next »

[husqvarna]

...

As far as I am concerned, religion—whether it is the intellectual pursuit or habitual practice thereof—is a deeply personal matter, and in a society where religion is shoved down our throats on a daily basis...

So which is it? Personal or out there in society?

cghanbar seems to be describing religion as a societal issue but prescribing it as a personal one.  The trouble comes when we begin to ask why the prescription should be as such.  Do we want to change religion into something it currently isn't, or do we want to change society into something it currently isn't?  Is this warranted?  On what grounds? 

Is cghanbar's prescription a result of some "secular", "civic" value?  Can we really say that any such value is distinguishable from a civic relgion?  Obviously cghanbar has a history with religious institutions and hu's views come largely from that.  Should we take this into account before accepting hu's views wholeheartedly?  I'm just concerned that those who see religion as wholly a "private" matter are simply instituting their own civil, secular "religion" in order to make the argument... which is fine as long as we are clear that this is what's happening.

[husqvarna]

merce, I'll be sure to check out your thread on liberal arts.  Definitely others should go there too if they haven't already.

[daurousseau]

Let's define "colleges" as liberal arts colleges. Let's leave out universities, unless they have humanities breadth courses that are designed to cover the field.

Then yes, there should be learning about the anthropology and sociology of religions. Is that religious studies? Probably not, since teaching beliefs or dogma is not an essential part. But students should learn about Jahveh and Dionysus. They should learn who actually wrote the various "holy" scriptures of Judaism, Christianty and Islam, and under what conditions. And they should learn the intellectual history of Europe, which would include, for example, a bit of Acquinas, Pascal, Descartes, Feuerbach, Nietzsche.

There's nothing to be gained from talking about religion to people who don't even know where their ideas came from in human history. And there's no point in learning about religion without learning its epidemiology.

[husqvarna]

Then yes, there should be learning about the anthropology and sociology of religions. Is that religious studies? Probably not, since teaching beliefs or dogma is not an essential part.

I've forgotten whether this was discussed here or on another post (and I'm too lazy to read back and see!)  At least in the US, religious studies departments are a mix of various soc, anthro, psych, etc. scholars of religion.  Unless we're dealing with an affiliated or semi-affiliated college that doesn't have a theology department but still employs the odd theologian, for the most part anyone teaching dogma is in a theology department.  I suppose there may be a comparative religions course that will teach the dogmas of various religions, but I would think of that as different from the confessing professor.

By the way, *I'm* fine with using words like "dogma", "confessing", "faith", etc. because I'm a Christian and it fits what I teach.  I recognize that these are not the ideal terms for everyone, though.  Are there any non-Christian religion scholars reading who find fitting their square pegs in these round holes difficult or frustrating?  Because although I've used these terms, I do want people to know that I recognize they are not universal.  These are just the terms that have been floating around already, so I run with them.

[goingcrazy]

It should be offered but not required.

[daurousseau]

SUCCESS REQUIRES SACRIFICE!

What is success?

[dogvomit]

As a science prof, I believe that some kind of education experience that demonstrates the philosophical and foundation differences between religious and scientific proccess and dogma would be an excellent addition to any curriculum.  On the other hand, if students want to learn about a specific contemporary religion, maybe they should go to a parochial school (sp?). 

Just thinking out loud

[merce]

As a science prof, I believe that some kind of education experience that demonstrates the philosophical and foundation differences between religious and scientific proccess and dogma would be an excellent addition to any curriculum.  On the other hand, if students want to learn about a specific contemporary religion, maybe they should go to a parochial school (sp?). 

Just thinking out loud

Science isn't "All that" sweetheart.
Religion can stand on its own as a discipline without the need to compare it to science.
And if students want to learn ABOUT a religion then they should be in university. If they want to learn THROUGH a religion then they should go to seminary or whatever. I think you have things backwards.

