Print
Face to faith
by Gordon Lynch
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2131436,00.html#article_continue
Popular modern books on religion lack serious engagement with previous work, says Gordon Lynch
'If you are in a company of people of mixed occupations, and somebody asks what you do, and you say you are a college professor, a glazed look comes into their eye. If you are in a company of professors from various departments, and somebody asks you what is your field, and you say philosophy, a glazed look comes into their eye. If you are at a conference of philosophers, and somebody asks you what you are working on, and you say philosophy of religion ... "
Nelson Pike's observation of his experience of being a philosopher of religion, quoted in Daniel Dennett's recent book Breaking the Spell, will strike a chord with many academics and students involved in the study of religion. Since the high tide of secularisation theories in the 60s, the study of religion has often been seen as a Cinderella subject, a strange subfield in the academic world with little to do with the pressing questions of the day. A-level students thinking about degree options are still discouraged from taking a degree in religious studies by some schools, unless they are sure they want a career in teaching or religious ministry. The idea that the study of religion could be an urgent area of cultural inquiry with the potential for generating insights that are as important for our future wellbeing as the study of economics, computer science or the natural sciences still seems implausible to many people.
Given this intellectual background, it is remarkable that substantial books about religion have recently become bestsellers, such as Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, as well as Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Obviously 9/11 and 7/7 played an important role in stimulating this resurgence of interest in religion, as have the religious convictions of influential politicians, the religious elements of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and the growing debate about the moral foundations and cultural identity of British society.
But as the public debate about religion grows, it seems that old habits also die hard. We have seen the emergence of a new generation of commentators about religion who appear blissfully unaware of the field of religious studies and who feel no great obligation to engage with previous scholarship in this area. The criticisms about the gaps and imbalances in Dawkins' work have already been well made. But even in the more carefully scholarly work of Dennett there are worrying trends. His claim, for example, that religion has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to society may appeal to anxious liberals, but belies a lack of knowledge of academic work on religion, politics and violence. There are good grounds for arguing, as Steve Bruce has done, that conservative religious groups are generally ineffectual in achieving their aims, whether through peaceful or violent means. Similarly Dennett's confident definition of religion ignores the arguments of writers such as Talal Asad and Russell McCutcheon that such concepts of religion are fundamentally bound up with the historic colonialist project of managing non-western cultures and the contemporary project of writing off political stances that do not fit the strategic priorities of the west as religious extremism.
It is not professional sour grapes to observe that current bestselling books on religion engage too little with existing academic work on the study of religion. Without such knowledge there is a real danger that secular, liberal academics will paint a fearful picture of religion that could distort public perceptions and policy on religion for a generation.
There is a sting in the tail here for serious students and scholars of religion as well. All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles. This needs to change if we want the voices shaping the debates about religion in today's world to be better informed and balanced.
Gordon Lynch is professor of sociology of religion at Birkbeck College, University of London
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2131436,00.html#article_continue
Popular modern books on religion lack serious engagement with previous work, says Gordon Lynch
'If you are in a company of people of mixed occupations, and somebody asks what you do, and you say you are a college professor, a glazed look comes into their eye. If you are in a company of professors from various departments, and somebody asks you what is your field, and you say philosophy, a glazed look comes into their eye. If you are at a conference of philosophers, and somebody asks you what you are working on, and you say philosophy of religion ... "
Nelson Pike's observation of his experience of being a philosopher of religion, quoted in Daniel Dennett's recent book Breaking the Spell, will strike a chord with many academics and students involved in the study of religion. Since the high tide of secularisation theories in the 60s, the study of religion has often been seen as a Cinderella subject, a strange subfield in the academic world with little to do with the pressing questions of the day. A-level students thinking about degree options are still discouraged from taking a degree in religious studies by some schools, unless they are sure they want a career in teaching or religious ministry. The idea that the study of religion could be an urgent area of cultural inquiry with the potential for generating insights that are as important for our future wellbeing as the study of economics, computer science or the natural sciences still seems implausible to many people.
Given this intellectual background, it is remarkable that substantial books about religion have recently become bestsellers, such as Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, as well as Dennett's Breaking the Spell. Obviously 9/11 and 7/7 played an important role in stimulating this resurgence of interest in religion, as have the religious convictions of influential politicians, the religious elements of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and the growing debate about the moral foundations and cultural identity of British society.
But as the public debate about religion grows, it seems that old habits also die hard. We have seen the emergence of a new generation of commentators about religion who appear blissfully unaware of the field of religious studies and who feel no great obligation to engage with previous scholarship in this area. The criticisms about the gaps and imbalances in Dawkins' work have already been well made. But even in the more carefully scholarly work of Dennett there are worrying trends. His claim, for example, that religion has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to society may appeal to anxious liberals, but belies a lack of knowledge of academic work on religion, politics and violence. There are good grounds for arguing, as Steve Bruce has done, that conservative religious groups are generally ineffectual in achieving their aims, whether through peaceful or violent means. Similarly Dennett's confident definition of religion ignores the arguments of writers such as Talal Asad and Russell McCutcheon that such concepts of religion are fundamentally bound up with the historic colonialist project of managing non-western cultures and the contemporary project of writing off political stances that do not fit the strategic priorities of the west as religious extremism.
