Religion is a world wide phenomenon that has lasted for millions of years. It appears that humanity has a need to look toward a greater force than them to explain the unexplainable. In Seven Theories of Religion by Daniel L. Pals there are several ideas that stand out in the text. Like, why should we study religion? Questions of this nature enable one to ponder the reason people exist. Several theorists answer these inquiries as we go along. Max Muller, his critic and contemporary E. B. Tylor, and James Frazer had plenty to say concerning religion and its origins.
Muller's stance on religion was that it could be studied scientifically. Therefore, it should be observed, collected, and translated from other cultures. He believed that science and religion could be joined and helps each other. So he wrote, Introduction to the Science of Religion(1873). He wanted another approach from the theologians, for example, gathering facts. He felt the time had come to seek out the patterns, elements, and principles that could be found uniformly in every religion ever. Therefore, study religion to understand your own and others. The origins were attributed to the use of reason, the “gift that separated human beings from the animal kingdom; others traced it to the fear and ignorance of humanity in its savage state.” According to holy men, religion was a set of truths given directly by God to one church, their own, excluding others.
Religion for the Deists had to be explained without recourse to supernatural revelation. It was this Deist idea that Muller inherited when he addressed the Victorian audiences in the middle and later years of the nineteenth century. He felt that it was possible to explain not just aspects of religion, but all of religion. Then research the history of it. This would lead to the discovery of the earliest religious perspectives and rituals of the human race. The fascinating part is that Muller is a devout Christian, who believed that the truth of his faith had nothing to fear from science, and could be better if it were explained in the context of other religions. Muller believed that language was the key to understanding religion. His critic, Tylor, agreed upon a theory of religion could be developed from a common ground of objective facts which would have to give both the evidentiary support and the final test of truth. Also both boldly had stated that religion is more than a ritual or belief. But the worldwide story of its origin, development, and diversity! Theorists today have trouble being as bold as these two in their day, because there are so many questions of “why.”
This leads me to the other theorist, Tylor, was labeled as the one who focused on animism. His interest was the study of human culture. This enabled him to be called the father of cultural anthropology as a science practiced in Britain and the US. He had taken other works from others and added his own spin to it. His take on religion is simply, “belief in spiritual beings.” The essence of religion is the belief in spirits who think, act, and feel like human persons. Animism is explained as a very old form of thought, which is found throughout the entire history of the human race. Tylor's work, Primitive Culture was published in Victorian Britain when people's faith was disturbed. His counterpart, Muller, agreed with him about leaving out the supernatural from their discussions. Tylor stated how people personified gods, like the sun became known as Apollo in Greek culture. Muller called this a, “disease of language,” meant to describe nature and hint at the infinite power behind it degenerated into silly stories of many different gods. Tylor was convinced when his work was properly done, and the entire span of the human past is placed under observation, two great laws of culture appear. These are the principle of psychic unity, or uniformity, within the human race and the second the pattern of intellectual evolution, or improvement, over time. Tylor's theory provides a mixed portrait of religion and its development. He feels that animistic religion parallels science because they both are in search of understanding. He concluded that religion is an evolutionary stage that will make way for science, the more advanced method. He shared ideas with Muller and also with Frazer, who became prominent with a similar religious background as Tylor, Protestant.
Frazer had read Tylor's work and became interested in anthropological research and the use of comparative method. Later, he completed a book called, The Golden Bough that included twenty-five years of his life research. It was completely finished in 1922. Frazer went beyond Tylor with magic being more systematic, and even "scientific," than his mentor. He brings out these two types: imitative, the magic of contact, which connects on the principle of attachment. Frazer agrees with Tylor's definition of religion, but is more interested in the contrasts than the similarities it shows with magic. He referred to his own book as a "voyage of discovery," a trip back in time to explore the mind of prehistoric humanity. He brought out similarly to Tylor, like how magic was humanity's first attempt to explain, yet control the power of nature. Religion replaced magic and now science will replace religion.
In summation, I believe that religion has a belief in a supreme being involved that has constructed ours lives. Frazer's focus was on magic being the blue print for religion. Tylor's stance was about how religion came to be personified. Finally, Muller and his new approach and how religion and science can coexist. These three theorists realized that religion was a broad term that can't be easily described because of the different meanings religion has had to many cultures.