[invinoveritas]

merce,

You are sadly mistaken.. Religion cannot 'stand on its own without the need to compare it with science' as you say.  That is a bold (and, quite frankly, ridiculous) assertion and you offered nothing to back it up.  Many, if not all religious claims, are about 'what is real' and 'what is true'.  Since science has been the most tested and successful discipline (while admittedly fallible) in offering answers to these questions and religious claims have failed horribly in this regard, it is absurd to assert that 'religion can stand on its own' as if it has some special access to knowledge that is inaccessible to rational and experimental inquiry. 

Do you really think you can defend your preposterous assertion or were you just spouting nonsense?

[merce]

merce,

You are sadly mistaken.. Religion cannot 'stand on its own without the need to compare it with science' as you say.  That is a bold (and, quite frankly, ridiculous) assertion and you offered nothing to back it up.  Many, if not all religious claims, are about 'what is real' and 'what is true'.  Since science has been the most tested and successful discipline (while admittedly fallible) in offering answers to these questions and religious claims have failed horribly in this regard, it is absurd to assert that 'religion can stand on its own' as if it has some special access to knowledge that is inaccessible to rational and experimental inquiry. 

Do you really think you can defend your preposterous assertion or were you just spouting nonsense?

I meant Religion can stand alone as a discipline.
We're talking about Religious Studies courses, right?
We don't compare mythology to "science" in Classics classes.
We don't discuss modern science when we talk about windmills in the middle ages.
We don't turn to modern science to make sense of the Enlightenment and French Revolution.

[husqvarna]

Since science has been the most tested and successful discipline (while admittedly fallible) in offering answers to these questions and religious claims have failed horribly in this regard, it is absurd to assert that 'religion can stand on its own' as if it has some special access to knowledge that is inaccessible to rational and experimental inquiry. 

speaking of bold and ridiculous statements...

[antifessor]

.

[invinoveritas]

merce,

Yes...you can study religion without comparing it to science. Religious studies courses often do this.  Since you prefaced your remark with 'science isn't all that sweetheart', you clearly implied that frogman's suggestion was a bad idea or not worth investigating.  I think frogman's suggestion was excellent.....it gets to the heart of a very important matter rather than ignoring it.  Religion should be 'put under the microscope' and examined just like any other natural phenomenon.  Just because people get all silly about religion doesn't mean that it has any kind of 'privileged status' that should shield it from critical analysis.

hvernon,

How exactly was that statement ridiculous?  It is true.  Anyone with any understanding of history must admit that it is a fact.  You might not like it, but the facts speak for themselves. Science has proven itself time and time again as the most successful organized discipline for understanding the world.  It's practical effects are everywhere and you use them everyday.  Religion does not have any 'special access to knowledge' and many (though not all) religious claims have been shown up for the imaginary constructs they are by scientific discoveries and the rational pursuit of truth throughout the ages.  I'd like to see how you might try to deny this....if you honestly think it is a ridiculous claim.

[goingcrazy]

What is success? Success it what you feel makes you successful. Having a child, teaching a class that you have dreamt of teaching forever, finishing a dissertation --- I was studying for my comps when I put that there!

[husqvarna]

(rolls up hu's sleeves)... alright, arete1, I'll see what I can do.  This challenge is actually a nice break from the abortion thread.  Things seem so friendly here!

If we're talking about "the world is a disc floating on a turtle's back" kind of religious knowledge, then certainly, you're right.  Many religious myths to explain the universe have been left in the dust.  (Although I would say that these myths aren't so different from other scientific accounts of the four elements, etc.  If we're going to dismiss these religious truth claims we should recognize that they go out the window with lots of silly scientific ideas as well).

Besides this, though, how can you scientifically prove me wrong if I tell you that the distinction of the Holy Spirit's spiration "ex patre" or "ex patre filioque" is small yet important because of its implications for both subordinationism within the immanent trinity and the danger of subsequent heavy-handed christologies?  You can't.  You'll either leave that discussion to the theologians or dismiss it as "imaginary".  In either case, you're not making a very strong stand for science as the most useful discipline for pursuing knowledge of the world unless you rule out theological truth from the beginning because of the epistemological rules you draw up, in which case... of course you're going to win the argument.  Religious people can do that too... we call it fundamentalism.