It is not professional sour grapes to observe that current bestselling books on religion engage too little with existing academic work on the study of religion. Without such knowledge there is a real danger that secular, liberal academics will paint a fearful picture of religion that could distort public perceptions and policy on religion for a generation.
There is a sting in the tail here for serious students and scholars of religion as well. All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles. This needs to change if we want the voices shaping the debates about religion in today's world to be better informed and balanced.
Gordon Lynch is professor of sociology of religion at Birkbeck College, University of London
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, July 20, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 61 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #57736 by AWACS77 on July 20, 2007 at 8:44 pm
One of my best friends while I was at university was an Atheist who took a degree in Religious studies. Dawkins, Hitchens and their ilk are very brilliant men and their arguments are well made. However I would have hear would from my Atheist religious studies friend or others who have an educational background in the field (interestingly enough my friends favourite religious studies prof was also Atheist).
Other Comments by AWACS77
3. Comment #57739 by Kell on July 20, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I'd be more inclined to take this point seriously if the twat actually cited specific examples where Dawkins, Dennet et al were problematically wide of the mark. Nothing in the criticisms by 'new athesists' has been irreleveant to how dangerous and destructive the abrahamic religions now are ( and have always been ) or to how frankly sick and tired we are putting up with it.Why, Mr. Lynch, if you and your colleagues have had so much more relevant insights to provide have none of us ever heard of them? Why has it taken an accomplished evolutionary biologist, a perspicacious neurobioligist, and others, to launch the long overdue counter-attack in the name of reason? Where the f*** have you been?
I honestly may be missing something, but this article strikes me as being the definitive Courtier's Reply.
Other Comments by Kell
4. Comment #57741 by automath on July 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm
That's one of the most timid 'why didn't you write the book I wanted' I've seen to date. I'd rather approach any study of religion from the default position, rather than that of theology. From such a position he might raise some interesting points for further exploration. Other Comments by automath
5. Comment #57744 by LeeC on July 20, 2007 at 9:18 pm
The criticisms about the gaps and imbalances in Dawkins' work have already been well made
What!!!
This means that when Dawkins said there is no evidence for god, gave arguments against god, that Richard should, in order to be balanced, also mention the entire make believed stuff that keeps religion going on and on.
No… religion has had it own way for far to long, it is time to grow up.
[Dennett] His claim, for example, that religion has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to society may appeal to anxious liberals
So people blowing themselves up because of their religious believe does not cause harm? The fact that the religious nutters are all waiting for the "end of days" and are more than happy to speed it up has no risk what so ever?
Yes religion causes harm, and we should be very worried about it.
All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles.
Yep… these theists should be ashamed of their beliefs, discussing the existence of fairies should only be done in the private homes away from anyone else and it must have no affect or influence on how I run my life.
The theist should keep the nonsense to themselves.
If only they would.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
6. Comment #57746 by Zaphod on July 20, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Courtiers reply anyone? Other Comments by Zaphod
7. Comment #57748 by Janus on July 20, 2007 at 9:55 pm
It's not a courtier's reply; the guy's a sociologist, not a theologian.That said, I don't see the point of this article. As I was reading it I kept telling myself, "Ah, this must be where he starts giving us reasons to believe what he's saying." But he never does. This is nothing more than an argument from authority.
Other Comments by Janus
8. Comment #57750 by automath on July 20, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Courtiers reply anyone?
Yup, I read that phrase in Kells comment and had to do a little searching to understand what one was, and this fits. Eagleton & Orr et al
It's not a courtier's reply; the guy's a sociologist, not a theologian.
Aye, a sociologist that approaches things through the cage of theology. But what's that got to do with it. What does it matter what he calls himself? It's what he's written that needs to be the object of discussion.
And don't forget: you can add your informed and balanced debate on the Guardian CiF website :)
Other Comments by automath
9. Comment #57752 by Janus on July 20, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Aye, a sociologist that approaches things through the cage of theology. But what's that got to do with it. What does it matter what he calls himself? It's what he's written that needs to be the object of discussion.
Uh, he IS writing about sociology.
Other Comments by Janus
10. Comment #57755 by automath on July 20, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Uh, he IS writing about sociology.
And there was me thinking he was writing about religion, and re-dressing the balance that the mass tide of critical books has caused. Hardly sociology, more an attempt at framing the debate in a more religious context.
Looks like the same forumla with some different variables.
Other Comments by automath
11. Comment #57757 by Zaphod on July 20, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Comment #57748 by Janus on July 20, 2007 at 9:55 pm
It's not a courtier's reply; the guy's a sociologist, not a theologian.
That said, I don't see the point of this article. As I was reading it I kept telling myself, "Ah, this must be where he starts giving us reasons to believe what he's saying." But he never does. This is nothing more than an argument from authority.
I never said he was a theist or a theologian. What I meant to convey was that the courtiers reply could be used in response to this article.
See PZ Myers Courtiers reply http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
Other Comments by Zaphod
12. Comment #57760 by skyhook87 on July 21, 2007 at 12:00 am
...Dennett's confident definition of religion...
