Molloy, on the other hand, has a totally different design when it comes to defining religion. There are many things Molloy discusses that Kessler does not even bring up in his work. He begins with a totally different objective than Kessler. He wonders on the sources of religion and what purposes it serves. Eh thinks the "most basic function of religion is to respond to our natural wonder about ourselves and the cosmos - our musings on a starry night. Religion helps us relate to the unknown universe around us by answering the basic questions of who we are, where we come from, and where we are going." (Molloy, pg.3). he gives numerous examples of scholar's opinions and beliefs on religions and the definition of religion, among whom are Sigmund Freud, William James, Rudolf Otto, and E.B. Taylor. Molloy goes into greater depth than Kessler on just about every topic he discuses. He gives characteristics of religion based on the question "What, then - if not a common set of elements - must be present for something to be called a religion?" (Molloy, pg. 5). He gives eight elements that organizations we call religion show in some way. He also discusses the sacred and symbolism and how they fit into most religions and Kessler does not even cover these subjects. One major difference between Molloy and Kessler is Molloy's discussion on patterns among religions. The first is a focus on beliefs and practices, the second id religious views of the world and life, and the third is religious view of male and female. He seems to have a good knowledge of all these issues and is very detailed in each. He seems to be supporting hi definitions of religion while Kessler only guides the reader to define religion on their own terms. .
These two writers also have similarities when conversing about religion. They both discuss biases: Kessler about western, value, theory, and gender biases and Molloy about bringing assumptions from life and personal religion to the study.