Q: Critically compare the views of E.B. Tylor and Max Muller on Religion.

Model Answer:

E.B. Tylor and Max Muller: Comparison of Views on Religion

E.B. Tylor and Max Muller were two influential figures in the early study of religion from an anthropological perspective. While both sought to understand the origins and nature of religion, they had some notable differences in their views:

E.B. Tylor:

– Tylor is considered the founder of cultural anthropology. In his book “Primitive Culture” (1871), he proposed an evolutionary theory of religion.
– He argued that religion originated from animism – the belief that all things, including inanimate objects, contain spirits or souls. For Tylor, animism was the earliest and most primitive form of religion.
– As human reasoning developed, animism evolved into more complex religious beliefs like polytheism and eventually monotheism. Thus, Tylor saw religion progressing through distinct stages.
– He believed the main function of religion was to explain the world, and that it would eventually be replaced by science as human knowledge advanced.

Max Muller:

– Muller was a philologist who studied the languages and texts of ancient cultures, especially in India.
– Unlike Tylor, Muller did not see religion as originating from animism. Instead, he proposed a nature-worship theory, arguing that religion began when humans personified the forces of nature as deities.
– He coined the term “henotheism” to describe the worship of a supreme deity without denying the existence of other gods, which he saw as characteristic of early Vedic religion.
– Muller emphasized the importance of comparative mythology and philology in tracing the historical development of religions. He believed uncovering the earliest religious concepts required studying the oldest available texts, like the Rigveda.
– While recognizing parallels between religions, Muller stressed each religion’s uniqueness shaped by the specific culture and environment it emerged from.

Critique and comparison:

– Both Tylor and Muller have been criticized for assuming a unilinear evolution of religion from primitive to advanced forms, a view now rejected by most anthropologists. Their theories reflected 19th century notions of cultural progress.
– Tylor’s animism theory was speculative and not always supported by ethnographic evidence. Many non-literate societies have more complex cosmologies than animism alone.
– Muller’s nature-worship theory was also overly simplistic and ignored other aspects of early religion like ancestor worship, totemism, etc.
– Muller placed too much emphasis on textual sources over field-based anthropological research. His focus on ancient texts made his work less relevant for contemporary religions.
– However, both theorists played a crucial role in establishing anthropology and comparative religion as academic disciplines. Their work inspired further research into the diversity and evolution of religious beliefs across cultures.

In summary, while Tylor and Muller proposed different explanations for the origins of religion – animism vs nature worship – both saw religion evolving through stages, an idea now contested. Despite limitations, their pioneering efforts to study religion scientifically laid the groundwork for modern anthropological approaches.