Dennett, on his definition of religion in Breaking the Spell:
"a place to start, not something carved in stone."
Other Comments by skyhook87
13. Comment #57762 by scottishgeologist on July 21, 2007 at 12:33 am
The comment: "There are good grounds for arguing, as Steve Bruce has done, that conservative religious groups are generally ineffectual in achieving their aims, whether through peaceful or violent means."Conservative evangelicals in the USA have been very successful at getting the right (yeah, I know...) President elected and influencing foreign policy.
The nutters behind the 9/11, Oct 12th 02(Bali, remember?) and 7/7 attacks were pretty conservative I would argue. And in bringing about paranoia fear and daily hassle to civilisation, very successful.
Just think what islamist terrorism has actually cost the West over the past 5 years.
They may not have draped a burkha over the statue of liberty yet, (YET note...) but they have been very successful in other ways.
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
14. Comment #57770 by Macho Nachos on July 21, 2007 at 1:09 am
Also on this comment: "There are good grounds for arguing, as Steve Bruce has done, that conservative religious groups are generally ineffectual in achieving their aims, whether through peaceful or violent means."That's because they are generally unreasonable aims: I mean that literally. They are also often bigoted and defy both common sense and logic. It's just as well they don't get their way, because otherwise the whole world would be living under an oppressive theocracy. That may sound like hyperbole, but given the chance, what kind of highly conservative (read: fundamentalist) religious group WOULDN'T like to see everyone else follow their doctrine?
Also, just because they're ineffective in achieving their aims, it doesn't mean they don't make it a pain in the ass for reasonable people to debate, critique, legislate against, campaign, counter or (in violent cases) quell or clean up their efforts to bring the world in line with their fantasies and obsessions. You could say that totalitarian regimes are generally ineffective at taking over the world, but that doesn't mean they're not bad and cause trouble along the way.
Other Comments by Macho Nachos
15. Comment #57775 by PaulJ on July 21, 2007 at 1:34 am
All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles.Quite. There's probably a reason for this....
Other Comments by PaulJ
16. Comment #57777 by mmurray on July 21, 2007 at 1:48 am
I wish one of these complainers would write the book they think Dawkins, Dennett et al should have written. I would be genuinely interested in reading it.Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
17. Comment #57783 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 2:17 am
Yep… these theists should be ashamed of their believes, LeeC, belief(s) is the noun form for the verb, believes. Though not wanting to be an obnoxious stickler for grammatical detail, I, myself, often wondered why I was allowed to walk around for minutes with my skirt jacked into my panties/bloomers before someone had the decency to inform me of my state. I have encountered this particular grammatical error often on this forum, so I have finally decided to open my big mouth. Forgive me.
Other Comments by Logicel
18. Comment #57790 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 3:00 am
Oops... Sorry Logicel.I am ashamed of my grammar. I am ashamed of many things.
Unfortunately – I'm crap at English, which is a shame since it is the only language I have.
I hope I am getting better though with practice on this site….
Please correct me when I am wrong, and if I ever see you with your skirt jacked into your "panties" (as you put it) I promise not to laugh, to be polite, and to suggest a correction.
Cheers
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
19. Comment #57792 by pewkatchoo on July 21, 2007 at 3:12 am
Move along folks, nothing to see here! Just more psuedo-intellekshul whiney twaddle. Other Comments by pewkatchoo
20. Comment #57794 by jonecc on July 21, 2007 at 3:20 am
I think some commenters may be muddling theology with the sociology of religion. The latter is obviously tangential to the question of whether or not there is any truth to religion, but is surely relevant to the study of its consequences.Social science is a form of science. It is not identical with Derrida-style rambling, but involves proper research and reasoned argument. When it doesn't, it can be challenged on those grounds.
It's vital for us to engage with this study. We can point out the logical flaws in religious belief until we're blue in the face, but if we want to make a difference we have to understand why it succeeds. For instance, there are reasons why religion succeeds in the US much better than it does in northern Europe, although the two societies are superficially similar, and we need to understand them.
Other Comments by jonecc
21. Comment #57795 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 4:26 am
jonecc, It was heartening to hear Dawkins say in his talk at Kepler's book store in CA (http://one.revver.com/watch/334799 --hat tip to Pharyngula), that his Foundation, once they are given charitable status, wants to conduct sociological studies regarding religion. The one potential study he mentioned was to determine if there is any correlation between a particular academic discipline and religious beliefs.EDIT: That mention of the possibility of sociological studies done by Dawkins' Foundation may have been said in the Q&A--I can't remember for sure. Here's the Q&A vid: http://one.revver.com/watch/334799
Other Comments by Logicel
22. Comment #57802 by VinceMcD on July 21, 2007 at 6:31 am
I think that Dawkins, Dennett, et al have make sufficient argument to support the case against religion's veracity. Why is it necessary to "engage previous works" as Lynch puts it. Once I prove witchcraft is bunk, do I need to pick apart works such as Wendy the Good Witch's Guide to Great Spells or 7 Bad Spells You Can Learn in 30 Minutes a Day?
I think not.
