The Myth-Ritualist Theory of Religion

According to the myth-ritualist theory, religion is primitive science: through myth and ritual, which operate together and constitute its core, religion magically manipulates the world. Many of the leading theories of religion present alternative views of the relationship and function of myths and rituals. Even if false, the myth-ritualist theory is valuable in suggesting aspects of religion which might otherwise get overlooked. Similarly, charting its alternatives suggests other aspects of religion which might also be missed. A common assumption in the social scientific study of religion is that theories of religion are useful only insofar as they are true. Since most of the classic and contemporary social scientific theories of religion have proved at best moot and at worst false, they often get dismissed as worthless. Yet even when false they are valuable for being suggestive. They point out aspects of religion which might otherwise be overlooked. Whether or not Freud's theory, for example, exaggerates the place of sexuality in religion, it at least suggests a link between religion and sexuality. Whether or not Freud's own explanation of the link is correct, it at least prompts one to explain the link in some fashion. The myth-ritualist theory of religion is useful in the same way. In the first place, the theory, which will be described in detail, suggests exactly the importance of both myths and rituals in religion. Modern skepticism toward the two, especially toward rituals, has perhaps resulted in an underestimation of their significance, especially in modern religion. By making myths and rituals the heart of religion and by making rituals at least as important as myths, the theory compels one to reconsider the status of both - in modern as well as primitive religion. In the second place, the myth-ritualist theory challenges the ordinary assumption of a gap in religion between beliefs and practices. By incorporating myths into rituals, the theory suggests, by extrapolation, that beliefs and practices generally are more united than separate. Rather than leading to practice, belief becomes part of practice. In the third place, the myth-ritualist theory questions anew the relationship between religion and science. If the nineteenth century witnessed the clash between religion and science, the twentieth has supposedly witnessed their reconciliation. Religion and science, it is widely preached, are compatible - not because they coincide but because they run askew. Where, it is typically said, science explains the physical world, religion provides the meaning of life. By treating religion as science, the myth-ritualist theory suggests that the two may in fact be rivals. Probably the best way to begin presenting the myth-ritualist theory is by describing its scientific-like view of religion. There are really two theories of religion as scientific-like. The better known one, called the intellectualist theory, considers religion