefly discuss a
set of concepts that will become vital to our understanding of
the sociology of religion. The first is
religion itself, which involves not only belief and a
worldview associated with that belief, but a system of practices
and objectives that are associated with those beliefs. For a bit
more background on that, see not only Johnstone’s extended
discussion of the definition of religion but also these two
articles from The Hartford Seminary, which illuminate the
issues of
the difficulty of defining religion and the
origin of “Religious Studies.”
In any case,
belief is a key dimension of religion that needs a bit of
elaboration.
According to Merriam-Webster, belief is defined as:
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed
in some person or thing

7. 2: something believed; especially
: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of
some being or phenomenon especially when based on
examination of evidence
Religious belief encompasses all of these three senses of the
word—trust and confidence, along with a particular worldview;
a body of tenets, principles, or doctrines; and a conviction of
the reality of those principles and/or a particular being. In the
American context, a claim to religious belief is strong and
continues to be so, even in the modern age, though religious
practice seems to be a bit more problematic.
The second term is
spirituality. Some believers see little difference
between religion and spirituality, though many observers in our
day and age actually see a fair amount of difference between the
two. (For instance,
this paper from the
Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior offers an
interesting comparison and contrast.) As currently defined, in
any case, spirituality is thought of as a much broader endeavor
than religion, and one that can possibly encompass it. Hence,
religion is a part of spirituality in most theoretical frameworks.
As for exactly what constitutes spirituality, it is often thought
of as a quest—a holistic search for meaning and purpose above
and beyond the material aspect of life, whether symbolic or
metaphysical. This “quest” can take the sense of a search for
self-authenticity, care for others, construction of meaning, an
experiential encounter with the unexpected, or a desire for
interconnectedness and wholeness. (See
this discussion from a UCLA-hosted forum that
connects to a quest for social justice, for example.)
Third, let’s discuss

8. religiosity. Briefly defined, this is the way people
practice their religious beliefs, or
religious behavior. Sometimes researchers vary this
somewhat; for instance, researchers Nathaniel Lambert and
David Dollahite use it this way in
this study of religion and marital conflict: “For the
purposes of this study, we define religiosity as a person’s
spiritual beliefs, religious practices, and involvement with a
faith community.” Religiosity can be understood as having
private and public dimensions.
Private religious behavior is what believers tend to do
out of the public eye, such as prayer, reading sacred texts,
fasting, and so forth;
public religiosity is what is done in a group setting,
such as church attendance, service to the community, preaching
to others, and so forth.
A quick note about some other terminology that we occasionally
run across in the study of religion. A
theodicy is the defense of deity’s goodness or positive
qualities—and/or the resolution of a paradox of belief—in the
face of challenges, as in the case of bad things happening to
generally good people.
Soteriology is the study of salvation, particularly in the
Christian context, and the theological and logical principles
associated with it. As in one of our Lesson 6 subtopics,
metaphysical has to do with other-worldly matters in
general, such as ghosts and spirits, angels, visions, and other
phenomena that are either directly or indirectly associated with
religion and belong to a purportedly unseen sphere of existence.
Paranormal, however, is a larger label that doesn’t refer
only to religious matters, but anything in general that lies
beyond the scope and/or detection of modern science. The
metaphysical can be considered part of the paranormal, in at
least one sense.

9. Another important definition we need to establish, since we’ll
be discussing these concepts later in this lesson, is
theory. Hopefully this will be clear enough as we go
along, but for right now, we will call a theory an explanation of
why things happen. For instance, see
this excellent explanation of the scientific method from
a hypothesis-testing standpoint, and definition of theory, from
Oakton (Illinois) Community College for more. Note also why
we seriously misuse the word “prove”—meaning
establishing an idea as concrete fact, which takes a LONG time.
We don’t do nearly as much “proving” as we do mere evaluation
of evidence. This is good food for thought for us all. So please
don’t insist you’ve “proven” anything when you’ve only
gathered a few handy facts that support your argument. The
better we understand scientific methodology, the better we
understand that we “prove” exactly NOTHING in the short term.
We only assess evidence. (More on that in the FAQs!) � A
method, however, is how we collect data to help answer
the questions we have;
methodology is a more formal word for the actual
strategy. For more on methods, please see
this explanation from Virginia Tech University. So a
word of advice on Assignment 2: If you are in any way confused
about the difference between theory and method, before writing
Assignment 2, please be sure you understand that difference.
Also, to move on to even more profound matters, let’s address
at length another common misperception in our modern world.
We have discovered that many, many phenomena in life are
dependent on our perception and/or social context, but many
among us have erroneously concluded that this means
everything is dependent on culture and/or personal
perspective. As some seem to believe, our old ideas about
Absolute and Unchanging Truth—so mid-20th century! If not
1700s!—have therefore been “proven” completely wrong, and

10. Objective Truth no longer exists. Ummmm… just three words
for you—OK, maybe four—No, no, and no. At various times in
our philosophical discourse, we’ve been somewhat confused
about the nature of Absolutes and Absolute Truth and what
constituted It/Them, but please make no mistake at all:
There are Absolutes. (Consider the converse statement,
“There is no such thing as an Absolute,” and ponder the absurd
self-contradiction. It’s absurd for a pretty darn good reason!) (
The fact is: Objective Truth in some form
must necessarily exist. Without it, not only would all
nature and our everyday experience be sheer chaos, but
existence itself would be impossible. Remember,
the elephant always existed exactly as it was for those
six blind men. Their failure to correctly perceive its totality and
their sharp disagreements about its true nature did NOT mean it
didn’t exist! So again, please make no mistake whatsoever:
There IS Objective Truth. We don’t have time or space to go
over the
entire logical argument right now, and it’s not our focus
anyway, though DesCartes (“I think, therefore I am”) had this
part of it mostly right (though he was mistaken in some other
areas); Gandhi knew this as well, as in the words at the top of
the lesson. There’s a fairly intense philosophical treatise on this
point in terms of Objectivity as a scientific ideal at
this link from The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
But as a short “for instance,” let’s examine one subjective-
relative thesis; George Berkeley’s argument that perception
determines existence, so that objects that we don’t perceive
don’t truly exist for us, will do nicely. This idea of existence
depending on subjective perception is an interesting theoretical
concept, and allows us to debate whether trees falling in forests
without anyone nearby actually make sounds, among other fun
and games. ( (Berkeley most definitely said No, BTW—not only

