The sociology of religion combines demographic analysis of religious bodies with attempts to understand the different components of religiosity. Also, some sociological studies of religion are ethnographic in nature; they attempt to understand religious behavior from the viewpoint of the adherents of the religion.

It is important to point out at the beginning of this chapter that sociologists study religion not to disprove or normatively evaluate it but rather to understand it. However, and this is a contentious point in the social scientific study of religion, it is also often the case that studying religion from this perspective can challenge people's religious beliefs because the social scientific study of religion provides alternative explanations for many components of religious experience (e.g., the sources of conversion experiences; see Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis 1993).

Definitions of Religion

The starting point for any study of religion should begin with a definition of the concept. This is particularly important in the study of religion because the definition determines which groups will be included in the analysis. Three general definitions have been proposed, each of which will be discussed briefly. Each definition has its merits and detriments, but what one often finds is that the definition of religion employed by a particular researcher or in the investigation of a particular topic depends on the question being asked.

Sacred versus Profane

Perhaps the most well known definition of religion is that provided by Emile Durkheim (1995). Durkheim argued that the definition of religion hinged on the distinction between things that are sacred (set apart from daily life) and things that are profane (everyday, mundane elements of society). The sacred elements of social life are what make up religion.

For example, the Torah in Judaism is sacred and treated with reverence and respect. The reverential treatment of the Torah would be contrasted with all sorts of more mundane things like cars or toys, which, for most people, are not considered sacred. Yet, the acute reader will be quick to point out that for some, cars (and even toys) are considered sacred and treated almost as reverentially as the Torah is treated in Judaism. This introduces one of the most significant criticisms of this definition - the typology can include things that are not traditionally understood to be religious (like cars or toys). As a result, the definition is extremely broad and can encompass substantial elements of social life. For instance, while most people in the United States would not consider their nationalism to be religious, they do hold the flag, the nation's capitol, and other national monuments to be sacred. Under this definition, nationalism would be considered religion.

Religion as Existential Questioning

Another common definition of religion among social scientists (particularly social psychologists) views religion as any attempt to answer existential questions (e.g., 'Is there life after death?; see Batson, Scheonrade, and Ventis 1993). This definition casts religion in a functional light as it is seen as serving a specific purpose in society. As is the case with the sacred/profane typology, this definition is also often critiqued for being broad and overly encompassing. For instance, using this definition, someone who attends religious services weekly but makes no attempt to answer existential questions would not be considered religious. At the other extreme, an atheist who believes that existence ends with physical death, would be considered religious because he/she has attempted to answer a key existential question.