Other Comments by VinceMcD
23. Comment #57808 by jonecc on July 21, 2007 at 7:14 am
Thanks, Logicel, he does indeed.The link to it is http://one.revver.com/watch/334943, which is as you say the Q&A to his reading at Kepler's. It's about 14 minutes in.
If anyone is attending the big conference in September, the need to collate existing research and carry out new studies to fill in the gaps would make an excellent topic for debate.
From what I've read, I suspect that secularism thrives in societies with a decent standard of living, political freedom, good quality free education, a decent welfare state and a high level of geographical mobility. It would be nice to have this confirmed or refuted.
Other Comments by jonecc
24. Comment #57809 by automath on July 21, 2007 at 7:20 am
It's vital for us to engage with this study.
Which study is that then?
Is it the one that mentions the balances and gaps in Dawkins work or maybe it's the one that mentions the worrying trends in Dennetts work, especially his tendancy to be overconfident in his definitions. This aways comes across in his interviews doesn't it? Such an overbearing and arrogant man, that Dennett!
OK, only pulling your leg. It might be worth reading some of the mentioned previous work from Asad, McCutcheon, Bruce and Lynch before taking anything more from G. Lynch as being sociology on the basis of a newspaper cutting that says he is a sociologist.
Other Comments by automath
25. Comment #57810 by jonecc on July 21, 2007 at 7:44 am
Judging by his website, the University of London agrees that he's a sociologist. He does though say of his research that "recent and current topics include spiritual discourses in post-rave culture, the theology of Marilyn Manson, and video games as a source of moral education".Quoting that on its own is a bit glib, of course. He seems to be mainly interested in people who have abandoned traditional religion, and the difference it makes in their lives.
I was actually thinking more of research into social and economic indicators for religious belief.
Other Comments by jonecc
26. Comment #57812 by Dr Benway on July 21, 2007 at 8:29 am
...conservative religious groups are generally ineffectual in achieving their aims, whether through peaceful or violent means......in bed. Hmm. Often works for fortune cookies at least.
All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles. This needs to change if we want the voices shaping the debates about religion in today's world to be better informed and balanced.Say something interesting and I'll pay attention to you.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
27. Comment #57816 by automath on July 21, 2007 at 8:48 am
Judging by his website, the University of London agrees that he's a sociologist.
I'm not disputing the fact that he is a sociologist, just that what he has written for the Newspaper media is not sociology, is not a study and that what he has written should not be warrented on the basis that he is a sociologist. I think that by doing this, some have missed the gist of what he has said, and his words have passed into brains in an uncritical moment of apparent non-thought.
I was actually thinking more of research into social and economic indicators for religious belief.
Well, I don't for one moment, believe this is what G. Lynch has been suggesting.
I mean what does he mean by
Without such knowledge there is a real danger that secular, liberal academics will paint a fearful picture of religion that could distort public perceptions and policy on religion for a generation.
I think religion can quite happily condemn itself.
But not if we have Asad and McCutcheon as they will re-frame the debate into areas your mind has yet to travel, as it means deconstruction of western culture as we know it. At this moment in time it makes more sense to oppose the threat than to try and get the population of the world to redefine how they understand religion. And for some reason I don't think a large sway of religion is going to capitulate to these new ideas.
Try the following PDF from McCutcheon's website.
Then of course there is the implict respect the anthropology and sociology of religion awards its charge. You don't have to look very far to see where most postmodern ideas came from. Or that most sociologists of religion are apparently religious themselves.
And why was it down to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris to bring this 'knowledge' of the sociology of religion to the liberal academics? I'm sure one of these sociologist of religion is capable of writing a book addressed to the general public, instead of the usual lofty tomes of academic splendour or pointed and misleading newspaper articles?
Other Comments by automath
28. Comment #57822 by danceswithanxiety on July 21, 2007 at 10:43 am
Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris "appear blissfully unaware of the field of religious studies and who feel no great obligation to engage with previous scholarship in this area."Maybe, maybe not. So?
The field of religious studies seems blissfully unaware that all religions are based on falsehoods, even the home-team's religions.
Other Comments by danceswithanxiety
29. Comment #57828 by Duff on July 21, 2007 at 11:26 am
Why, every time I read something about "scholars of religion" do I want to laugh and cry at the same time?Yeah, that's right, professor, the "scholars of religion" have a lot to teach Professors Dennett and Dawkins.
Other Comments by Duff
30. Comment #57835 by Bonzai on July 21, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The posts here reveal an incredible narrow mindedness of some self described "rationalists". It is a shame that "the oasis of rational thinking" ever so often descends into a sea of mindless cheer leading for "the leaders" and indignant screaming and howling against anyone who veers away from the party line. Dawkins, Harris, Danette are invoked like the Trinity. Perhaps the religious mindset is indeed hard wired into our ape brains.Why is it wrong to explore the role of religion from the stand point of culture and society?
The repeated mantra that "religion is false" and therefore not worth studying is ignorant, shallow and tiresome. Yes, religion is factually false but so are the writings of Shakesphare. Would people dismiss literary and theatre scholarship just because "they are all stories"?