11. for the sound, but for the tree! In his view and
conceptualization,
neither truly exists, since nobody knows about either of
them!) Berkeley’s arguments came long ago—see
this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article for
more about him—and his thinking influenced subsequent
arguments over the centuries. So our modern day public
philosophy is largely based on subjectivism and relative
collectivism of this sort.
So as we consider epistemology, please keep in mind that
there’s a distinct relationship between
Objective (Big-T) truth and
subjective (little-t) truth. We know well about
subjective little-t truth—of course, we know what we know,
subject to our own perceptions, assumptions, and previous
learning. Hey, we all call it like we see it and/or tell it like it
is—or at least as we
think it is ( —so let’s not explore subjectivity at great
length. We already know what it’s all about—or at least we
hope so. ( But Objective Big-T Truth is a different matter, and
we’re frequently confused about what these Truths are,
especially when we plunge into metaphysics and spirituality.
Remember… the elephant… �
Here’s what Objectivity is all about: The Big-T Truths, as it
were, are the Truths we know in an Ultimate Objective sense,
which hold true no matter what: We exist. The sky is blue. Pure
water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level. Sodium and
chloride atoms react with each other to form table salt. Science
helps us discover some of these Absolutes; other Objective
Truths in the religious world we may consider self-evident, as
(for instance) The Word of God. Moreover, establishing
Objective Truth—that is, “proving it”—takes a LOT of time and
effort. It doesn’t happen in a single study, or even several that
agree.

12. “Proof” is ultimately a process that takes decades, and
that’s on the
fast track.
In addition, please keep in mind a core irony of our religious
existence:
Many of our reasons for evaluating any given religious
principle as Objective Truth are ironically subjective. We who
are religious believers really do believe we know The Truth, at
least on some level and to some extent—or we wouldn’t really
believe it! Yet we all perceive the Objective from a
subjective standpoint! In the words of Paul in the New
Testament, we see “through a glass darkly.” In more than a few
respects, WE are Saxe’s figurative “blind men.” We also often
fail to recognize the extent to which our customs, traditions,
and fallible perceptions color our individual understandings of
what that Truth really is and what it entails. So in addition to
our subjective perception of Truth, we also have other people
explaining The Truth to us and interpreting it!
This is yet another reason we in the sociology of religion
“bracket” the question of the Ultimate Truth of various religious
claims. We can only go so far as the best evidence we have
takes us, and there eventually comes a point in our journey of
discovery where evidence—perceived and interpreted, as it is—
is no longer feasible to help us know what is correct and valid.
(Søren Kierkegaard’s proverbial “leap of faith” comes to mind,
for instance.) Also, if you follow one of Peter Berger’s primary
arguments in
The Sacred Canopy, much of religion lies in the
interaction of the
Nomos (social order) and the individual, as truth and
reality are socially and individually constructed as these two
levels interact. So if our focus is on those dimensions,
Objective Truth doesn’t really come into play to begin with!
In any case, these Objective Truths, as Absolutes, involve

13. what we consider always and absolutely True, never changing,
always dependable, always constant. Many metaphysical (other-
worldly) teachings, for instance, are often considered Objective.
Moreover, as mentioned in the previous lesson, many people
who hold particularly strong religious convictions or come to
experience particular events such as ghostly encounters or near-
death-experiences thereafter consider those
religious/metaphysical experiences as more Real than the events
and circumstances of the everyday world. As in Lesson 1,
Berger also explored this phenomenon in The Heretical
Imperative, though we won’t recap this at length here. In short,
instead of our ordinary view of the unseen world being a
fanciful illusion and our tangible world being real, for them,
their metaphysical experience becomes real and the mundane
world becomes the fanciful illusion.For instance, the 2001 film
The Other Side of Heaven (sometimes available for free viewing
on
BYUtv, incidentally), is based on some of the real-life
experiences of John Groberg, as recorded in a memoir written a
couple of decades before that, The Eye of the Storm. (Not to be
confused with
the recently released 2019 sequel, also on BYUtv—just
don’t expect to see Anne Hathaway reprising the role of Jean—
which recounts some later experiences Groberg had on a return
assignment to the Tongan islands.) As a missionary for The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Tonga in the mid-
1950s, Groberg nearly starved to death after a hurricane
devastated the island where he was living and relief efforts were
delayed for several weeks. But he was saved when a local
minister of another Christian denomination—in a wonderfully
altruistic act of surpassing generosity—offered him the last of
his own food shortly before dying of starvation himself.
Groberg also wrote that in his state of advanced hunger, he’d
had some metaphysical experiences in which he’d actually seen
and visited a spiritual world beyond this one. That confirmed
his faith in terms of his religious understanding, and that world

14. he’d said he’d visited thereafter became his Reality. Without
giving specifics of the spiritual encounters, he observed in his
memoir, repeated in the film: “There is a connection between
heaven and earth. Finding that connection gives meaning to
everything, including death. Missing it makes everything
meaningless, including life.”
Subjectively perceived and understood Objective
experiences such as Groberg reports are typical of many
believers who report beyond-this-world encounters, from
experiences recorded in texts considered sacred (the Bible,
Baghavad Gita, the various writings of Buddha, and so forth) to
Joan of Arc’s visions to the mystical writings of Zen Buddhism
and many other metaphysical claims of believers. Verifiable or
not—and virtually always not!—they often conclude that the
world-beyond-this, at least as they experience it, is the actual
though ironically little perceived Objective sphere of existence,
while the world we know around us is the sphere of existence
that is in Reality impermanent and fleeting. Of course,
sociologically, this “Reality” is still very much the subjective
experience and property of the perceiver, and nearly impossible
to verify empirically; hence the utility of phenomenology for
many sociologists, as we shall see.The Epistemology of Method
and TheoryRemember, we as religious scholars seek to verify
our findings with observable data using specific methods. When
the data are not directly observable, as in stories of
metaphysical encounters, the reports of the experiences become
the data. These data are then analyzed for their social meaning.
But much more often, other sociologists largely avoid this
conundrum by emphasizing phenomena that are more easily
observable to begin with. We are generally unable to observe
someone’s near-death experience or ghostly encounter—the
report of the experience is the closest thing to it—but we can
certainly observe dynamics such as religious socialization in
process. With carefully trained eyes and observation, we can
also see phenomena such as power dynamics, socialization,
gender roles, ethnic differences, institutional behavior,

15. historical precedents, and religious conflict at work.
The particular methods social scientists use help them answer
important questions. So these methods are used to help
reinforce the researchers’ social-scientific epistemological
concerns. Epistemologically speaking, we are arguing that we
know our results are accurate because we are basing our
observations on data and adhering to established scientific
methods. Remember as well, we are overlooking for now the
possibility of an abductive practice—that is, a conclusion based
on an incomplete view or assessment of the facts—and
assuming our approach is fully inductive. That’s a can of worms
we’ll save for just a bit, though if you have jumped a little
ahead and mentally tied that can of worms to Saxe’s elephant,
you are getting the right idea. �A number of different research
methods are used in the sociology of religion today, though a
few are especially common. We’ll consider three here. For
instance, those of you who have carefully read the American
Grace excerpt have noted that the study resulted from amassing
data from a series of surveys. Questionnaires were sent to many
respondents, who answered the questions in the form of
numerical scales. With the responses converted to numbers on a
progressive scale, the results can be statistically analyzed. The
same is also true of other quantitative (numerical-based)
methods that convert responses to numbers. Internal statistical
measures are also conducted to estimate many factors that
interest social scientists. These include the probability of the
reliability of measurement, also known as inter-respondent
agreement. In other words, how often do the respondents agree
on similar questions of interest to the researchers? Researchers
also assess the correlation of particular measurements as well as
the probability that the correlated relationships came about by
chance. In terms of epistemology, these statistical measures
form a logical basis for how we as researchers “know” that our
measurements and the relationships we postulate are correct.
We didn’t “prove” it—but we did gather evidence relevant to
the possibility that it’s true.Along the same lines, do the

