宗教（religion）這個概念，以及其關連到的人類活動，是個相當晚近的現象，是個歷經爭議、批判與建構的結果。在漫長的建構/解構過程中，某些舊有的知識/社會連結，被斬離了；某些新的網絡被架構起來。甚至，某些類似宗教活動的生活細節，備受質疑，最終游離在宗教這個概念範疇的邊緣地帶，同時被歸類成巫術、迷信或不理性的狂熱心理狀態。
1851年，英國政府做了歷史上第一次的宗教普查，此次普查是劃時代的，調查內容遍及各個基督教宗派的勢力範圍、組織活動，以及個人參與宗教的頻率。之後，歐洲各國也跟隨著英國的步調，做出範圍不一，內容有別的宗教普查。歷經多年，時至1970年代，許多宗教研究者試著利用人口學、社會學或經濟學的概念工具，再一次回顧1850年代之後至今日的宗教生活。 從諸多後見之明可知，1850年代對歐洲的宗教生活，是個奇異的時段：一方面，它是個宗教興盛，新興宗教實驗勃興，宗教活動全球播散的年代，也是”贖罪的年代”，但另一方面，它卻揭露出宗教及其影響力走向式微的各式徵兆； 一方面，宗教拓展其勢力，遍及全球各個角落，宗教無疑地是解放世界的關鍵力量，但另一方面，宗教卻遭遇到前所未有的批判，有些知識人甚至提早宣告宗教的死亡，”世俗主義”似乎可以代稱歐洲真正且值得追尋的未來。
過往（至少遲至1980年代，或者1990年代），宗教研究者總是誤置了上述宗教變遷的歷史過程，認為所有的歷史情結不過彰顯出”世俗化的趨勢”，宗教從興盛走向衰亡。然而，當我們更細緻地檢視相關歷史證據以及宗教觀察，則不免發現，世俗化一說除了有些缺乏證據以外，很顯然忽略了宗教與現代社會之間的複雜關係。其中問題自然不在於，世俗化一說是指稱”宗教的社會影響力隨著現代社會的到來，而呈現岀式微的趨勢”，也不在於”宗教組織不再能夠維持舊有社會功能，不再能收取稅賦，施行帶有宗教色彩的社會福利，更不在於”個人不再願意持續且密集地參與宗教活動”。真正關鍵之處應該在於，所謂的宗教活動在世俗化的過程中，歷經了前所未有的轉型，而轉型之後的結果正是”現代宗教概念與宗教生活”（或簡稱為”我們熟知的宗教生活”）。更簡單的說，遲至19世紀結束前，宗教生活之於整個社會或單一個人，絕不受限在”利益無涉的個人虔信”，”宗教事物也不只涉及超越性或神聖性”。
換言之，對比起1800年與1900年，對於1800年之前的歐洲人來說，宗教生活本身既是一種經濟活動，也是一種政治活動；它捍衛著人們的生老病死，也提供人們對抗政治、金錢所需要的工具；它是一組符號體系，即便帶有魔法色彩，卻也深具理性，有著樣態特異的世界觀與宇宙觀；它不但收取稅金，強制信徒提供勞役，擁有龐大地產與佃農，同時也擔負起社會福利與道德/法律裁量的功能。但是，時至1900年，上述諸多功能與角色已然面臨挑戰，甚至遭遇到功能喪失的命運。於是，某種新興的宗教生活與宗教概念儼然逐步地成為人們生活的現實。這種新式的宗教生活與宗教概念正是我們今日所熟知的、所習以為常的生活框架。 此時起，所謂的宗教必然是涉及超越性、絕對性的神聖經驗；宗教是關乎個人虔信的，任何訴諸強制與暴力致使個人改宗的行徑是不被容許的；宗教不能許諾現實中的利益，假宗教與巫術才會應允物質利益；宗教是無涉實際政治的；宗教是公平的、是平等的；宗教的本質是去除迷信，靈性上的自由與解放是宗教生活中最終極的目的；偉大的宗教是有傳統的，有經典的。
雖說上述的歷史轉變是劇烈且顯著的，但這轉變卻是持續一個多世紀的產物。回溯其中的轉變歷程，19世紀至20世紀上半葉的宗教研究與宗教批判是值得關注與商榷的，此一時段是現代宗教概念蘊生的關鍵期。更具體的說，跨渡漫長的19世紀，宗教生活與宗教概念順隨著現代化的眾多歷史變革（例如，人口大幅成長、都市化、工業化、資本主義的發展…等），乃展現出抗拒、適應與創新的趨勢，最終成就了今日我們熟知的”現代宗教概念”。 參照於此，如果我們能夠透過更加動態的視角，檢視相關證據與論述，則可發現，一些常被視為無法回答的疑惑，其實能由此獲得另一種理解的機會：為何世界諸宗教總是不脫基督教、伊斯蘭、佛教、印度教、儒教…等幾大信仰體系？ 論證某種信仰活動是否是屬於”宗教”時，為何總涉及利害無涉、政教有別、個人虔信…等判準？ “民間宗教”為何常被視為一種”非宗教”、”類宗教”或”假宗教”的範疇？
關於實際課程安排，本課程主要可分成三個部分：第一部份針對19世紀至20世紀初幾位重要的宗教社會學家（Marx等人）。第二部分乃關注到Tylor...等人類學或民俗研究學者是如何討論從巫術/儀式到宗教的歷史演化過程。第三部份則將焦點安置在，宗教研究作為一門科學/學科是如何為研究者所建構並延伸的（Eliade等人）。The concept of religion, and its associated human activities, is a recent phenomenon and the result of a historical dispute, criticism and construction. During the long construction/solving process, some old knowledge/social links were separated; some new networks were structured. Even some life details similar to religious activities are doubted and eventually wander around the edge of the concept of religion, while being considered a violent mental state of witchcraft, superstition or irrationality.