The stories themselves may be false, but religion is a real social and cultral phenomenon that for better or for worse, has shaped societies and civilizations in important ways. It is therefore a legitimate topic to study and explore beyond simply saying that it is false, people believe in fairy tales because they are indoctrinated and ignorant, case closed. This attitude is simplistic, dogmatic and decidedly unscientific. From a sociological and anthropological point of view the truth or falsity of religion is perhaps the least interesting aspect of it. We all know fictions and mythologies are false, that is a given, but there is much more we can say about them.
Dawkins Harris and Denette are not gods, as scientists and philosopher of science (= scientist wanabe?) they too have their professional blind spots. In Dawkins' case the blind spot is an overemphasis on the truth value (truth or falsity)of religion while glossing over everything else. His attack focuses almost entirely on religion as epistemology,--while he does touch on other aspects they appear as rather sketchy afterthoughts. This is summarized in his casual dismissive remark "religion is bad science". This is understandable because Dawkins is a scientist. Sure he is right, but it is not all there is to say unless one insists on seeing religion only as attempted explanation of the origin of the world. Explanation of origin is probably the least important reason for most people to believe. People don't go to church expecting to hear free Sunday science lectures.
Other Comments by Bonzai
31. Comment #57837 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Here's the Wikipedia article on Sociology of Religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religionInteresting quote from Marx: To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs to the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.
Note that the quote is not cited.
Other Comments by Logicel
32. Comment #57838 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Another excerpt from the Wikipedia article:Religion, for Durkheim, is not "imaginary," although he does strip it of what many believers find essential. Religion is very real; it is an expression of society itself, and indeed, there is no society that does not have religion. We perceive as individuals a force greater than ourselves, which is our social life, and give that perception a supernatural face. We then express ourselves religiously in groups, which for Durkheim makes the symbolic power greater. Religion is an expression of our collective consciousness, which is the fusion of all of our individual consciousnesses, which then creates a reality of its own.
Other Comments by Logicel
33. Comment #57840 by Logicel on July 21, 2007 at 2:03 pm
And the Wikipedia article (includes a bit on evolutionary psychology of religion) on Psychology of Religion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_religion
Other Comments by Logicel
34. Comment #57843 by dvespertilio on July 21, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Once upon a time I was an honors premed student at Indiana University (back in the Dark Ages prePC and worldwide web). Even had it all paid for, courtesy of multiple scholarships. But I had a "nervous breakdown" and dropped out of college to find myself (common back then). I peregrinated about most of North America, came right back to Bloomington and put together an interdisciplinary degree in Religious Studies, w/a strong concentration in biological sciences, history and philosophy of science and religion, Jewish, Christian and Buddhist mysticism, etc. With this degree alone I worked as a caseworker in psychiatric social services for more than a decade. I also worked several years as a pharmacy tech, and taught sciences, social studies and English as a substitute teacher off and on for more than twenty years. I made a very modest living, but went all over the world (Europe, Singapore, Latin America, etc), met a lot of interesting people, made myself useful, and such. My degree has served me well. Although I was accepted into one or two graduate programs, I could never afford to go, as they generally cost more annually than my gross salary at the time. I soldiered on with my liberal arts education because, after all, learning and wisdom are a life long journey, and who knows where the road(s) will go?Did I mention that the "nervous breakdown" had many varied facets of origin, i.e., I am the adult child of an Anglo-Irish_American alcoholic, that I was sexually molested by a RC priest off and on in 1966 and 1967, and later sexually humiliated by twenty-something novices in a well known novitiate in the Midwest of the US ( I was 15 at the time). I was angry years later, but I paid for my own therapy (my parents paid for the initial electroshock and pharmacological therapies at eighteen or so years; it cost them over US$9,000, a kingly sum for blue collar workers at that time, and still enough to make me stop and reflect upon even today. I'm more of a "garden gate" than Bill Gates! HA HA). Anyway, I survived, and all of this has been grist for the mill,as they say. My personal evolution, like all evolution, has proceeded from the necessity of using what I had been handed by descent, and actualizing the possibilities and "mind niches" that I discovered inherent in the dynamic system called, variously, this world, the Cosmos, etc.
It's been a really cool ride!
In the mid 80's through mid 90's I explored interior life, unitive consciousness, neurophysiology of mystical and peak experiences and all such "stuff" in Trappist and Buddhist Monasteries in the US and Korea. Supported the journey teaching, doing corporate customer service/sales for several of the Biggies in insurance and telecommunications,whatever it took to survive. Married a Korean student 13 years my junior, to the day, in 1995 and have two beautiful daugthers here in Mandarin. FL
The article is right on. I lived with a sociologist for eight plus years in my 20's. Academic study of religion/spirituality is much ignored by other academic disciplines. Our knowledge of the neurophysiology of unitive, peak states of consciousness and how they might be optimized and integrated into enhancing daily living, is woefully inadequate. Kudos to Sam Harris et al for exploring these areas. The Dalai Lama is making similar efforts. As E O Wilson said recently in a 7/5/07 interview w/ Bill Moyers, "let's put aside our metaphysical differences" and dialogue with those who are capable, about what we have in common, that is, the Creation/Cosmos which is our common, mysterious heritage. ( I'm paraphrasing, go see the interview for yourself, it's at the Moyers blog journal site.)