16. statistics generated in the methods of social science really
guarantee that the researchers “know” that their results are
true—or, as some argue, True? This is a very interesting
question. Statistics do follow a general train of logic, so that the
numerical results do have a particular meaning. The resulting
methods are no doubt at all infinitely better than out-of-thin-air
guesswork. Yet, as those with a sharp critical eye have no doubt
already noticed, there is a process of interpretation that enters
into statistical analysis. The numbers generated by quantitative
methods definitely have meaning. But the researchers
themselves infer that meaning—it is NOT simply a given result
of the numbers. The numbers are real, but the researchers have
interpreted the numbers. How do the researchers know their
interpretation is correct? They have prior experience, they
weigh their interpretation against comparable studies, and they
read their results in light of what is already known on the
subject. This results in a degree of knowledge and truth—
though still, whether it is Absolute Knowledge and Truth are
still debatable, even when statistics have been used. There’s
that darn elephant again!Other researchers use more qualitative
methods such as personal observation. There, a researcher goes
out and personally observes a given situation or social context,
makes careful notes at opportune times, and examines the data
that results. A close cousin, historical analysis, takes a similar
approach, though the direct observation is of other historical
sources, not people in face-to-face social settings. Immersion in
part of an experience can be a powerful way of gaining insight
into that experience. Whether it’s anthropologists who live with
tribes in undeveloped nations or investigative journalists who
spend weeks and even months talking with sources, checking
facts, and carefully researching information to give us an in-
depth analysis of a particular news story, the power of personal
observation has a long tradition in social research (and related
fields). Historical analysis—often done in quiet library
collections or archives—likewise has been with us for decades,
if not in some form for centuries.

17. Of course, these aren’t the only possible methods. Researchers
in the sociology of religion may also use others such as content
analysis or its close cousin, textual analysis, which involve
analyzing existing texts for recurring words or themes. Content
analysis tends to count recurrences (quantitative) while textual
analysis examines their nature (qualitative). Other forms of
secondary data analysis are possible as well, as are
metastudies—essentially compiling information from a wide
variety of studies. Those of you who will consult the socio-
historical dynamics subtopic (AKA “Good, Bad, and Ugly”) in
Module 6 will note the extensive
Koenig 2012 metastudy analyzing religion and health
outcomes, as one example. Targeted interviews and focus
groups are also occasional possibilities. Please note, though,
that as in the Assignment 2 instructions, actual experiments are
extremely rare in the sociology of religion due to ethical
concerns. So just a hint on Assignment 2: Please don’t discuss
experiments as a common method in the sociology of religion,
since they are NOT.
In any case, here again, epistemological questions arise.
No doubt observation and analysis alike yield a degree of
expertise, but questions related to the possibility of an
abductive rather than inductive approach—notably the risk of
incomplete or incorrect information—loom large. For instance,
do we know for certain that a particular observer knows
everything there is to know, even after ten, twenty, or even fifty
years of observation or analytical comparison? Would factors
such as the observer’s friends, interests, personality, biases, and
other subjective matters influence the resulting observations and
reports? No matter how well-trained or experienced the observer
is, that observer is still human.Even more broadly, how much
did the observer or analyst fail to observe? Would another
observer come in and immediately replicate the original
observer’s observations? How does the observer know that his
or her observations are accurate, and do the observations
establish truth—much less Truth? Here again, careful and well-

18. conducted observation (as with analysis) has its utility. It is
indeed much better than none at all. But there are
epistemological limitations. Careful, in-depth observation is
good, but it doesn’t necessarily settle all questions, and
observers and analysts don’t know everything. (Including about
elephants. Too much?) � We try to find truth by asking specific
questions and using specific methods to answer them. This
doesn’t “prove”—but it does examine and test.
OK, that’s good for methods for a bit;
we’ll revisit that topic in a few pages. What about
social theories? No, theories don’t “prove” either—but they do
help
explain. One caution before we begin to discuss theory:
When you’re writing Assignment 2, please don’t confuse the
general, broad intellectual traditions discussed in the Christiano
and particularly the Johnstone readings—especially the
anthropological and psychological—with the more
specific sociological theories that I will inevitably
accept as the best answers to the prompt on Assignment 2. In
other words, within those broad intellectual traditions, I am
looking for a discussion of the
sociological theories as the best answer to that question.
With that said: Let’s take a brief look at five common
specific theoretical
sociological approaches that are often used in the
sociology of religion. Another caution:
Please don’t either identify or think of them as the only
five. The Christiano text lists quite a few others, and there is
also a really extensive section in
The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion
about social theory; just search the resource in your ASU
Library and add the search term “Theory: Classical, Modern,
and Postmodern” for more. In any case, the first and probably
most noteworthy theoretical perspective is
functionalism. For more on the functional perspective,

19. please click on
this link from Grinnell College.
Functionalism has to do with the study of—big surprise here—
the social functions of religion. ( Typical aims and focuses of
functional-religious studies include what religions do, how they
work, what social needs those functions fill, and what the
religions accomplish. Note also that, in line with the Grinnell
discussion linked above, religions may well also feature
manifest (intended and direct) functions, such as
reduced consumption of pork and/or alcohol in Muslim
communities, as well as
latent (unintended and indirect, likely with several
other contributing factors) functions, such as a reduced violent
crime rate in highly religious communities. This is a fairly
common approach in the social-scientific study of religions, and
as a matter of fact, much of our course will involve a functional
focus. It’s a hard habit to break. � Still, we will touch upon the
others from time to time, as appropriate.
As we’ve read, many functional theorists tremendously
emphasize the idea of rational choice. Some consider rational
choice a sub-theory of functionalism, though rational choice
really comes from economics. Yet, as addressed in our first
assignment, is rational choice—a conscious analysis of the costs
and benefits associated with our decisions, whether major or
minor—the best explanation for religious affiliation and
behavior? Do we change our religious beliefs, church
membership, spiritual habits, and so forth for reasons purely
related to our self-interest? Or are there other factors at work in
our religious practices—and if so, which and why? Keep in
mind that, according to how most sociologists consider Rational
Choice Theory (RCT), believers are not merely assessing
concrete costs and benefits (money, time, property, and so
forth) of a particular religion. They are also considering
abstract costs and benefits, such as their friendship circles and
networks of support (whether losing the ones they have and/or

