The Role of 'Belief' in the Study of Religion: A Response to W. C. Smith

Abstract

The concept of belief as an interpretive category in the scholarly study of religion has recently come under heavy criticism from various quarters. The concept of belief, it is argued, is not merely useless in the task of interpreting the meaning of the historical religious traditions, but rather is positively misleading. Consequently, a 'call' is issued to students of religion to move beyond belief in their attempts to understand the religious dimension of man's existence. The 'call' has been sounded in the past in such work as R. Bellah's Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post-Traditional World, (I970); and R. Needham's Belief, Language and Experience, (I972); and more recently in D. Z. Phillip's Religion without Explanation, (1976); and W. C. Smith's Belief and History, (I977). It is not an easy matter to classify and analyze the arguments raised against 'belief' in these and other works. They are often confused in such a way that it is difficult to determine whether the criticism is the product of empirical reasoning, philosophical argument, or intuitive or religious insight. It is extremely important, to respond, however, for the 'call' to move beyond 'belief' amounts to a 'call' for a revolution in the study of religion for a radical change of paradigm for interpreting the meaning of religious phenomena. 1 And like most revolutions, the undertaking would be costly. The initial step in such a response, given the presently irresolvable complexities in the multi-