Book Review: A Beginner's Guide to the Study of Religion

In his book, A Beginners Guide to the Study of religion, Bradley Herling correctly states that along with fact based religious literacy, we also need theoretical religious literacy. We need tools to think about what 'religion' means.

Beginners Guide is primarily designed for use in an introduction to religion course and secondly for use by the self taught individual who is interested in religion. It serves both populations very well.

Summary:

• In general, religious literacy is important because we are living in a global world where many are motivated by their religion. 
• Specifically, theoretical literacy of religion is important so that we recognize that religions don't necessarily fit our preformed judgments. 
• The definition of religion is contested among theorists of religion. 
• There are several theories/definitions that offer meaningful ways to look at religious phenomena. 
• A theory is good in so far as it can suggest different lens by which to assess and discover important practical aspects of religion.

Analysis:

Many people think studying religion is simply learning facts about the various religions. To these people studying religions is nothing more that memorizing beliefs and rituals, like one might memorize the elements of the periodic table. 

However, there is so much religious diversity not just between religions, but also within particular religions that a full catalog is impossible.

A better way to think about the study of religion is thinking about its nature. If you want to make an inquiry into the nature of hats it would be detrimental if you had a definition that was too wide (you might end up discussing clothing) and equally detrimental if it was too narrow (you might end up only discussing sombreros).

Of course, you could make a detailed study of sombreros (i.e. Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, or etc...), a worthwhile pursuit in its own right. But you still need a conception or definition of sombreros, which would likely include a discussion about hats in general.

A fuller understanding of the nature of religion (or at least the problems with identifying its nature) will lead to better fact gathering and more thought provoking analysis.

For instance, if you accept the very common conception of religion that it is focused on belief and worship of God, gods, or other supernatural powers, you would likely miss the Native American emphasis on religion being tied to the sacredness of places.

Thankfully there are many alternatives.

For instance, perhaps you are preparing to interview a Hindu mystic, then you might want to recall William James' conception of religion:

Religion shall mean for us, the feelings acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. 


He includes examples of what to look for:

1) The individual, non-rational experience at the core of myths, scriptures, rituals, institutions, etc.

2) The feeling of an objective but unseen presence, "something there."

3) Extraordinary states of consciousness marked by ineffability, deep insight or knowledge, transiency, and passivity, leading to a feeling of oneness and to a breakdown of distinctions between "self" and "the world".

4) The means of obtaining transformation: an interior feeling of bliss, freedom, and resolution (especially after considerable melancholy and suffering).

Or when you see a lively Christian worship service with everyone singing and praying together, you might want to recall Emile Durkheim's conception of religion:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. 

And we should look for the following according to his conception:

1) The significance of "primitive" religions; i.e. folk or indigenous traditions that do not fit into one of the major "religions of the world.

2) The demarcation between the sacred and the profane, as expressed through rituals and beliefs. Practices that keep the sacred and profane separate or attempt to "manage" the power of the sacred: protecting against it and also inviting its aid or celebrating it. 

3) Rituals that cultivate a feeling of belonging; symbols or emblems that have a similar effect.

4) The appearance of power in religious phenomenon, especially when it suggest the existence of an impersonal energy or force: religious object that are treated as powerful by devotees.

These are just two examples of the various conceptions of religion covered in this book and when they might be relevant. There is no theory that has unanimous support. Though a theory is deemed useful when it incorporates new ideas and facts..

Bottom Line:

My favorite part of this book are the sections that explain what you can look for using various theories. I plan to have this book readily accessible for my various religious visits in the future. At least when I am writing these posts.

I will likely always favor Durkheim, but this book will help me incorporate theories that I am less familiar with. As well as find further resources about them.

Open Letter to Ken Ham

Dear Ken Ham, 



Let me begin by stating I am sincerely attempting to understand. 

The subject of this open letter is a request that you clarify your definition/conception of religion. You often state that critics of your creation museum are following their secular, evolutionary, and/or atheistic religion.  

There are virtually no definitions of religion that would result in secularism, evolution, or atheism being considered religious. 

That being said, I think your definition of religion would be "a belief system that is unchanging and fundamental to your overall worldview."

If this is correct, I am unsure how you would differentiate between a religious belief system/worldview and a non-religious belief system/worldview. Or under your conception, is it even possible to be non-religious?