20. the emotional/energy costs of developing new ones), lifestyle
changes, overall level of comfort, the customs and traditions
they have learned throughout life, and the ultimate benefit,
Heaven-Nirvana-Enlightenment-Valhalla-Elysian Fields-
Becoming One with the Universe-etc. So the believer weighs
ALL those costs, concrete AND abstract, against the benefits,
also concrete AND abstract, in making decisions about religion
and spirituality.
I’m a bit conflicted about this. The more abstract
conceptualization of RCT makes more sense to me than a mere
discussion of money or economics, but I still suspect the larger
explanation is even more nuanced.
RCT is certainly involved in religious behavior, but I
see the process as more complicated than RCT alone suggests.
For instance, what about religious conviction and experience?
How do believers become convinced of the Ultimate Truth of a
particular religious system? Then how do believers
remain convinced of that truth? Third, as some past
students have insightfully pointed out, what happens in settings
where religious freedom is restricted so that would-be seekers
cannot actually seek? Does RCT only apply in settings of a free
religious marketplace of ideas? And fourth, is it possible to
even possess the capability to investigate every religion in
existence? Fifth… well, let’s stop there. ( But you get the
idea… RCT is definitely involved as religious seekers make
their conscious choices, and it makes sense from where I sit as
an explanation of the
rational component of religious
conversion or switching. But in terms of overall
religious behavior and RCT, there are more questions to be
asked. And answered. (
For those interested in more exploration of RCT and religion,
feel free to consult two excellent discussions and critiques of
RCT in

21. The Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion and
Sociology of Religion, including some allusions to the
relevant intriguing field of religious economics.
Another frequent approach is
conflict theory. This sometimes takes the more specific
form of Marxism, though this (overt Marxism) is FAR less
common in religion and more prevalent in, say, literary studies.
Still, other variations of conflict theory exist throughout the
sociology of religion, such as Turner’s social drama theory
covered in the Christiano text. You can also find more
information on conflict theory at
this link from the University of Hawaii. Scholars
interested in race, gender, inequality, power differentials,
hegemony, and class analysis in religion frequently incorporate
this perspective. There are numerous instances of conflict
theory in modern sociology of religion, but for only one
example, Susan Rose studied the role of women in a charismatic
Christian community in the mid-‘80s. She concluded that the
women she observed willingly relinquished some of their power
and status in order to support their husbands, who they felt had
been given “divine callings.” However, as an intriguing
byproduct, as the women redefined their gender role, the male
role was also redefined in turn.
See a link to this study here or look it up in
Sociology of Religion (1987) vol. 48 no. 3, pp. 245-
258.
Another common approach is often called “
symbolic interaction” but sometimes goes by a variety
of other names in contemporary academic research, such as
ritual, frame, or symbolic analysis. See
this reading from Iowa State for more information on
this theoretical approach. Studies vary widely; ritual and frame
analyses, for instance, are often conducted using SI theoretical
approaches, as well as research into the meaning and social
significance of particular objects—for instance, icons or

22. religious music—or practices such as kneeling for prayer.
Religious philosopher Mircea Eliade has written a great deal
about myth and ritual, which is also well-suited to a symbolic-
interaction social-theory framework. But as another more
current instance,
a 2010 study by Michelle Byng (found at
Critical Sociology, January 2010, vol. 36 no. 1, pp.
109-129) analyzed modern symbolic representations of Islam in
modern news media, focusing especially on the practice of the
hijab or veil for women in America, England, and
France, as well as how the news media of these nations covered
the practice.
We also want to explore, as previously mentioned, the approach
of
phenomenology. As in the context of
The Heretical Imperative, this is something of a
subjective exploration of ideas, perspectives, and experiences,
as with metaphysical or “other-worldly” encounters. Sometimes
this also extends to paranormal experiences—that is,
experiences with the unknown in general in terms of what’s
beyond current scientific understanding, under which category
many include metaphysics. But since religion and metaphysics
tend to be closely linked, this area often becomes the focus in
sociology of religion. See
this link from Penn State for more information.
Phenomenology—the study of phenomena—considers individual
other-worldly ideas, perspectives, and events as very real to the
individual and/or group, but admits they may be difficult for
others to apprehend. Phenomenologists in the sociology of
religion often study
accounts of various phenomena—near-death
experiences, ghostly encounters, spiritual “witnesses” or
“promptings,” déjà vu, feelings of “being called” or of
encountering divinity, religious conversions, dreams and

23. visions, and so forth—and analyze believers’ accounts of those
experiences for their individual and social meaning. Please
note, however, that phenomenologists in general are not
necessarily trying to actually
undergo metaphysical experience—we’re not talking
about “ghost hunters,” mediums, séance participants, etc.
Instead, these scholars assume that the reported
idea/perspective/experience has real meaning to the individual
who experienced it (i.e., that it’s a social fact), consider the
after-the-fact report of that phenomenon as evidence, and then
assess the individual and social meaning of the phenomenon.
To fully understand phenomenology, it may help to turn to none
other than Harry Potter. As at least a few of you doubtless
remember (so no spoiler alert, sorry), ( late in
Deathly Hallows, Harry briefly dies and has a vision-
like experience of meeting and speaking with his deceased
former Hogwarts headmaster, Albus Dumbledore. At the
conversation’s end, Harry asks his mentor if the vision has been
real or if it has been all happening in his head. Dumbledore’s
reply perfectly illustrates a core assumption of phenomenology:
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but
why on earth should that mean it is not real?” (JK Rowling,
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, 2007, pp. 722-
23.) This statement is completely true from a phenomenological
standpoint, everyone.
So there it is: In phenomenology, the fact that the experience is
happening “inside your head” (as it were) makes it real and
meaningful
to you! Likewise, experiences that are “inside the
heads” of others are real
to them, and are therefore worth exploring for their
meaning—not only to them, but to others who hear about them.
The experience becomes a

24. social fact—regardless of whether the experience
actually happened, it’s unquestionable that people
believe that it happened. We take the belief that it
happened as the social fact in question and analyze accounts of
the experience as the data.
So as the venerable social scientist W.I. Thomas famously
observed,
that which is defined as real becomes real in its
consequences.
Because of this, phenomenology is frequently the
framework of choice for analyzing the meaning of metaphysical
encounters from a sociological standpoint. Perhaps the best-
known phenomenological treatment in the sociology of religion
is Martin Buber’s I-Thou discussion of a believer’s relationship
to God; for an interesting perspective, see
this entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
Finally, another insightful theoretical approach to religious
issues is
social construction (of reality), largely as developed by
our good friend Peter Berger as well as Thomas Luckmann in
the mid-‘60s. For more information about social construction of
reality (SCR, also called “constructionism”), see
this explanation from the University of Massachusetts
Amherst or
this related discussion of social interaction from the
University of Minnesota. (CTRL-F it for “social construction”
for the by-name discussion, but also
note that SCR actually helps shape other concepts
discussed, such as socialization, dramaturgy, and social roles,
and yes, there’s some symbolic interaction overlap as well.) (
Berger, for his part, analyzes religion as a socially constructed
entity—that is, it’s built by people using social constructs or
ideas. It has not only Objective (absolutely real and

