J. Milton Yinger

A Structural Examination of Religion

If one adopts a definition of religion that emphasizes its function, as in coping with chaos or in expressing ultimate concern (rather than the forms which serve such functions in one system or another), the more crucial measurement question becomes How is a person religious ? rather than How religious is he? Following the analogy of structural linguistics or of natural history, an exploratory effort was made, with open-ended, non-doctrinal questions to tap the natural expression of ultimate concern among a college sample. Students did indicate overwhelmingly their inclinations to pursue basic, permanent questions. Those most expressing such concerns were most likely to belong to groups formed to address such concerns. (Editors abstract.)

Pluralism, Religion, and Secularism

measurement have obscured the study of the relationships among pluralism, religion, and secularism. But the importance of those relationships requires that we attempt to explore them. An emphasis on pluralism, it is suggested, supports religious freedom and tolerance, but it may also support rigidity in religious traditions. Defense of separate religious communities may transfer questions of social integration to secular institutions that are at least potentially anti-religious; or it may promote anomie. Substantial amounts of secularism, so often defined as antithetical to religion, may actually be essential if religiously pluralistic societies are to escape high levels of conflict. Thus religiously heterogeneous societies are confronted with serious dilemmas. The numerous and subtle relationships among pluralism, religion, and secularism call for careful analysis.

A Comparative Study of the Substructures of Religion

This study starts from the premise that religions, in all their diversity, rest upon a common structure: the persistent experience of injustice, suffering, and meaninglessness. The research deals with the responses made by 751 persons from five countries to statements suggesting those themes. Three general hypotheses are tested: 1) that interest in questions of injustice, suffering, and meaninglessness would be widespread among this heterogeneous set of respondents; 2) that the problems would be seen as persistent and intractable; 3) that the belief would prevail, nevertheless, that the problems could finally be dealt with, despite the testimony of experience. Each of these hypothese of six predictor variables was upheld. In addition, several specific hypotheses make predictions regarding the influence of these interests and beliefs, country of citizenship, fathers occupation, religious identity, sex, level of education, and major subject of study, with country, religious identity, and education producing some effects. wo major traditions prevail in the scientific study of religion. One emphasizes the obvious differences in rite, belief, and social organization among religions. Historical, cultural, and structural sources of these differences are examined; their consequences for individuals, societies, and social change are explored. In the other tradition, religion, rather than separate religions, is the object of study. Since superempirical systems of belief and rite are found nearly everywhere, if not universally, it seems reasonable to suppose that they are related to experiences that are humanwide, resting upon some common substructure. Thus, despite the vast differences among the religions of the world, one who examines them from this perspective has no difficulty in seeing them as somehow alike. They fit into the human enterprise in similar ways. If that is true, much can be learned about religion and about life generally by trying to identify the parameters of the substructure and measuring its properties. These two traditions are not mutually exclusive. Indeed they are

A Research Note on Interfaith Marriage Statistics

The distance from a purely quantitative statement of a statistical pattern to a sociological interpretation of that pattern is often quite great. Several steps are sometimes needed to cover that distance. With regard to the interpretation of interfaith marriage statistics, a third refinement is suggested here to add to two previously developed refinements. These should be seen as steps toward greater reliability of measurement; but they still leave us with a definition of intermarriage that fails to take the full range of personality and structural aspects into account. A thorough revision of our conceptions of interfaith marriage is called for.

On the Definition of Interfaith Marriage

The way in which a concept is defined strongly Influences its use in research. There are times when drastic redefinition can open up new questions and powerfully affect our approaches to old questions. Definition of interfaith marriage on the basis of the single criterion of church membership or identification, it is argued, has prevented us from studying the causes and consequences of intermarriage effectively. A multi-variable definition is proposed and its possible effects on research are illustrated.