And is going to church, temple, sangha (etc...), participation in rituals, and communal experience purely tangential to being religious?

As of yet I have not been able to find an explicit definition of your concept of religion. Though, you seem to be very comfortable claiming that secularism, evolution, and atheism are religions. 

In full disclosure, I have given a great deal of thought into the definition of religion and I prefer definitions that emphasize the community aspects of religion (i.e. religion is a community that shares beliefs and rituals). 

This is the conception of religion that I would defend; though, I am open to using other conceptions as needed. 

Other conceptions include: individual belief and experience, collective group experience (which aligns very nicely with community), morality, and more. 

Thus, I accept J.Z. Smith's analysis that religion is the construction of the thinker. 

In other words, you need to provide the rationale by which you are 'imagining religion'.

The request of this open letter is for you to be as transparent as I have been in this letter about how you 'imagine religion.' 

We cannot even have a debate about whether evolution, secularism, and atheism are religious, because you have not yet explicitly defined or conceptualized 'religion'.

Definitions are important. And before I can even think about changing my mind on evolution and etc... being religious, I would need to see it defined. I have provided my thoughts about religion, it is now your turn. 

Alternatively you could simply stop calling evolution, secularism, and atheism religions.




In the hopes of understanding, 

A Religion Critic




*Addition 5/5/2016

Continuining my search for a definition of religion, I have found one endorsed by AiG's Tim Chaffey: "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." This is the fourth definition from Merriam-Webster. He seems to arbitrarily choose this definition over the first and neglects all scholarly definitions of religion.

Ardor and faith are not sufficient to call something a religion, unless a hardcore Red Sox fan is religious. These fans have an unwavering belief that theirs is the best team and they have an ardor that is above many who I would call religious. 


Thus, Chaffey's definition includes things that I would be very hesitant to call religious. Granted there is no clear line separating religion and non-religion, but I will reject any definition that includes baseball. (Perhaps I am biased against baseball).

I also found more information about Ken Ham's conception of religion. His conception seems to include a comprehensive worldview, origins of the universe, origins of humanity, and moral codes. This is based on a Facebook post from November 4, 2015 and sections of the book Inside the Nye Ham Debate. 

Ham's conception has the benefit of potentially distinguishing religion vs. non-religion through comprehensiveness and origins. Though Ruism (what many call Confucianism) doesn't really have any position about the origin of the universe or humanity. And these are (mostly) lacking in Buddhism as well. 

Perhaps a comprehensive metaphysical belief system is sufficient for Ham's conception. This would allow him to include both Ruism and Buddhism.

Though, it would be strange for Ham, the president of AiG (Answers in Genesis), which focuses on origins, to admit that origins do not matter when categorizing something as religious. Not impossible, but strange. 

With what I think is a better understanding, I now challenge Ham to debate over how word religion is used. He is using a particular conception of the word because it serves his purposes. And he has not yet, to my knowledge, justified this 'imagination' of religion. 

Spotlight on Confucianism IV: Reflections and Recap

Often I end a series with a critique. However, I already have several loose threads and adding another to the tapestry would be too much. 

Instead I am going to briefly answer three questions from my current perspective:

1) Is Confucianism a religion?
2) What are the similarities between Confucianism and Humanism?
3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

1) Is Confucianism a religion?

Though I have discussed this question, I have yet to take a firm stance. My answer is that Confucianism is a religion, but there are a few caveats.  

Confucian ideas used for purely political ends, such as in the Han dynasty, are not religious. But the practice of divination, the belief in Heaven as guide for morality, and even the Confucian analysis of self should all be considered religious. 

Confucianism fits most academic theories of religion. It is about community (Emile Durkheim), though it does merge the sacred and the secular. Self, family, and community are ultimate concerns (Paul Tillich). And, some Confucians even report experiencing Heaven (William James).

But, if you believe that religion is defined by a belief in a personal God or gods (and would not substitute an impersonal metaphysical principle), then you would likely disagree with me. Though if this is the case, perhaps you would disqualify Christian Science as well. 

2) Should we compare Confucianism or other Eastern traditions/ideas to Western Humanism?

American Humanist Association advertising campaign.

First what is humanism? Humanism has two meanings, one general and one specific. The general definition is 'a system of thought that attaches prime importance to human needs'. Confucianism is a subset of this type of humanism. 