25. unchanging) and subjective (as experienced by the individual)
dimensions, but a range of phenomena between is socially
constructed—or as later theorists have called it,
intersubjective. We’ve “socially constructed” these
little-t truths between ourselves—or, essentially, in other words
we have as a society agreed that they are true.Here’s
where all the social facts live! For instance: Stoplights are red.
It’s rude to eat in front of others without offering them food.
It’s flat-out weird to wear tuxedos or evening gowns to college
classes. Football players are cheered for acts of violence during
games for which they’d be arrested if the acts were done at
home or on the street.
Also, in social construction, cultural context matters, and very
much so. Our
Weltanschauung or “worldview” forms much of our
intersubjective basis for building these social constructions.
Belching is often seen as rude in North American contexts, but
in several traditional Pacific Islander cultures (and a few other
contexts elsewhere), belching is actually how a guest
compliments a host on a fine meal. It’s a social fact—people
believe in it and do it, whether or not it’s inherently true. As
previously mentioned, Berger’s
The Sacred Canopy explores religion as a product of an
interaction between individuals and society, referred to as the
Nomos. As social orders are constructed and maintained,
individuals interact with the social order as part of constructing
themselves. So religion acquires an individual and social aspect,
and is constructed and maintained on both of those levels or
contexts.
As a result, many intersubjective beliefs and social practices
inform the world of religion, and the social constructionist
explores these constructs. For instance,
Michael Szonyi explores secularization in the Chinese
religious world, where some forms of popular religion have

26. survived despite an unfriendly official secular climate. He
interestingly concludes that secularization—one of Berger’s key
social constructs in the sociology-of-religion field, essentially
the idea that societies that continue to gain scientific knowledge
turn away from religion—is valuable in explaining what has
happened in China from both a historical and ideological
perspective. Still, secularization does not necessarily mean that
science-informed societies
eradicate religion, so religion does tend to persist
alongside science. This is a complicated concept, and certainly
applies to what we see happening in the contemporary United
States, so stay tuned for more on that in Lesson 5.
I also acknowledge but at this point shall not explore
ethnomethodology, which exists today more or less as a
historical exercise in exploring social norms via their deliberate
disruption rather than a viable independent theoretical
framework. It’s intriguing as a combination theory and method
alike, but it is NOT really a common theory used in the study of
religion. Still, it does have historical significance in the larger
field of sociology, so it’s at least worth mentioning here. Keep
in mind also that the Christiano text briefly discusses
deprivation theory, which has been
discredited as applicable to the sociology of religion.
Since rare and discredited theories are NOT commonly used in
the sociology of religion, the most wise among you will no
doubt note that it would NOT be a good idea to include them in
Assignment 2 among your five common theories in the
sociology of religion, if you see what I mean. �
Beyond Objective vs. Subjective
Social construction, highly epistemological in orientation, also
brings out another important fact. Not all “little-t” truths can
necessarily be considered either Objective or subjective. Other
truths we encounter in our day-to-day lives carry a little “t” and

27. may be deeply valued, if not held as if sacred, by some while
questioned (and even hotly debated) ( by others: It's rude to
belch. George Washington is a national hero. Climate change
means Al Gore was right about global warming. SUVs are safer
than small cars. We need to retain the Affordable Care Act.
Illegal immigrants are draining our local and national economy.
Vaccines are completely safe. We need to own guns to defend
ourselves. All of this includes statements we often hear and
what people (at least
some people, anyway, depending on what political
angle we’re considering) seem to take for granted as true.
They’re social facts. Politically, of course, there are
disagreements—even within all those statements. That’s partly
the point, actually. (
So when we dig deeper, we find there are exceptions and/or
levels of complexity associated with these “truths.” We also
find it’s tremendously difficult to figure out what really is true
and what isn’t in terms of socially constructed knowledge. In
our world of social-media urban legends, where it’s constantly
rumored, say, that we must re-post such-and-such legalese on
Facebook to preserve our rights as users, we want to be able to
verify this. Some of us (me, too!) ( are in the habit of turning to
www.snopes.com to check the facts whenever those
alarm bells in our heads go off. But not even snopes.com claims
infallibility! There’s a section of the site, in fact, containing
several fake “urban legends” and a warning about what
they call “False Authority Syndrome” to illustrate the
importance of always checking facts for ourselves! Hence, we
can’t—and shouldn’t!—always rely on outside sources to tell us
what the truth is. Not even Snopes, or at least not all the time.
We can also be tricked by
verisimilitude, or the fact that a particular entity
appears in multiple respects to be authoritative. It resembles
and acts like what we expect to be real, so the mere appearance

28. may convince us that it is in fact real. Phishing scams for one
depend directly on this quality of media. One of the best
examples of verisimilitude is a prank site that warns about
the many unrecognized dangers of “dihydrogen
monoxide”—i.e., H2O!— ( in our modern world. Funny as the
site is, particularly if you enjoy a wry poke at the often stuffy
language and obscure structure of academic research, ( phishing
scams and other media-related fraud are frequently effective
precisely because they
look or
seem like they could be true. More recently,
misinformation campaigns from other countries (or even
from some unscrupulous individuals within ours) also tend to
mimic what we’re familiar with—it may even look and sound
like our friends or what we already think. Hence the crucial
importance of critical thinking!
As we nonetheless continue to search for what’s true—or at
least what’s authoritative, credible, AND accurate!—we may
also find that many of the “truths” we like to
think we know for certain may be dependent on a
particular psychological, political, or cultural context. We also
see there are even levels—particularly in political terms—on
which the “truths” we discussed above may be considered false!
Some families have belching contests just for fun. George
Washington owned slaves, along with having other human
foibles and imperfections. Something’s definitely happening
with climate change, but even some climate change experts
dispute the specific accuracy of Al Gore’s
An Inconvenient Truth. The “safety” of SUVs is chiefly
attributed to their bulk and prevalence; if most cars were the
size and weight of Smart Cars and there were no SUVs, the
Toyota Yaris would be safer by comparison to all the rest.
There’s
still substantial debate, and firmly divided opinions,

