Two of the most frequent errors that are made about religions are: thinking that because someone can talk with sympathetic knowledge about a particular religion means they must be a believer or at least an apologist for that religion; and alternatively, that unless you are a believer (which is presumed to make you an effective representative for that religion), you cannot speak intelligently about it. There is no reason for either of these assumptions to be true. It is perfectly reasonable to express the point of view or beliefs of people other than yourself, or express your own beliefs and commitments, in ways that are intelligible to others and have enough accuracy that they can be discussed energetically and respectfully in the public square. It would help, of course, to have learned some ways to do this, as a Religious Studies training makes possible. This book will demonstrate several useful examples.

               I find it useful to summarize the presuppositions enabling Religious Studies as a stance of ‘sympathetic critique’ – we must sympathetically understand the beliefs and practices and ways of life that any given religion fosters in its followers so as to comprehend what their religion means, and means to them – but we must also maintain a degree of critical distance. By doing so we can perceive blind-spots in believers’ insights, we see ways any religion may mislead or damage people in certain situations, and can make connections or criticisms that may not be obvious to the religion’s followers.

             Another benefit of a Religious Studies approach to religion is that it enables discussing religion as one facet of larger human contexts, doing so dispassionately, non-judgmentally, and in neutral descriptive terms. The contexts for such discussions include social, political, psychological, economic and family dynamics, and many more. The people involved can be media commentators, historians, public officials, teachers, social analysts, scholars in lots of disciplines, and just as much, ordinary families in daily conversations. The metaphor of ‘mapping reality’ gives us a neutral yet versatile framework within which to compare and contrast different religious options, to assess their varying appeals, strengths and weaknesses.