Isn't reality more complex than any of us had ever supposed? Isn't science a way of thinking that generates ever more predictive, subtle and powerful models for explaining what we perceive around us? Maybe religions and spiritualites are vast memeplex networks perpetuating themselves through this terrestrial space/time existence as they infect our collective minds,sometimes for perceived human good, sometimes maybe not. Complexes of religious art, ritual, liturgy, literature,myth,storytelling and such are powerful conditioners of individual and social "cultures". The understanding of the neurophysiology of this conditioning from a scientific perspective is relatively in its infancy. But whatever these phenomena are, they are not going away, and it's vital that we understand them as part of the current, quickening pace of global human experience. Please WAKE UP and pay attention to us "religious studies" majors. And while you're waiting..... Breathe deeply, relax, center and be still. The Cosmos is a Vast Spacious Emptiness filled with a Dynamic Dance of Light........Be that, be radically open, aware and compassionate....Listen....Look... ponder and reflect.....in this stillness of mystery, you will find utter wonder, amazement and joy.
Have a nice day!
Another mutant chimp in the neighborhood.
Other Comments by dvespertilio
35. Comment #57845 by VinceMcD on July 21, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Comment #57835 by BonzaiWhy is it wrong to explore the role of religion from the stand point of culture and society?
The repeated mantra that "religion is false" and therefore not worth studying is ignorant, shallow and tiresome. Yes, religion is factually false but so are the writings of Shakesphare. Would people dismiss literary and theatre scholarship just because "they are all stories"?
It is not wrong to study religion from a stand point of culture and society at all. I don't think any of "the trinity" as you call them would disagree with me. The problem is that it is first necessary to put religion on the same level as any other mythology and then by all means study your heart's content. None of us would look down our academic noses at a professor of Greek Mythology at all. We would think him quite off his pot however, should he start praying to Zeus daily. (and more dangerously, believing Zeus is communicating with him)
From a sociological and anthropological point of view the truth or falsity of religion is perhaps the least interesting aspect of it.
I couldn't agree with this more. However I don't think it is the thesis of any of our revered writers. If you believe Dawkins "glossed over everything else" then perhaps you missed the main point of the book. He didn't include a chapter on anti-retroviral medication research either. Do you think Dawkins thinks this an unworthy pursuit as well?
We all know fictions and mythologies are false, that is a given, but there is much more we can say about them.
While we ALL may know fictions and mythologies are false, MOST people, in the United States anyway, approach religion not as an interesting sociological or anthropological topic, but rather from a position of reverence and dogmatic belief. Therein lies the problem.
Other Comments by VinceMcD
36. Comment #57851 by danceswithanxiety on July 21, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Studying religion as a cultural phenomenon is fine by me. I would put it on par with studying ancient literature and ancient works of art. That has somewhere between little and nothing to do with the theses of the recent books by Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. Dennett's book addressed religion-as-cultural-artifact fairly, although he didn't dwell on it, as it was not central to his book. This article asserts that something is missing from these books, but doesn't actually say what it is. It seems to be saying the books should have dropped more names from "religious studies" departments. Whatever for? To what end? In support of what relevant line of inquiry?
If they overlooked something essential to the cases they attempted to make, state what it is. Enlighten us and them.
Other Comments by danceswithanxiety
37. Comment #57859 by Logos on July 21, 2007 at 5:16 pm
It's the same old invalid "you can't criticize fairies if you don't have a PhD in fairyology or work-experience with the master fairy" argument.In a way I'm glad this keeps being brought up. It only highlights the need to expose such bogus "academic" fields for what they really are.
Other Comments by Logos
38. Comment #57867 by alovrin on July 21, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Might I refer Bonzai and dvespertilio to the William Lobdell article. http://richarddawkins.net/article,1442,Religion-beat-became-a-test-of-faith,William-Lobdell-LA-Times Other Comments by alovrin
39. Comment #57902 by NMcC on July 22, 2007 at 5:29 am
LogicelThat quote from Marx is from his A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Marx wrote this when he was only 26 and it's the text immediately following the famous 'religion is the opium of the people' quote.
I have given the source for this quote before on this Forum somewhere and Hitchens uses it and discusses it in his book 'God is Not Great...'
Other Comments by NMcC
40. Comment #57941 by Logicel on July 22, 2007 at 1:57 pm
NMcC, thanks for the info. I though the grammar was a bit wonky, so I was bit cautious after I noted that it was not cited.This bit seemed a bit odd in its syntax, or am I just being dense: The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs to the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. I do understand the meaning anyway.
Other Comments by Logicel
41. Comment #57946 by Corylus on July 22, 2007 at 2:46 pm
This short piece is actually quite informative if only the language in it is properly read.As someone who one spent some time reading up on cultural theory and postmodernism (hell, anyone can make a mistake!) I offer a translation.
... the study of religion has often been seen as a Cinderella subject, a strange subfield in the academic world with little to do with the pressing questions of the day.Trans: nobody listens to us, but we don't give a stuff cos we talk each other.