29. over Obamacare and illegal immigration—not to mention the
effectiveness of vaccines of all varieties! And whatever else we
do or don’t believe about what rights the Second Amendment
gives us, don’t we certainly need to try our best somehow to
keep guns away from criminals, haters, and those with violent
tendencies among the mentally ill?
The previously mentioned “truths”
seem true in people’s minds, and at least some people
believe them to be true, but are they really always true? And if
they’re true, what in the heck are we all arguing about? ( Here
again, there are many “facts” out there that we see as “true”
only because we (or at least some of us)
believe they’re true—or even more to the point in
social-construction terms,
we see them as true because many of us have
agreed that they’re true.
They are social facts. And for those of you keeping
score out there on the social-theory-perspective contest, this is
pretty much the essence of social construction. (Yes, it’s true—
Peter Berger, and Thomas Luckmann as well, have definitely
affected my life. And now yours.) (
Even more importantly, underscoring the point about social
construction,
many of us have lately agreed on different “truths”
(social facts). Ask a Donald Trump supporter near you all about
that, if not a true QAnon believer. ( The rise of conspiracy
theories, information wars, “alternative facts,” “fake news,” and
so forth are challenges to previously accepted socially
constructed truths and narratives. Hence not only frequent shifts
in what is and isn’t considered appropriate or polite, as well as
the vehement debates about the truth of our nation’s history and
the character of its leaders, health-care reform, illegal
immigration, and gun control—but even further, the
undermining of what we’ve usually considered established facts,

30. policies, laws, principles, and core truths. Even medical science
has been called into question amid the scientific—not to
mention the less-than-scientific—debates of the COVID-19
pandemic. (Masks don’t work! Masks DO work! Etc., etc.!)
We are frequently fighting each other over social
constructions! Including some extremely crucial ones in terms
of our collective definition of social and intellectual stability as
well as public health! This is yet another reason that “proof” is
such an elusive concept! Especially if it turns out we’re dealing
with mere social construction—which is intersubjective
anyway—rather than Objective Truth!
One other point is important—that of cultural context.
Revisiting our belching example, remember that it is actually
considered complimentary, and even the polite thing to do, in
some cultures such as that of some Pacific Islanders, at least in
terms of historical tradition. As we pointed out above, some
families may also belch behind closed doors just for the fun of
it. But also consider that this social construct, like all others, is
established by social agreement. Now as most of you know, this
same social agreement does NOT necessarily extend to your
family’s Thanksgiving table. So if your family doesn’t already
welcome the custom, please do NOT belch after your meal and
then tell your family that Dr. Weight in your ASU Sociology of
Religion class taught you it was a way to say Thanks. Live in
the culture you’re in, my friends. ( You disrupt social norms
very much at
your own risk, and I did tell you
not to, so sorry to tell all y’all—you’re all out on your
own on that one! ( Common courtesy and “manners” require
more or less that you act according to the set of social
constructs and social facts of the social group and culture in
which you’re living at the moment.
But also consider this:
Human mutual respect, tolerance, and understanding all

31. require that we take a look at those social constructs,
understand them at face value, and learn to see that most often,
we might accept the “truth” the other person accepts if we were
in their proverbial shoes. Otherwise known as the “walk a mile
in another person’s shoes” viewpoint, it’s the way we live in
civilized society, or at least it certainly should be. We try to
understand where each other are coming from, including the
perspectives and social constructs on which we tend to act. As
much as we’ve seen our socio-political discourse change lately,
and not for the better, it doesn’t change the key fact that
dialogue and an attempt at mutual understanding helps preserve
us and our society. So let’s not leave that behind.
Sadly, some social constructions also have a lot riding on them.
In a post-truth society, some question basic factuality and
practice, even with evidence involved, as in the masking
debates out there. No, wearing a mask alone isn’t necessarily
going to keep you from getting COVID-19. But wearing masks
does help people from inadvertently spreading the disease to
others, and effectively limits the spread of disease
when combined with social distancing, limiting large
gatherings, hygienic practices such as handwashing, and so
forth.
The bulk of the epidemiological evidence does suggest
that combining ALL those practices does help limit the spread
of this and many other forms of disease. So social construction
isn’t all just theoretical.
In another example of this, speaking of vehement political
debates, also consider gun control. Understand that ardent
Second Amendment defenders have a set of assumptions and
social constructs about guns and responsible gun ownership.
Those concerned about violence committed by people with guns
also have their own set of assumptions and social constructs
from which they approach the issue. So a wide variety of
opinions results. I was born into a family of hunters, though I
personally don’t go hunting for anything but good books. (

32. However, several of my cousins
live for deer and elk hunting season, ( and I more or
less see the point. They’re good and decent people overall and
only use their guns for occasional hunting trips. Nobody else
sees or handles those weapons without their say-so, believe me,
and they carefully teach their children to be responsible with
guns. If anybody has the right to bear arms, they and other
responsible gun owners certainly do.
Yet if I were, say, Gabby Giffords and had gone through all that
she had, thanks to only one mentally ill man who had gained
access to a gun, I’d probably advocate gun control, too! And
given the increasing number of school and public shootings, the
need to work out a solution does seem to be growing! Ideally,
the two sides would work out a compromise—including a new
set of assumptions and social constructs—in an attempt to
resolve the problem. That is usually how public discourse and
new social construction works. However, the two sides seem
rather far apart on this, since both camps have not only engaged
in their
own dialogues of social construction but have gradually
defined each other as enemies.
All that aside, however, here’s the key point in terms of
epistemology—let’s consider the “either/or” relationship of the
Objective and subjective a
false dichotomy. In other words, all knowledge is NOT
either Objective or subjective! In our Western mode of thinking,
we tend to view the relationship between Objective and
subjective as an either/or sort of relationship—that is, either our
truths (and Truths) ( are Objective OR they’re subjective.
Correct? No, sorry. Let’s dig deeper. In thinking in this
“either/or” way, which we often do in Western culture, we limit
ourselves—since the REAL relationship is “either/AND.” Put
simply, as illustrated on the next page, there’s a whole range of
intervening experience between Objective Truth and subjective

33. truth—
the
intersubjective. We’ve just spent several paragraphs
addressing those social constructions—and that range of
intervening experience, by the way, is precisely what makes this
comparison a false dichotomy!
That spectrum-like relationship of Objective, intersubjective,
and subjective is illustrated in the box on the next page. Hence,
as we see, in addition to Objective Truth—what is always True,
Absolute, and Verifiable—there are a vast range of
intersubjective truths as well. These are true according to our
social agreement, though they’re impermanent or subject to
change, and sometimes verifiable (and of course sometimes
not.) ( Notably, the intersubjective truths are sometimes
confused for subjective, but those darn intersubjective truths
really cause trouble when some of us decide that they’re really
Objective—and then hold it against other people when they
don’t agree! We’ll be discussing religious conflict in Lesson 3,
so feel free to hold onto that thought all you wish. (
Then at the other end of this continuum, we have our subjective
truths, which are usually highly dependent on our own
perceptions. So we perceive our little-t truths, whether
subjective or intersubjective, as true, and they’re frequently
subject to change and not often verifiable. We discover these
intersubjective (i.e., socially constructed) and subjective
(personally perceived and interpreted) truths through our own
learning and a process of building social consensus on culture,
behavior, norms, values, and so on. Social consensus has a
particular scope and context that gives our “little-t” truths
MUCH more proverbial staying power than a trite “that’s just
the way I see it” stance. Of course, no degree of social
consensus will produce Objective and Ultimate Truth. What’s
Absolutely Real is Real, whether or not any individual or group
agrees, understands, or even
knows about it. And don’t make me bring up brick walls

