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.

A Star Trek Sermon

Boldly Go Where You Have Not Gone Before: A Star Trek Sermon

                

In Star Trek, members of different species speak with members of other species from other planets. Imagine! We have enough problems talking to our neighbors here on earth. This idealistic view of communication is obvious even in the most pessimistic Star Trek series, Deep Space Nine. 

                

Deep Space Nine is the only Star Trek series not based on exploration; instead, it primarily takes place on a stationary space station that was taken over from the Cardassians as part of a peace treaty. The crew has to fight with the alien technology and keep the peace between Bajorans and Cardassians. 

Nevertheless, Deep Space Nine still maintains a specific type of idealism, that it is worthwhile to learn about other cultures. 

Here are a few examples: 

Dr. Bashir, a human, and Garak, a former Cardassian spy, share novels from their respective cultures. Garak attempts to explain why a novel that tells the same story over several generations is a classic piece of Cardassian literature. Bashir has trouble understanding as he complains that there is a lack of development in either plot or character. 

Garak and Nog, a Ferengi, play a Cardassian game where Nog could not easily understand the strategy as it dealt with war not finance, the specialty of the Ferengi. 

Lastly and on a larger scale it is a constant theme throughout the series of the miscommunications and communications between Bajorans and the Federation, about the nature of religion, fairness, and understanding between these two political entities. 

Lets not forget the original intent of the Foundation and its (very eventual) successful resolution of learning about other (solid) sentient beings. 

Even though in all of these examples there were challenges in communication, the attempts were made.  

                

Rarely do major characters, even Garak, outright reject the possibility of learning about other cultures, even in arguably the least idealist iteration of Star Trek. (Though its never clear when Garak is actually telling the truth and he may just be participating for information; however, the Federation crew still engage him)

                

This idealism is even stronger in The Next Generation. The Enterprise’s mission in this series was to explore new worlds and meet new civilizations. They went out specifically to meet people and learn. They did sometimes offer critiques of cultures (or our culture via analogy). 

For instance, Wesley Crusher was once sentenced to death for violating a local law that he was not even aware of. Their legal system was enforced by a God-like person or race, so there was also explicitly a religious component to the episode.

                

A very good example of the motivation for learning about others is an episode where a very advanced civilization hijacks the Enterprise by essentially possessing Barclay through the use of technology so that the alien race could meet them. 

One might expect Picard to be upset with the hijacking of his ship, but once he found out the alien’s motivation he proceeded to share information with them.

For those in the know: Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. (If not use it as practice to go out to understand)                

Imagine this for a second. Two sentient species with completely different evolutionary histories talking to each other, on the surface this is absurd. However, as an analogy, it is a lesson that we should communicate with our neighbor about what makes us different.

                

It is not new knowledge that people favor talking to people who agree with us. However, imagine being able to peacefully have a discussion about your different beliefs with your religiously different neighbor. 


Imagine just once going into a strange neighborhood and talking to new people. 

Imagine just once, a Christian lay person, an atheist, or etc... going to a Mosque, a synagogue, or etc… and asking them polite questions about what they believe.

Let's take a lesson from Star Trek and boldly go where you have not gone. 

                

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.