Frazer and his insult to religious sensibilities

"In studying religion, a religious person would disavow the scientific method and naturalism: the very nature of religion is that it requires an appeal to the supernatural, for religion, according to Frazer’s definition, involves a “propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to control the course of nature and of human life”. For example, according to Sikhism, Nanak was appointed God’s Supreme Guru and founded the religion with the help of divine revelation, yet applying a naturalistic perspective, some scholars see Sikhism as a syncretic blend of Muslim and Hindu influences. Assuming naturalism might seem unfair to the religions being studied, but it is an assumption shared by all the social sciences, and is the only epistemological framework by which we can compare different religions objectively, since it relies on objective facts which may be verified...

Does one’s own faith affect one’s scholarly understanding of religion? To answer this question, one can read how Bruce M. Metzger, a Biblical scholar and a believer to boot, opined that although many elements of Christianity which Frazer might label survivals – resurrected savior-gods, sacramental meals and the initiating of new members through a baptism of sorts - were shared by the religions and Mysteries of the ancient world, he concludes that Christianity, the newer religion, did not engage in substantive borrowing. One cannot help but wonder if his religion had affected his analyses, for such an argument would hold no water in a court hearing on patent or copyright infringement.

It is possible for one to have a religion and critically analyze religion in general, yet one has to guard vigorously against cognitive dissonance setting in when what one knows academically and intellectually conflicts with what one believes religiously. Detachment from one’s own religious perspective is essential, but this is not always possible. Being religious is one matter, but it should not affect the way one studies religion, for that does a disservice not only to the religious scholar himself, but the academic community at large and perhaps also humanity in general. In the final analysis, academic rigour in the study of religion might best be ensured by considering the input of non-religious scholars, as well as scholars from different religions."