34. or elephants again. � But in brief,
religion can be understood as our intersubjective (or
group) and subjective (or individual) attempts to grasp the
Objective.
Wrapping It Up
Clear as mud yet? ( OK, let’s bring it home, as it were. In our
readings for today, we’ve read a great deal about sociology and
about religion. But our greatest challenges as sociologists of
religion are frequently epistemological: How do we know what
we know? The Objective-intersubjective-subjective spectrum of
experience helps us classify what belongs where as we consider
our data for analysis. We know that groups of religious
believers consider their beliefs to be Objectively True. Though
we cannot possibly verify that, say, a given group of Buddhists
have in fact attained Nirvana,
we
can say that it is more or less Objectively True that
Buddhists in general
believe in Nirvana and that they strive for this state
of enlightenment.
Thus, the belief (as a social fact) itself is the verifiable
social data, and we can study the social meaning of that belief
as a social construction. However, significantly, we are then
studying that belief on an intersubjective level—or even
subjective, if we choose to interview particular individuals
about their beliefs about Nirvana.
As previously mentioned, in terms of
the discussion beginning on page 7, specific analytical
methods and relying on data help us resolve our epistemological
concerns. Keep in mind: The Objective-intersubjective-
subjective epistemological continuum has its strong points as a
quality topic for a philosophical debate, faculty forum,
conference presentation, journal article, and so forth.
But the

35. specific methods of trying to assess how we know
what we know are what we actually focus on as we do our
research.
That’s how we integrate theoretical perspectives and
methodological techniques to help us answer the questions we
find out there in the social world. See the illustrative research
studies cited throughout the discussion of the theories for more
information on that. Those of you with the Christiano text will
get even more information on the strong points and drawbacks
of many of the specific methods used as we study religion from
a social-scientific perspective—what we can be assured that we
know and what we don’t. I won’t repeat that entire discussion
here.
However, just to recap some of the high points: Personal
observation, when properly done, can be a powerful way of
knowing. However, we may still never know all the answers,
since one person—or even a small team of highly qualified
observers—or even Saxe’s six blind men—can only perceive so
much. We can also depend on numerical data, though statistical
analyses rely heavily on probabilities and the researchers’
ability to interpret the numbers. Historical analyses help us spot
consistent trends and patterns, though the researchers’
understanding of history can certainly be called into question.
Surveys, usually based on sound statistical data, can be another
powerful way of knowing, too, though self-reported data are
also far from foolproof. Other methods—content analysis,
textual analysis, experiments (though rare in the sociology of
religion, TBH), and a number of others—have their upsides as
well as drawbacks. Epistemologically, sound as the data and/or
our reasoning might be, there comes a level on which we just
cannot tell if our conclusions are Absolutely True—there’s
always a reason they might not be. Remember the ele… (
ouch!) �

36. So while the methods we use to determine knowledge are much
better than simply guessing or taking the proverbial shot in the
dark, they are still influenced by subjective and intersubjective
considerations. We as social researchers are trying to approach
Objective Truth, but what we most generally find is
intersubjective—and socially constructed!—in nature. We know
what we know, we hope, but it’s frequently intersubjective
knowledge. “Proof”—determining Objective Truth!—takes a
great deal more time and effort. We can get there over years and
years of work and study, if not decades or centuries. In any
case, defining and “proving” Objective Truth is NOT going to
come overnight.
So, as we strive to “reveal what’s hidden,” as in Bourdieu’s
statement in Lesson 1, we are likewise striving to pin down
what’s as Objective as possible, though we most often find
intersubjective truth. No, we can’t concretely verify Objective
fact without a LOT of work, particularly what’s beyond the
scope of social science—but we can try to find the equivalents
of the boiling point of water and/or the “brick wall” we
discussed earlier, in terms of the questions we ask in the
sociology of religion. We can try to find valid and reliable
explanations of the phenomena we observe, such as Kelley’s
explanation for more conservative church growth and in
American Grace’s analysis of the contemporary
American religious world. We can identify the deeper meaning
behind the social facts we observe.
Moreover, we can represent the group we’re analyzing fairly
and accurately, so that our explanations make sense even to
those inside the group we’re discussing. This is a genuine
challenge in what has generally been called “Mormon
scholarship,” let me tell you, ( though the historical division
between LDS-friendly and LDS-critical scholarly sources is far
from unique to the culture associated with the church. How
Islam is represented in the West, for instance, faces a similar
problem and on a bigger scale. Most obviously, historical

37. misrepresentation of Jews and the catastrophic consequences are
paradoxically well-documented, yet still alive in some quarters
of, ahem, society. We have not yet discussed
Max Weber's core concept of
verstehen, but feel free to read up on that at the
link given, if you wish—the top few paragraphs should give you
the general idea, along with a more in-depth discussion below.
See also this
grad-school equivalent comparison of Weber’s thought
with other philosophers, if you’re interested.
As we make sure that we understand and incorporate the
essential differences between Objective, intersubjective, and
subjective, we are more aware not only of what knowledge
belongs where, but of
how we know that knowledge. We rely on data in social
science, and we need to go where the data indicate—that is,
read the data and make our conclusions based on the patterns
they suggest. In this way, we are able to more closely approach
truth, if not Truth, and we will know it, even if we are
minorities of one. And at the risk of wearing out the Saxe
analogy’s welcome even further, the more data we gather and
correctly evaluate, the better we will gradually see the
whole elephant. As it is. Thanks, everyone, and I look
forward to reading what you come up with on Assignment 2! As
well as your Meet the Believers exercise in a few weeks!
The six blind men try to figure out the elephant. Image from
Patheos.
Logic is useful, especially when correctly applied, ( in the
discourse of epistemology. Illustration from � HYPERLINK
"http://researchmeth.wikispaces.com/Ontology+and+Epistemolo
gy" �researchmeth.wikispaces.com�

38. As on Canvas, for anyone not clear about the difference
between theory and method and their role in the scientific
process, it may help to consult the following resources:
Understanding social theory: � HYPERLINK
"https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/1-
3-Theoretical-Perspectives"
�https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/1-
3-Theoretical-Perspectives�
Understanding the scientific method: � HYPERLINK
"https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-
1-Approaches-to-Sociological-Research" l "42376"
�https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-
1-Approaches-to-Sociological-Research#42376�
Understanding research methods: � HYPERLINK
"https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-
2-Research-Methods"
�https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-
2-Research-Methods�
Yet, useful and crucial as it is to understand subjective
perception and cultural interpretation, neither contradict the
existence of the Objective. The fact is this: The Berkeleyan
thesis is easily refuted by actual experience. Imagine you’re
running somewhere in the dark, where you can’t see what’s in

39. front of you. Unfortunately, this includes a brick wall that runs
across your path. That solid and extremely hard wall directly
ahead of you is still very much there, whether or not you
perceive it or know about it or choose to believe in it yourself.
It even exists regardless of whether you or your culture of
origin builds, values or even believes in brick walls. ( In any
case, the wall isn’t going anywhere, regardless of your
perceptions or beliefs about it, with a sad but predictable result
if you don’t slow down or change your own direction to avoid
it. True, tolerance and human understanding do require
substantial allowances for individual and cultural perception.
But our individual and cultural perception neither cause nor
determine the Ultimate Realities we find in the world around us,
Seen or Unseen. In any case, Absolute Truth is the Truth, even
if (as Gandhi said) only one person correctly knows and
perceives what that Truth is.
Anne Hathaway and Christopher Gorham (left), who played Jean
and John Groberg in The Other Side of Heaven, pose with their
real-life counterparts during a break from shooting the film in
2000. Photo from fanpixfamousfix.com.
Key Difference in Terms
Metaphysical = Other-worldly (spirits, angels, God, Heaven,
etc.)
Paranormal = Beyond current scope of scientific understanding
(UFOs, Bigfoot, telekinesis, ESP, much of metaphysical
phenomena, etc.).

40. Dumbledore speaking to Harry in his vision, according to the
2011 Warner Brothers film. Image from harrypotter.wikia.com.
Image from feelgraphix.com. This is one of the world’s most
dangerous substances, according to � HYPERLINK
"http://www.dhmo.org" �www.dhmo.org�. (
OBJECTIVE
Always True Per Se
Absolute
Verifiable
INTERSUBJECTIVE
True by social agreement
Impermanent

41. Sometimes verifiable
SUBJECTIVE
You see it as true
Changes often
Not often verifiable
The Continuum of Experience
Key Takeaway about “Proof”
Proving a fact, or establishing it as Objective Truth, takes a
LONG time and a LOT of work. The better we understand
scientific methodology, the better we understand that we
“prove” exactly NOTHING in the short term. We only assess
evidence and whether the evidence supports our conclusions.
16

42. HONDA MOTOR COMPANY
Submit a Project Proposal (3-5 pages, double-spaced) that
describes the project the student wishes to complete.
(Final Project Report Students will conduct an in-depth analysis
of an organization (Honda Motor Company in the USA)
Through this analysis, the student will prepare a detailed set of
recommendations for a specific problem facing the organization
as selected by the student.)
Submit a Project Proposal (3-5 pages, double-spaced) that
describes the project the student wishes to complete. ( HONDA
MOTOR COMPANY)
Readings
Read the following:
Lesson 2 (
2-SOC 420 Lesson 2 Epistemology_Fall 2022)
Chs.1-2 in Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments
(3rd edition strongly recommended!)
You should have the Christiano text in hand by this point, since
chapters 1-2 will give you a more complete picture of many of
the relevant theories and methods prevalent in the sociology of
religion. Christiano is also on reserve at the Polytechnic library.
In an emergency, you can complete the assignment using only
Lesson 2, but doing this only gives the minimum amount of
information.
Please also note that you should clearly distinguish between
research theories and methods as you write your assignments.
Papers that confuse theory and method will need to be rewritten
to receive credit. As a refresher, please feel free to refer to the

43. following links if needed:
Understanding social theory (with three common social theories
given):
https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/1-3-
Theoretical-Perspectives
Understanding the scientific method:
https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-1-
Approaches-to-Sociological-Research#42376
Understanding research methods:
https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-2-
Research-Methods
Textbook:
Christiano, Kevin J., with William H. Swatos Jr. and Peter
Kivisto. Sociology of Religion: Contemporary Developments /
Edition 3. 2015. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
ISBN-13: 9781442216921. (The 3rd edition is strongly
preferred, especially for Assignment #2
In a reflective essay of 3-5 pages, and using the Christiano text,
Lesson 2 and online readings, your Meet the Believers (MTB)
exercise to date, and any other credible and authoritative
sources you might choose, please address the following
questions in depth:
Why does religion exist for society as a whole, and what is its
relevance to the modern world?
What are FIVE of the most common theoretical approaches used

44. in the scientific study of religion, as discussed in Christiano’s
3rd edition and/or Lesson 2? Please describe these in detail.
How do we know—or at least try to know—that what we have
observed as religious scholars is true? How can the research
methods we use help us accomplish our goal of knowing? Please
name/describe THREE common and specific methods in detail.
Please note: All of you who have read both Lesson 2 and the
Christiano chapters have no doubt observed and correctly noted
that there are many more than 5 theories and 3 methods used in
the sociology of religion. Your task in Assignment 2 is to name
and describe 5 of the most common theories and 3 of the most
common methods. Since it would be factually incorrect to
indicate that there are ONLY 5 theories and 3 methods EVER
used in scientifically studying religion, which could result in
reduced points, I highly recommend that you don't make that
statement. Just FYI. :)
Also, remember the assignment is to discuss COMMONLY
USED theories and methods. So discussing any theory among
your five "common theories" that is specifically mentioned in
our textbook or lesson reading as currently discredited--and
hence is NOT commonly used--will not receive points. Of
course, if you want to briefly mention any such theory as
discredited and discuss 5 others in depth that ARE common,
that's up to you.
Please also keep in mind that there is a VERY good reason
experiments are NOT discussed in either Lesson 2 or in
Christiano as a common method in the sociology of religion.
Since there are distinct ethical concerns with using experiments
in religious research, they are actually quite rare in this field.
So again, just FYI, you should probably NOT include
experiments among your 3 common methods. However, if you
want to tell me what you know about experiments AND discuss

45. 3 OTHER methods that ARE common in religious research, that
is fine.
Finally, as before: Please also note that you should clearly
distinguish between research theories and methods as you write
your assignments. Papers that confuse theory and method will
need to be rewritten to receive credit. As a refresher, please feel
free to refer to the following links if needed:
Understanding social theory (with three common social theories
given):
https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/1-3-
Theoretical-Perspectives
Understanding the scientific method:
https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-1-
Approaches-to-Sociological-Research#42376
Understanding research methods:
https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:[email protected]/2-2-
Research-Methods