Post by Athans on Oct 30, 2014 7:09:19 GMT -6
To explain this question I will copy my blog post...
I have addressed this issue in the past, but it appears I am not beating the drum loud enough. In the atheist community we talk about things such as science, facts, education, and logic. Unfortunately I have noticed a disturbing trend. That trend is an almost pure ignorance of religion. I use the term “Religious Studies” and people have never even heard about it. They simply assume I am talking about theology or reading a religious text. This could not be further from the truth. If this is the first assumption you made, I hope you continue reading. If you were unaware there was a scholarly and scientific study of religion, I urge you to continue reading.
First, I will address WHY one should continue to read and why I am speaking about a crucial issue. It comes down to the very basic things atheists say the most…science, logic, knowledge, facts, ect. Any agnostic, atheist, or theist, which engaged in discussions, should have a basic knowledge of the very thing they are talking about. I often here that we “know everything” or that religion is “pointless to study.” Many atheists fail to even define religion correctly or understand the study that goes into it. The blatant refusal to even consider it is the most irritating thing, because look at it this way…What if a creationist told us that there is no point in study science or biology, that we know everything about it we need to know, while at the same time lacking the ability to even define science or biology? The wolves would descend on them. We could all them ignorant, illogical, non-scientific, un-intellectual, and unwilling to learn. The problem is that we are doing the exact same thing. That makes us hypocrites. It is one thing to be ignorant of Religious Studies, but is an entirely different think to flat out ignore it and not even try to understand what it is or see any kind of value. If we want people to see the atheist community as intellectual, the very least we can do is not be total hypocrites. That is why I am writing this. I am writing this to educate and inform people about the area of religious studies.
Before I tell you what Religious Studies (RS) is, I will tell you what it is not. RS is NOT theology. Theology can be a part of religious studies, but the terms are not interchangeable. Theology is the study of deities or other super natural things. In general, it is my opinion that theology is the same as fairiology, or the study of fairies, which is totally pointless, so please do not get the terms confused. Religious Studies is not “faith.” Faith can play a role, but faith can play a role in any type of belief system, such as politics. Religious Studies is also not simply reading a religious text and/or determining if it is “right” or “wrong.” Of course scholars of religion read religious texts, but they attempt to understand them in a number of ways, such as, context, historical aspects, literally (literature,) and other things, such as “what did people think of their texts?” It is not about point out contradictions in the Bible, but explaining why we would expect to find contradictions in the first place. It is not about learning that Noah built an ark, while God flooded the world, but how this story is not new or unique to the Bible. RS also does not mean one is becoming a priest or a pastor, or some other type of religious leader. While RS can lead to that, that requires a M.Div or Masters in Divinity (more fairy study.) RS can actually lead someone to atheism or agnosticism. Last, but certainly not least, RS is not pointless. The scientific and scholar study of anything is hardly what I would call pointless, ESPECIALLY, if that is the exact topic one is talking about.
So what is Religious Studies? Since I could not word it better than Wikipedia, here it is…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies
“Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs,behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.
While theology attempts to understand the nature of transcendent or supernatural forces (such asdeities), religious studies tries to study religious behavior and belief from outside any particular religious viewpoint. Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion.”
Does this show how RS is different from theology? To give even more detail, I will explain the
Religious Studies program at the University of Minnesota…
www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/
At the U of M there are two tracks one can take…
Description of the Track I Major
This track is ideal if you wish to study religion broadly or as a social and cultural force.
• It emphasizes the methodologies of the humanities, social sciences, and arts.
• It addresses questions of expression, psychology, theology or religious thought, as well as public and social policy and the political contexts and ramifications of religion.
This track provides a solid foundation for careers serving diverse communities in public arenas, as well as graduate study in the arts, humanities, or social sciences, or in theological or seminary programs.
For more info on it, you can check out the full link.http://www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/ugrad/track1.html
Here is track 2…
Description of the Track II Major
This track is ideal if you seek in-depth knowledge of a particular religious tradition (for example, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, American Indian, or Hmong).
It emphasizes learning about the selected tradition through study of its untranslated foundational texts.
For this track, you must complete preparatory work through the 4th semester (or the equivalent) of a language appropriate to the specific religious tradition and its sources.
This track provides a solid foundation for careers serving diverse communities in public arenas, as well as graduate study in the arts, humanities, or social sciences, or in theological or seminary programs.
