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, father's 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