In 1851, the British government conducted the first religious census in history. This census was planned and examined the scope of efforts, organizational activities, and personal participation in religions. Afterwards, European countries also followed the British pace and conducted religious census of different scopes and different contents. Over the years, by the 1970s, many religious researchers tried to use conceptual tools of demographic, social or economics to review religious life since the 1850s and today. From the perspective of many things, we can see that the religious life in Europe in the 1850s was a strange period: on the one hand, it was an era of religious prosperity, a new religious experience and a global spread of religious activities, and it was also an "era of guilt", but on the other hand, it revealed various signs of the decline of religion and its influence; on the one hand, religion expanded its power and spread across all corners of the world, and religion was undoubtedly the key force for liberating the world, but on the other hand, religion encountered unprecedented criticism, and some intellectuals even declared the death of religion early, "secularism" seemed to represent the real and worth pursuing future in Europe.
In the past (at least until the 1980s, or the 1990s), religious researchers have always misplaced the above-mentioned historical process of religious changes, believing that all historical situations only reveal the "temporary trend", and religion has gone from prosperity to decline. However, when we look at related historical evidence and religious observation more carefully, we inevitably find that secularization, in addition to some lack of evidence, clearly ignores the complex relationship between religion and modern society. The problem is naturally not. Secularization refers to the fact that "religious social influence has shown a trend of decline" as the arrival of modern society, nor is it that "religious organizations can no longer maintain social functions, no longer collect taxes, implement social welfare with religious colors, and no longer lies in "persons no longer willing to continue and intensively participate in religious activities." The real key should be the so-called religion. In the process of secularization, religious activities have undergone unprecedented transformation, and the result after transformation is "modern religious concepts and religious life" (or simply "religious life we are familiar with"). To put it simply, until the end of the 19th century, religious life is never limited to "personal piety in interests" and "religious things do not only involve transcendence or divineness".
In other words, compared with 1800 and 1900, for the Europeans before 1800, religious life itself is both an economic activity and a political activity; it defends people's birth, old age, sickness and death, and provides the tools people need to fight against politics and money. ;It is a symbol system, even if it is magical, it is very rational and has a unique world and universe view; it not only charges taxes, but also enforces believers to provide labor, possess land and tenant farming, but also bears social welfare and moral/legal discretion. However, by 1900, the above-mentioned multi-functions and roles had faced challenges and even suffered the loss of function. As a result, a new religious life and religious concept gradually became the reality of people's lives. This new style of religious life and religious concept is exactly what we are familiar with today and think is the common framework of life. From this time on, the so-called religion must involve transcendent and absolute divine experience; religion is about personal piety, and any act of refusal to force and violence to cause personal conversion is not tolerated; religion cannot allow real interests, and only false religion and witchcraft will allow material interests; religion is not involved in actual politics; religion is fair and equal; the essence of religion is to remove superstition, and spiritual freedom and liberation are the ultimate purpose of religious life; great religions are traditional and classic.
Although the above historical transformation is dramatic and significant, this transformation is a continuous multi-century product. Looking back at the transformation process, religious research and religious criticism in the first half of the 19th century to the 20th century are worthy of attention and discussion. This period is the key period for the modern religious concept of Su Sheng. To put it more specifically, through the long 19th century, religious life and religious concepts have been smoothly transformed by modern historical changes (such as the significant growth of population, urbanization, industrialization, development of capitalism, etc.), and have shown resistance, adaptability and innovation trends, and finally achieved the "modern religious concept" we are familiar with today. Referring to this, if we can view relevant certifications and discussions through a more dynamic perspective, we can find that some questions that are often seen as unanswered can actually gain another opportunity to understand: Why does world religion always eliminate several major belief systems such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc.? When judging whether a certain belief activity belongs to "religion", why do it always involve judgments such as indifferent interests, differences in politics and religion, and personal belief? Why is "people's religion" often regarded as a "non-religious", "categorical religion" or "fake religion"?