Track II is particularly recommended if you are interested in such topics as the (1) the advanced study of the Bible or the Qur’an both in their origins and their later interpretations, (2) the history of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity before the modern period, or (3) the study of the traditions and texts of the religions of South or East Asia, whether in their countries of origin or in diaspora.
Sample subject and language pairings include but are not limited to:
• Judaism: Hebrew (for scriptural or historical area of concentration), German or Yiddish (e.g., for Jewish literature or 20th-century)
• Islam: Arabic, Turkish
• Christianity: Greek or Latin (for scriptural or medieval concentration), German or Spanish (for relevant geographical/cultural themes)
• Buddhism: Chinese or Japanese
• Hinduism: Sanskrit or Hindi
• American Indian religions: Ojibwe or Dakotahttp://www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/ugrad/track2.html
In both tracks one are required to take this course. Just reading the description of this course will answer many of the questions people may have about the study of Religion. In my opinion, this is the single most important course in the entire program, which is probably why it is a requirement.
RELS 3001 – Theory and Method in the Study of Religion: Critical Approaches to the Study of Religion-
Description: While even a quick glance at any newspaper these days impresses upon us the importance of religion, just how we are to understand and/or learn about religion, given the vast array of ideas, practices, institutions, and communities that lay claim to the category, is anything but straightforward. Scholars from many disciplines study religion, adding another layer of diversity, not to say confusion, to the question of how one might go about learning about religion. This course attempts to sort through the many theories about religion and methods for studying it that have developed over the past century. We will first examine several theories of religion (what ?religion? is and entails and how it works) from such writers as Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Rudolph Otto, Thomas Berger, Jonathan Z. Smith, Talal Asad, Tomoko Masuzawa, and others. Then, we will examine a number of different approaches to or methods for studying it, examining some recent monographs using specific methods to explore topics such as Catholic devotional practices (ethnographic), the Gnostic gospels (historical-textual), American spirituality (sociological), and Hindu nationalism (historical, literary deconstruction).
Two of the required books for this class are Eight Theories of Religion andIntroducing Religion by Daniel L. Pals. These books are the bare basics and clearly show why defining religion is a difficult thing to do. It also shows how people, such as Richard Dawkins, have less knowledge about religion than an undergrad that has taken but one class in the area. This is demonstrated by making statements like “religion is a mental illness” or “religion is a virus.” This is a claim Freud made 100 years ago, which we cover in detail in this class. Even the most incompetent student could understand why a statement like that is not scientific, or is it even a coherent argument. If you want more detail on that, I can provide more another time.
In RS scholars attempt to understand WHY people believe what they do and HOW these beliefs came about in the first place. When I say WHY, I am talking about the origins of religion. Is it sociological, psychological, biological, cultural, something divine, or something we do not even understand? WHY does someone believe “if you accept Jesus you’ll get your evidence?” Is it their method of thinking and reasoning different? Methods of reasoning are clearly different between Scientist and “Religious,” but at the same time a scientist can be “religious.” HOW does this happen? How can someone that studies things with empiricism and the scientific method flat out ignore that and believe something based on faith alone? One would think a scientist could not have “blind faith,” but they do. Do you see the complexity of these questions?”
In the atheist community, so many atheists do not even try to answer these questions. They make general assumptions that are not based on any type of science or study and then have the nerve to go and vilify religious people for doing that exact thing?
Atheists constantly say things like “science says” or “science has disproven” this, that, and the other thing, about religion. The thing about science is when one makes a claim, they have to back it up. You cannot claim something without any actual facts to back it up and say “science says.” That is called be intellectually dishonest. It may sound smart to other people that are ignorant on the topic, but it is clearly obvious when one knows nothing about what they are claiming. I can tell in a few statements if someone has any idea what they are talking about when it comes to religion because I have taken at least one class in the area. Would you not expect someone that has taken a class in evolution to not be able to tell creationism is total BS? You don’t think any dumb dumb that passed college biology could understand that micro and macro evolution are the same thing? You are not fooling anyone if you think studying religion means reading a religious text. You are not fooling anyone if you claim “science said” some BS that was shown to be wrong 100 years ago. You are not fooling anyone if you think theology is the same as religious studies. If you are going to tell someone what “science says” at least read the basic literature an undergrad would read in an introductory course, so you at least give the appearance you are not lying or are not totally ignorant on the topic.
