Breaking down the question
The question asks for a critical comparison — not a mere description — of two foundational intellectualist theories of religion. E.B. Tylor and Max Muller both belonged to the nineteenth-century evolutionary and philological tradition, yet they located the origin of religion in different human experiences. The command word "critically compare" demands that you identify points of convergence, contrast their explanatory logic, and evaluate the limitations of each.
How to approach it
Begin by placing both thinkers within the intellectualist school, which sought the rational origins of religious belief in early human reasoning. Present Tylor's theory of animism and Max Muller's naturism side by side, then draw out the shared assumptions and the crucial differences. Close with a critical appraisal informed by later scholars. Signposting the comparison through a clear thematic structure earns far more than a biographical account.
Model answer
E.B. Tylor, in Primitive Culture (1871), advanced animism — the belief in spiritual beings — as the minimum definition and the origin of religion. Reflecting on dreams, death and visions, early humans inferred a soul or anima that could exist independently of the body, and extended this notion to animals, plants and natural objects. Religion thus evolved from animism through polytheism to monotheism.
Max Muller, by contrast, traced religion to naturism — the awe and wonder aroused by natural phenomena such as the sun, the dawn and storms. Unable to comprehend these mighty forces, early humans personified and deified them. His well-known idea of a "disease of language" held that abstract names for natural forces were gradually mistaken for the names of gods, generating mythology.
Both thinkers shared an evolutionary, intellectualist and comparative method, treating religion as a product of early human reasoning about experience. Yet they differed sharply: Tylor grounded religion in the psychological experience of the soul, whereas Muller grounded it in the sensory experience of nature and the corruption of language.
Critically, both theories remain speculative and unverifiable, reconstructing origins without evidence. They are ethnocentric, judging tribal belief by Victorian rationality, and reductionist, ignoring the emotional and social functions of religion later emphasised by Durkheim and Malinowski. Muller's philological method was especially criticised as conjectural.
For a fuller treatment, see sociological theories of religion.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners reward candidates who move beyond narrating animism and naturism to a genuine comparison of assumptions and a balanced critique. Citing Primitive Culture and the phrase "disease of language" signals precise reading, while linking the critique to Durkheim and Evans-Pritchard demonstrates real theoretical range.