Regarding the actual course arrangement, this course can be divided into three parts: the first part points to several important religious sociologists from the 19th century to the early 20th century (Marx et al.). The second part focuses on how human or folklore researchers such as Tylor discuss the historical evolution process from witchcraft/character to religion. The third part places the focus on how religious studies as a science/science is constructed and extended to researchers (Eliade et al.).
主要參考書目：
Durkheim, Emile. and Marcel Mauss (1903/2005). 原始分類. 上海：上海人民出版社。
Eliade, Mircea. (1958/2002). 神聖與世俗. 北京：華夏出版社。
Frazer, Geroge. (1998). 金枝：巫術與宗教之研究. 北京：大眾文藝出版社。
Freud, Sigmund. (1927/2003) 一個幻想的未來。收錄於 一種幻想的未來及文明及其不滿．河北教育出版社。
Marx, Karl. (2009). 論猶太人問題，馬克思恩格斯文集，10卷本，第一卷，頁，21-55。
Mauss, Marcel. (2006). 巫術的一般理論，桂林：廣西師範大學出版社。
Muller, F. Max. (1989). 宗教學導論. 上海：上海人民出版社。
Tylor, Edward Burnett.（1871/2005）. 原始文化. 桂林：廣西師範大學。
Weber, Max. (2007). 新教倫理與資本主義精神. 韋伯作品集Ⅻ. 桂林：廣西師範大學出版社。
延伸閱讀：
Arnal, William., and Russell T. McCutcheon. (2012). The Sacred Is the Profane: The Political Nature of "Religion". Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asad, Talal. (1993). Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Asad, Talal. (2018). Secular Translations: Nation-State, Modern Self, and Calculative Reason. New York: Columbia University Press.
Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, Catherine. (1992). Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bell, Catherine. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Capps, Walter H. (1995). Religious Studies: The Making of a Discipline. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Chidester, David. (1996). Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in Southern Africa. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Cipriani, Roberto. (2015). Sociology of Religion: An Historical Introduction. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Dubuisson, D. (2003). The Western Construction of Religion: Myths, Knowledge, and Ideology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Eliade, Mircea. (1978-88). A History of Religious Ideas; vol. I-III, trans. by Willard R Trask. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Ellwood, Robert S. (1999). Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell. New York: State University of
Main reference books:
Durkheim, Emile. and Marcel Mauss (1903/2005). Original Category. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.
Eliade, Mircea. (1958/2002). Holy and the Secular. Beijing: Huaxia Press.
Frazer, Geroge. (1998). Jinzhi: Research on witchcraft and religion. Beijing: Public Arts Publishing House.
Freud, Sigmund. (1927/2003) A fantasy future. It is included in a fantasy future and civilization and its dissatisfaction. Hebei Education Press.
Marx, Karl. (2009). Discussion on the Questions of the Jewish Person, Works of Marx and Engels, 10 volumes, Vol. 1, Pages, 21-55.
Mauss, Marcel. (2006). General Theory of Witchcraft, Guilin: Guangxi Master University Press.
Muller, F. Max. (1989). Discussion on Religious Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai People's Publishing House.
Tylor, Edward Burnett. (1871/2005). Primitive Culture. Guilin: Guangxi Master University.
Weber, Max. (2007). New Education Ethics and Capitalism Spirit. Vober's Works Ⅻ. Guilin: Guangxi Teachers University Press.
Extended reading:
Arnal, William., and Russell T. McCutcheon. (2012). The Sacred Is the Profane: The Political Nature of "Religion". Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Asad, Talal. (1993). Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Asad, Talal. (2018). Secular Translations: Nation-State, Modern Self, and Calculative Reason. New York: Columbia University Press.
Beckford, James A. (2003). Social Theory and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, Catherine. (1992). Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bell, Catherine. (1997). Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Capps, Walter H. (1995). Religious Studies: The Making of a Discipline. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Chidester, David. (1996). Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in Southern Africa. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Cipriani, Roberto. (2015). Sociology of Religion: An Historical Introduction. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Dubuisson, D. (2003). The Western Construction of Religion: Myths, Knowledge, and Ideology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Eliade, Mircea. (1978-88). A History of Religious Ideas; vol. I-III, trans. by Willard R Trask. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Ellwood, Robert S. (1999). Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell. New York: State University of
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 課堂討論課堂討論 Class discussion |
20 | 出席與上課之討論情況，將視為評分之指標。 |
| 指定讀本報告指定讀本報告 Specify to read this report |
20 | 針對課程指定讀本，以討論小組為單位，進行文本導讀，原則上，報告時間為20分鐘左右。每組原則上由三位課程參與者組成，於第一次上課時，進行分組。 |
| critical memo的繳交critical memo的繳交 Critical memo's submission |
60 | 修課之學生至少繳交四次的critical memo。每份critical memo以2500字為限，分數占比為學期總成績的15%。此項評分以個人為單位。 |
