Sociology which counts on gods? Why is symmetrical approach in the study of religions not a theological perspective
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2012 |
| Type | Appeared in Conference without Proceedings |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | In my contribution I would like to show that although there really is the need to take 'gods' into account in terms of the symmetrical approach (in case our data mention them), it does not mean that it is truly the theologically-oriented approach. While theology or other theologically-oriented approaches to the study of religions (for example phenomenology of religion) presuppose the existence of God (gods), supernatural entities or sacred as an ontological category, the symmetrical approach to the study of religions does not automatically do so. It consistently focuses only on what people do and reflect. Consequently we might even consider 'gods' to be real existing entities in the given situation. And that is because people talk about gods employed in their lives and also that they might communicate with them. Nevertheless it does not mean that we need to pre-suppose their ontological existence. We cannot have double standards for their existence and non-existence. Therefore the matter is not to normatively assume or by ourselves prove the ontological status of 'supernatural' entities, but not to exclude such entities from the survey situation automatically, in case the data available (reflections and behaviour of people) discuss them. |