The idea that the study of religion could be an urgent area of cultural inquiry with the potential for generating insights that are as important for our future wellbeing as the study of economics, computer science or the natural sciences still seems implausible to many people."Trans: Good thing too, because we can then look down on the plebs that don't understand us.
Given this intellectual background, it is remarkable that substantial books about religion have recently become bestsellers, such as Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris's The End of Faith, as well as Dennett's Breaking the Spell.Trans: "Those buggers are being read! Why?? Where the %$*& are our royalty cheques?
(Then: Blah, Blah bit of postmodern wank about how the state of the world is all nasty old colonial Europe's fault - no piece of modern social commentary is without this.)
We have seen the emergence of a new generation of commentators about religion who appear blissfully unaware of the field of religious studies and who feel no great obligation to engage with previous scholarship in this area.Trans: Bastards didn't even cite us.
The criticisms about the gaps and imbalances in Dawkins' work have already been well made. But even in the more carefully scholarly work of Dennett there are worrying trends. His claim, for example, that religion has the potential to cause catastrophic harm to society may appeal to anxious liberals, but belies a lack of knowledge of academic work on religion, politics and violence.Trans: We all know that religion keeps the masses in check - how dare D & D start the peasants revolting?
(Then: Yet another bit of postmodern wank about how the state of the world is all nasty old colonial Europe's fault)
It is not professional sour grapes to observe that current bestselling books on religion engage too little with existing academic work on the study of religion. Without such knowledge there is a real danger that secular, liberal academics will paint a fearful picture of religion that could distort public perceptions and policy on religion for a generation.Trans: Shit. What it going to happen to our research grants?
There is a sting in the tail here for serious students and scholars of religion as well. All too often our Cinderella status has meant that we have conducted introverted discussions, of interest only to people in our own scholarly circles. This needs to change if we want the voices shaping the debates about religion in today's world to be better informed and balanced.Trans: %$*& it! If you can't beat them join them. Let's all get writing on our atheism books guys!
Other Comments by Corylus
42. Comment #57950 by Corylus on July 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm
P.S. I take the point of alot of people on here that the study of the role of religion in society is a very interesting subject. I agree. Also, I understand if some people may feel I have been harsh above...However, I must point out that this piece offers nothing new and is dreadfully unfair to Dennett who bends over BACKWARDS in his book to be even handed and leave open the possibility that religion might have positive consequences for society.
Other Comments by Corylus
43. Comment #58011 by NMcC on July 23, 2007 at 1:23 am
LogicelI've looked out the quote for you. It's a bit long. It's a pity that all this usually gets truncated to 'Religion is the opium of the people'.
"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.
It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."
Karl Marx
Other Comments by NMcC
44. Comment #58012 by Logicel on July 23, 2007 at 1:50 am
NMcC, Thanks for the quote. The quote used in Wikipedia was incorrect as I guessed. Can you give me a citation for the above, so I can correct the Wikipedia entry and cite it also?I studied Marx via a basic Philosophy course, and was struck by his passion and Idealism. It is often stated, as my philosopher teacher did, that it is a shame that people are so digusted, rightfully so, by Communism, that they don't even consider any of Marx's philosophical works.
Other Comments by Logicel
45. Comment #58014 by NMcC on July 23, 2007 at 2:14 am
LogicelAs mentioned above, the quote is from A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. It was written in 1844. The best way to access the information to fix the Wikipedia entry is to go to the website Marxists.org. You can search Marx's writings here even by word or phrase. If you search 'opium of the people' it'll take you straight to the work in question at the right place in the text.
Speaking of Marx and philosophy, did you know that a recent poll of Radio 4's Today programme listeners returned Marx as 'Britain's favourite philosopher'!!
Yes, I agree, unfortunately, it's practically impossible to discuss Marx simply because of the (in my view) completely false association of his writings with the actions of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and the collection of loonies that followed their example in other countries.
Richard Dawkins himself is guilty of this when he asserts that the narcissistic psychopath Stalin was 'a kind of Marxist'. Of course, there isn't a single thing that Stalin (or any of the rest of them) ever did that could be genuinely reconciled with the views and writings of Marx.
In order to get an appreciation of what Marx himself was like and what his views were, the journalist Francis Wheen's biography (1999) is quite good. You'd probably pick it up for a couple of quid these days.
Regards.
Other Comments by NMcC
46. Comment #58024 by Logicel on July 23, 2007 at 3:23 am
NMcC, Thanks, the Wikipedia article is now corrected and cited.Dawkins referring to Stalin as 'a kinda of Marxist' is somewhat comforting, after all, he did not say he was a Marxist, just kinda of. LOL
Other Comments by Logicel
47. Comment #58097 by Steven Mading on July 23, 2007 at 11:56 am
Bonzai said:
The repeated mantra that "religion is false" and therefore not worth studying is ignorant, shallow and tiresome. Yes, religion is factually false but so are the writings of Shakesphare. Would people dismiss literary and theatre scholarship just because "they are all stories"?