I have addressed this issue in the past, but it appears I am not beating the drum loud enough. In the atheist community we talk about things such as science, facts, education, and logic. Unfortunately I have noticed a disturbing trend. That trend is an almost pure ignorance of religion. I use the term “Religious Studies” and people have never even heard about it. They simply assume I am talking about theology or reading a religious text. This could not be further from the truth. If this is the first assumption you made, I hope you continue reading. If you were unaware there was a scholarly and scientific study of religion, I urge you to continue reading.
First, I will address WHY one should continue to read and why I am speaking about a crucial issue. It comes down to the very basic things atheists say the most…science, logic, knowledge, facts, ect. Any agnostic, atheist, or theist, which engaged in discussions, should have a basic knowledge of the very thing they are talking about. I often here that we “know everything” or that religion is “pointless to study.” Many atheists fail to even define religion correctly or understand the study that goes into it. The blatant refusal to even consider it is the most irritating thing, because look at it this way…What if a creationist told us that there is no point in study science or biology, that we know everything about it we need to know, while at the same time lacking the ability to even define science or biology? The wolves would descend on them. We could all them ignorant, illogical, non-scientific, un-intellectual, and unwilling to learn. The problem is that we are doing the exact same thing. That makes us hypocrites. It is one thing to be ignorant of Religious Studies, but is an entirely different think to flat out ignore it and not even try to understand what it is or see any kind of value. If we want people to see the atheist community as intellectual, the very least we can do is not be total hypocrites. That is why I am writing this. I am writing this to educate and inform people about the area of religious studies.
Before I tell you what Religious Studies (RS) is, I will tell you what it is not. RS is NOT theology. Theology can be a part of religious studies, but the terms are not interchangeable. Theology is the study of deities or other super natural things. In general, it is my opinion that theology is the same as fairiology, or the study of fairies, which is totally pointless, so please do not get the terms confused. Religious Studies is not “faith.” Faith can play a role, but faith can play a role in any type of belief system, such as politics. Religious Studies is also not simply reading a religious text and/or determining if it is “right” or “wrong.” Of course scholars of religion read religious texts, but they attempt to understand them in a number of ways, such as, context, historical aspects, literally (literature,) and other things, such as “what did people think of their texts?” It is not about point out contradictions in the Bible, but explaining why we would expect to find contradictions in the first place. It is not about learning that Noah built an ark, while God flooded the world, but how this story is not new or unique to the Bible. RS also does not mean one is becoming a priest or a pastor, or some other type of religious leader. While RS can lead to that, that requires a M.Div or Masters in Divinity (more fairy study.) RS can actually lead someone to atheism or agnosticism. Last, but certainly not least, RS is not pointless. The scientific and scholar study of anything is hardly what I would call pointless, ESPECIALLY, if that is the exact topic one is talking about.
So what is Religious Studies? Since I could not word it better than Wikipedia, here it is…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_studies
“Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs,behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives.
While theology attempts to understand the nature of transcendent or supernatural forces (such asdeities), religious studies tries to study religious behavior and belief from outside any particular religious viewpoint. Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion.”
Does this show how RS is different from theology? To give even more detail, I will explain the
Religious Studies program at the University of Minnesota…
www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/
At the U of M there are two tracks one can take…
Description of the Track I Major
This track is ideal if you wish to study religion broadly or as a social and cultural force.
• It emphasizes the methodologies of the humanities, social sciences, and arts.
• It addresses questions of expression, psychology, theology or religious thought, as well as public and social policy and the political contexts and ramifications of religion.
This track provides a solid foundation for careers serving diverse communities in public arenas, as well as graduate study in the arts, humanities, or social sciences, or in theological or seminary programs.
For more info on it, you can check out the full link.http://www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/ugrad/track1.html
Here is track 2…
Description of the Track II Major
This track is ideal if you seek in-depth knowledge of a particular religious tradition (for example, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, American Indian, or Hmong).
It emphasizes learning about the selected tradition through study of its untranslated foundational texts.
For this track, you must complete preparatory work through the 4th semester (or the equivalent) of a language appropriate to the specific religious tradition and its sources.
This track provides a solid foundation for careers serving diverse communities in public arenas, as well as graduate study in the arts, humanities, or social sciences, or in theological or seminary programs.