The more specific meaning of humanism focuses on rationality, empiricism, and materialism (the belief that all existence is comprised of matter and energy). Confucianism is typically not humanism according to this definition.

Here's why:

In Confucianism, T'ien is the source of morality, the metaphysical principle, and the first instance of the metaphysical principle. T'ien and materialism are incompatible, because a typical humanist would likely not accept the metaphysical underpinnings of Confucian divination. 

(Thanks to Greg Epstein for gently chastising me into thinking about humanism more globally)

3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

An illustration of the perceived difference between Cofucianism (left) and Daoism (right)

Previously, I wrote a harsh review of Alaine de Botton's Religion for Atheists. My chief critique was that he only picked aspects of religion that he liked without a theoretical perspective or even specific practical considerations. 

I also thought that it was problematic to take specific festivals and rituals out of their original context without due care. 

I hope to avoid my own critiques by being specific who I think aspects of Confucianism might help. I have Asperger's, an autism spectrum 'disorder'. 

From a purely personal perspective, I never felt like belief in God or attending church helped me with social belonging.

When I read about the Confucian method of first cultivating myself and then expanding outwards, this made sense to me. Sure, there is prayer and other ways of self-cultivation in Christianity, but this is usually focused on an individual's relationship with God. 

I had immense difficulty understanding human people and I felt everyone wanted me to have a relationship with a God-person, whose intentions are admittedly outside of everyone's grasp.

Without an overall plan for self improvement, I studied humans academically: first psychology, then philosophy, then history, and finally religion. Currently, I think religion best encapsulates humanity. (But this is an argument I will write later).

As I understand it, this strategy is not unlike the Neo-Confucian concept of ko wu (the investigation of things). By practicing ko wu, you develop an understanding of Principle. 

Also, Confucianism focuses on guiding individuals as individuals, as opposed to one approach fits all (terrible for those who are demonstrably different). For instance, Confucius gives advice to his students based on what that person needs to work on, as opposed to a generalized set of rules. 

There is focus on definite moral rules as well (i.e. respect elders, fulfill your roles well, and etc...). Though, an emphasis on specific rules would help, it would be difficult to implement this in an American context beyond the family. And perhaps a failure of Confucianism is that it creates a misguided holism of the religious, ethical, and political. 

However, it seems like a good model to follow for those who are demonstrably different, as they can be formally taught ethical and moral theories that they could potentially put into practice in their own lives. 

Bottom line: 

Overall I have so far enjoyed Confucianism. Though, for my blog I am moving on to other religions. I am looking forward to further investigating Confucianism, particularly the philosophy of Chu Hsi. 

Open Letter to Leadership of the U.S. Army

Dear Leadership of the U.S. Army:

       

      I am writing to urge you to expedite the addition of Heathen to the Army’s religious preference list. I understand that you are currently reworking how such an addition is processed; however, it is my understanding that members of the Heathen community first requested this addition 6 years ago.     

        
       I thank all of you for defending this amazing country and all the freedoms that I have as a citizen. I understand many individuals sacrificed their lives for my freedom. Do not ask those Heathens who serve to limit their freedoms.

        
       Part of the delay may be that there is a suspicion that Ásatrú isn’t a religion. I sympathize with and understand the tough decisions that you have to make in regards to these choices. However, I am convinced that Heathens are devout and religious.

        
       As a religion critic, something akin to an art critic, a question that often arises is “what is religion”. While there is no fool proof way of answering this question, there are two criteria that I think are sufficient in this particular case. 1) They have beliefs about the Ultimate. 2) They have or at least are attempting to join in community with each other. In my opinion there is no good reason not to add Heathen to the Army’s religious preference list.

        
       If you would like to ask me further questions about my opinion on this matter feel free to email me at areligioncritic@gmail.com.

With respect,

        
        Daniel Ansted

        (A Religion Critic)   


The Response: 

Mr. Ansted,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the addition of "Heathen" as a faith code.  The Department of Defense is currently reviewing the faith code policy and application of faith codes across all services.   This review will include the Service/Department process for addition faith codes to the personnel systems.  
Thank you for your continued support of and interest in the men and women serving in our military services.
RespectfullyThe Armed Forces Chaplains Board Executive Director