this piece is very very interesting, not least for zuckerman's acknowledgement of the limitations of the kind of work he is undertaking.
specifically, i would like to underscore the following, which has been a central part of my argument from the beginning of all these threads:
--- Finally, there are methodological problems relating to terminology. Meanings and definitions of specific words or categories seldom translate cross-culturally. Signifiers such as "religious," "secular," or even "God" have dramatically different meanings and connotations in different cultures (Beyer, 2003). They are laden with historical, political, social, and theological implications that are unique to every given country and the subcultures there within. Thus, making cross-national comparisons of beliefs between markedly different societies is tenuous, at best.( ii ) ---
indeed, this is a substantial problem, and those of us who study religion recognize that we are constantly in the process of defining the object of study, and even that there simply is no single object of study. in other words, in some very important ways, there is no such thing as "religion". now, obviously, we think there is something we're working on. but what exactly is it?
in my classes, i try to get students to think about whether (certain forms of) buddhism (or taoism) is an atheistic religion. this forces them to wonder about what makes a religion a religion, and many of them come up with the more thoughtful but nevertheless sophomoric response that as long as they "believe in something higher", that's religious -- indeed, they think it's ok to call that "something higher" by the name/term "god". maybe it is, but that's a far cry from believing in a personal god who demands you go to church every week, pray at least daily, and spend your time in the kitchen/confine your wife to the kitchen.
wojtek, i presume you've read talal asad's critique of geertz? then you have an idea what i'm after, here. people in different times and different places mean different things by religion and god and spirituality and magic and whatever. it's a real problem for studying the phenomenon (er, phenomena) and for correlating the results of different studies and different analyses.
it also usually means there's some kind of agenda, because your agenda determines the definition(s) you choose to use. i'm not saying that's bad. i'm just saying it's something we need to be aware of as we process the stuff we read. it affects our conversations with each other as activists (religious or otherwise) and it affects our conversations with people we may want to organize who self-identify as "religious" or as "believing in god".
and i am not at all suggesting that the argument zuckerman makes is null and void. i still need to spend more time mulling it over, but he looks pretty thorough to me. it's very interesting.
j
-- http://www.brainmortgage.com/
Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
- Alfred North Whitehead