Comment on Hunt's "Mythological-Symbolic Religious Commitment: The LAM Scales"

Abstract

P rofessor Hunt's contribution to measurement of religious attitudes is of highest importance. His break with old simplistic and literal approach to measuring such attitudes ought to mark a decisive turning point in religious research. If I presume to offer this comment on his article (Ma-rch issue: 42-52) it is because I feel that one must go further in direction he has indicated. To some extent Hunt's own strictures against previous researchers can be turned on his own work. It is perfectly proper to insist that respondents be given a chance to interpret religious symbols in a nonliteral fashion. Unfortunately, Hunt only permits them one kind of interpretation. As a sociologist trained in survey research with some theological background, I find it impossible to answer his questions. In mother tongue we would have said addo tertiam. But Hunt already has tertiam; I must say addo quartam. The symbolic or mythical interpretation which Hunt makes available is largely immanent in its orientation. It provides a this-wordly interpretation of religious symbols, mostly in humanistic categories. This is certainly one possible interpretation but it reduces religious symbols to general ethical principles and to some considerable extent interprets away their transcendental implications. It is, 1 should think, perfectly possible to symbolically interpret myths in such a way that transcendental referent remains. Under such circumstances, symbols are viewed not merely and not even primarily as ethical norms. They are seen rather as poetic descriptions of the way things are, to use Clifford Geertz's characteristically elegant phrase. The symbol is seen as a statement about nature of Really Real and, as such, both a statement of and a path to transcendent. Those of us who take this approach to religion find that none of items in most of Hunt's triads represent our position-one which incidentally seems most faithful to original intent of symbol. There may not be many of us, but then that is a question for research and not an answer to be assumed in scale construction. As it is now, only literalists are given an opportunity to vote for transcendent.