Beyond Christianity: A Critique of the Rational Choice Theory of Religion from a Weberian and Comparative Religions Perspective

Abstract

The rational choice theorists of religion have attempted to build upa body of transcultural, universalistic generalizations, be~nning with basic axioms of human rationality. The problematics of the perspective's analytical focus on one type of rationality are ma& evident by a comparison u,ith Max Weber's types of action. The influence of the American reli~ous experience is evident in the perspective's formulations and explanations, and conceptual and theoretŸ problems arise when the perspective is applied to non.westem reli~on. The relationstª between otherwor/d/:y rewards and supernatural beings proposed by the theory has to be modified with respect to eastem religions. Monopolista and pluralism take on clifferent meanings in eastern reli~ous contexts, and variaaons in state regulations have different consequermes from those in the west.Like rational choice theorists in other areas of study, rational choice theorists of religion have attempted to build up a body of generalizations which are transcultural and transhistorical. They have adopted methodological individualista, and beginning with the axiom that Ÿ choose in accord with what is of optimal utility for them, they have followed a logico-deductive mode of theorizing characterized by a high level of formularization of definitions and propositions. They write that they are perfectly aware that individuals do not always act rationally, but they claim that their simplifying assumptions and ideal-typical models can generate high-level explanations (Stark and Finke 2000:36-41; Iannaccone 1997).There are a number of general critiques of rational choice theory (Hindess 1988;Mouzelis 1991 Mouzelis :146-53, 1995 which may well be relevant to the application of the perspective to the field of religion. It has been argued, for example, that when rational choice theorists refuse to take into account

Isomorphism, Institutional Parochialism, and the Sociology of Religion

“…Machacek 2003). Conversely, there were also a few articles that were primarily discussions of theory, such as Sharot (2002), that we judged had sufficient discussion of religious ideas-in this case beliefs associated with Hinduism and Buddhism-that they were coded as including a substantive discussion of these faiths.…”

Upstart theories and early American religiosity: A reassessment

“…(Finke and Stark, 1992, p. 17) Many commentators have already made the point that the conceptual apparatus which underlies the analysis of religion by Stark and his associates derives from the experience of religion in the modern West and simply does not hold for religion in other contexts. This limitation would explain why the theory fares so poorly when applied to Eastern societies (see Sharot, 2002) or to pre-modern Europe (see Sommerville, 2002). Still, it might just as easily be argued that the Western cultural origins of the Stark theory helps to explain why the theory works so well when applied to modern Western contexts.…”

Religionsökonomie: eine Übersicht

“…Montgomery (1996) sieht das Hauptproblem der ökonomischen Modelle zur Erklärung von religiösem Verhalten im Umgang mit der Frage der Entstehung des Glaubens und weist auf einen alternativen Ansatz hin, wonach religiöse Glaubensvorstellungen auf nicht‐rationale Weise gebildet werden. Sharot (2002) kritisiert weiter, dass Rational Choice Modelle kaum auf nicht‐westliche Religionen ausgedehnt werden (können), aber dennoch oft einen Anspruch auf universelle Gültigkeit erheben.…”