Track II is particularly recommended if you are interested in such topics as the (1) the advanced study of the Bible or the Qur’an both in their origins and their later interpretations, (2) the history of Judaism, Islam, or Christianity before the modern period, or (3) the study of the traditions and texts of the religions of South or East Asia, whether in their countries of origin or in diaspora.
Sample subject and language pairings include but are not limited to:
• Judaism: Hebrew (for scriptural or historical area of concentration), German or Yiddish (e.g., for Jewish literature or 20th-century)
• Islam: Arabic, Turkish
• Christianity: Greek or Latin (for scriptural or medieval concentration), German or Spanish (for relevant geographical/cultural themes)
• Buddhism: Chinese or Japanese
• Hinduism: Sanskrit or Hindi
• American Indian religions: Ojibwe or Dakotahttp://www.religiousstudies.umn.edu/ugrad/track2.html
In both tracks one are required to take this course. Just reading the description of this course will answer many of the questions people may have about the study of Religion. In my opinion, this is the single most important course in the entire program, which is probably why it is a requirement.
RELS 3001 – Theory and Method in the Study of Religion: Critical Approaches to the Study of Religion-
Description: While even a quick glance at any newspaper these days impresses upon us the importance of religion, just how we are to understand and/or learn about religion, given the vast array of ideas, practices, institutions, and communities that lay claim to the category, is anything but straightforward. Scholars from many disciplines study religion, adding another layer of diversity, not to say confusion, to the question of how one might go about learning about religion. This course attempts to sort through the many theories about religion and methods for studying it that have developed over the past century. We will first examine several theories of religion (what ?religion? is and entails and how it works) from such writers as Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Rudolph Otto, Thomas Berger, Jonathan Z. Smith, Talal Asad, Tomoko Masuzawa, and others. Then, we will examine a number of different approaches to or methods for studying it, examining some recent monographs using specific methods to explore topics such as Catholic devotional practices (ethnographic), the Gnostic gospels (historical-textual), American spirituality (sociological), and Hindu nationalism (historical, literary deconstruction).
Two of the required books for this class are Eight Theories of Religion andIntroducing Religion by Daniel L. Pals. These books are the bare basics and clearly show why defining religion is a difficult thing to do. It also shows how people, such as Richard Dawkins, have less knowledge about religion than an undergrad that has taken but one class in the area. This is demonstrated by making statements like “religion is a mental illness” or “religion is a virus.” This is a claim Freud made 100 years ago, which we cover in detail in this class. Even the most incompetent student could understand why a statement like that is not scientific, or is it even a coherent argument. If you want more detail on that, I can provide more another time.
In RS scholars attempt to understand WHY people believe what they do and HOW these beliefs came about in the first place. When I say WHY, I am talking about the origins of religion. Is it sociological, psychological, biological, cultural, something divine, or something we do not even understand? WHY does someone believe “if you accept Jesus you’ll get your evidence?” Is it their method of thinking and reasoning different? Methods of reasoning are clearly different between Scientist and “Religious,” but at the same time a scientist can be “religious.” HOW does this happen? How can someone that studies things with empiricism and the scientific method flat out ignore that and believe something based on faith alone? One would think a scientist could not have “blind faith,” but they do. Do you see the complexity of these questions?”
In the atheist community, so many atheists do not even try to answer these questions. They make general assumptions that are not based on any type of science or study and then have the nerve to go and vilify religious people for doing that exact thing?
Atheists constantly say things like “science says” or “science has disproven” this, that, and the other thing, about religion. The thing about science is when one makes a claim, they have to back it up. You cannot claim something without any actual facts to back it up and say “science says.” That is called be intellectually dishonest. It may sound smart to other people that are ignorant on the topic, but it is clearly obvious when one knows nothing about what they are claiming. I can tell in a few statements if someone has any idea what they are talking about when it comes to religion because I have taken at least one class in the area. Would you not expect someone that has taken a class in evolution to not be able to tell creationism is total BS? You don’t think any dumb dumb that passed college biology could understand that micro and macro evolution are the same thing? You are not fooling anyone if you think studying religion means reading a religious text. You are not fooling anyone if you claim “science said” some BS that was shown to be wrong 100 years ago. You are not fooling anyone if you think theology is the same as religious studies. If you are going to tell someone what “science says” at least read the basic literature an undergrad would read in an introductory course, so you at least give the appearance you are not lying or are not totally ignorant on the topic.