You only got one thing right - and that is that there can be value in studying religion without having to believe it's true to study it as a cultural phenomenon. That's true. What's false, and infuriatingly haughty about your claim is that you act like this means it is 'shallow' to criticise the truthfullness of religion. Where do you get off claiming that the kind of religious study you would prefer, (studying it as a cultural phenomenon) is the only type allowed, and that any type of analysis of its truth value is somehow closed-minded or bigoted?
The part you're deliberately ignoring is that we don't live in a world where massive numbers of people try to claim the plays of Shakespere were nonfiction. Furthermore they were not presented by the author with the intention that people who watch the plays believe they are true. Religion is NOT like that at all, and you damned well know it. It is not presented as a deliberate fiction. It is fiction, yes, but there is a massive difference bewteen fiction being presented openly and honestly as fiction, versus fiction being presented as if it was nonfiction. The first is honest, the second is not.
Stop pretending that we live in a world where people merely present religions as interesting enlightening fictional stories in same the way they present aesop's fables. The religious most emphatically are NOT doing that. And stop defending dishonesty and claiming that those who fight agaisnt it are being "shallow" to do so.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
48. Comment #58103 by phil rimmer on July 23, 2007 at 1:35 pm
The problem with a sociological analysis of religion is the fact of sociologists. To a man (and woman) they are riddled with the postmodern idea of the "equivalence of narratives". No idea must think itself above any other. This is all based upon the "modern" insight that society has "evolved" and therefore all artifacts of the society are equally natural and are, therefore, of equal value.They've mastered Darwin, but are still stuck in the 1950s. Once they get to 1976 and Dawkins (The Selfish Gene and Meme) and realize that evolution serves the replicator and not the host they may become a little more like twenty first century scientists.
(Of course, I exaggerate, but only a little.....)
Other Comments by phil rimmer
49. Comment #58106 by phil rimmer on July 23, 2007 at 1:55 pm
41. Comment #57946 by CorylusNailed it!
Other Comments by phil rimmer
50. Comment #58153 by Bonzai on July 23, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Steven Mading wrote:Where do you get off claiming that the kind of religious study you would prefer, studying it as a cultural phenomenon) is the only type allowed, and that any type of analysis of its truth value is somehow closed-minded or bigoted?
Where did I claim that only sociological study of religion should be allowed?
On the contrary, there are quite a number of people on this site who think that only the truth value of religion is important and dismiss any other direction of inquiry as nonsense and 'apologies for religion". You only have to look at the way many posters on this site abuse Scot Atran (an atheist with impeccable credentials) just because he criticizes Sam Harris' simplistic approach to see who is being dogmatic, "haunty and infuriating". It is these people who claim that only one approach, namely the Dawkins-Harris approach, should be allowed. Now that is bigoted and closed minded.
The part you're deliberately ignoring is that we don't live in a world where massive numbers of people try to claim the plays of Shakespere were nonfiction. Furthermore they were not presented by the author with the intention that people who watch the plays believe they are true. Religion is NOT like that at all, and you damned well know it.It is not presented as a deliberate fiction. It is fiction, yes, but there is a massive difference bewteen fiction being presented openly and honestly as fiction, versus fiction being presented as if it was nonfiction. The first is honest, the second is not.
You also know damn well and deliberately ignore the fact that the vast majority of religious people are not crazy fundamentalists waiting for the rapture or terrorists about to blow themselves up. So how is it your business if they believe in the sky fairy if that gives their lives meanings and make them feel better? Just because a person believes in God it doesn't follow that they are irrational in every way, conversly an absence of religious belief alone doesn't make one rational.
It is intellectually lazy and unsecientific to use the worst fundamentalists to stereotype all religious people, this is often implicit in many posts on this site. There is simply no evidence that there is a directly red line running from a mild Anglican to Pat Robertson. Dawkins himself knows and acknowledges that many moderate religious people work on the side of evolution against the fundamentalists' attempt to peddle creationism in biology class. I also know many Chrsitians working for women right, gay right and other social justice issues.
Stop pretending that we live in a world where people merely present religions as interesting enlightening fictional stories in same the way they present aesop's fables. The religious most emphatically are NOT doing that. And stop defending dishonesty and claiming that those who fight agaisnt it are being "shallow" to do so.
Whether people actually believe in a "God" religion still serves a similar function to literature for many believers because there is such a wide range of interpretations even within the same religion. The mere knowledge that someone is a thesist virtually tells you nothing about his actual world view and his positions on most issues of practical importance.
For the sensible believers the belief in God and the scriptures only provide a framework which needs to be fleshed out, it is where it resembles literature. Religious stories often serve as symbols and vehicles to express existential themes that are too ambiguous and ill defined to be articulated clearly. Like all mythologies, they are raw material on which private meanings are constructed. To argue against them because they are "not true" or "irrational" is exactly like dismissing Shakespare because all his stories were made up. It is not only shallow, it completely misses the point.
Other Comments by Bonzai
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"...the likelihood is that, in 100,000 years time, we shall either have reverted to wild barbarism, or else civilisation will have advanced beyond all recognition--into colonies in outer space..."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #57735 by alovrin on July 20, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Luckily I found this online degree in free energy technology and they are offering a discount, so Im going to be a scientist. Wo hey.
Other Comments by alovrin