Additional comments on defining "religion"


After reviewing assignments or getting certain questions I often send out messages through Nicenet dealing with points that have come up.  For each section I am going to include some of these past messages and occasionally add to them.


USING YOUR TEXTBOOK EFFICIENTLY

One thing I have come to realize from your comments is that many of you may not have a particularly efficient way of using the text.  This possibly comes from the fact that too often exams are geared to a text in such a way that students think they should all but memorize what it contains.  What I hope you realize is that mine are not.

What I do recommend is reading through a section first to get the general picture, then reading a second time to get a better understanding of the most relevant details.  One thing I strongly recommend: do not use a highlighter.  Instead, jot down notes as you read that will be integrated into your overall study notes.  By paying attention to the syllabus where I talk about course objectives, you should be able to get some feeling for what is more relevant and what is more peripheral.  I've already suggested that when you then go back to my web lectures you should be able to see what would be most important and what might be less so.

Also, at the end of each chapter in your text there are links to review activities prepared by the authors at quia.com (apparently the authors have not kept alive any materials at ureach.com, so disregard those links).  They are useful in seeing what are the major bits of information that you should have in your own study notes. In addition, there is material at the publisher's website that may be helpful as well (see the link on the syllabus).

I have been asked why I chose this particular text.  Actually, I've used a range of materials during the time I've taught the course, and this book seemed to be perhaps the best organized, especially when it comes to comparing different traditions.  However, I do see that the amount of detail and commentary can seem overwhelming, and there then may be a tendency just to skim quickly and hope for the best.  No, please do take the time to read, especially the material on the pages indicated as case studies.  If I have one observation based on this survey as well as on surveys I've done in the past, it's that typically too little time is spent on the material, either on the text or on what I have online.  Just looking at something for a short while once a week, if that, and then cramming at the end is not going to do the job. 

Here might be a quick rule to go by: are you spending as much time during the week just reading for a course as you do on your favorite TV show?  Okay, the latest episode of "Desperate Housewives" might be more fun, but getting a good grade on how much you know about the four ladies involved will not improve your chances of getting the GPA you want for transfer.  If you don't have time for both, do your classwork first and plan on watching reruns when the class is over.


DEFINING THE TERM "RELIGION"

As you finish the first two weeks of the course, you may have noted the emphasis I'm putting on the difficulty of saying what counts as a "religion."  For example, ask yourself what might be a common link between Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Quakers, Zen Buddhists, Hasidic Jews, and Wahabi sect Muslims (the group from which we have Osama Bin Laden).  Not all believe in God, not all insist on making converts, not all have formal ritual patterns of worship, not all have a formal clergy.

As you move on to the next section of the course and look at Hinduism, I want you to keep in mind that even in a given tradition the differences between groups can be more striking than the similarities (as would be the case with Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses in the list above).  Also, in Hinduism and to some extent in Buddhism, there is also the idea that "truth" will not be the same thing for the more enlightened person and for the ordinary believer.  A possible comparison from our own culture would be the "truth" of Santa Claus for the adult and for the young child.  This means that we need to be very alert in order to avoid misleading generalizations.  Confusing?  Of course. 

What does make matters worse is how differences are played down in most textbooks, including the one I have for this course.  This is particularly true when there is a discussion of philosophy as such--meaning, the way in which we talk about the ultimate reality of what we are or what reality is.  For instance, there is quite a difference between saying that our personal identity is actually an illusion and saying that there is a reality there that continues into eternity.  Do "I" continue to exist as the same person I think myself now--or is it the case that there is a succession of individuals (the idea of reincarnation basic to Indian tradition)?  The Western traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all insist on the first; Hinduism and Buddhism on the second.

As you go through all this, you quickly find yourself with the question of how we are to connect belief and reason.  Can we hope to "prove" one or another statement about what we mean by God or the soul?  If it is all a matter of faith, then there is still the philosopher's question about how one is to choose between competing belief systems. 

Don't expect answers to everything.  That is not the goal of the course.  If you just get a better idea of the questions, I would count the course a success.


UNDERSTANDING COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

In the classroom I usually get around to saying something about what behavioral scientists call cognitive dissonance. This refers to the situation in which we have ideas presented that do not fit together; what we typically do is rationalize so that the more disturbing of the two is canceled out. For instance, smokers are more likely than non-smokers to insist that the medical research linking smoking to cancer is flawed or inconclusive. In the same way, someone who has invested heavily in a bad deal is more likely to invest still more in an attempt to save it than is someone who has invested only lightly (the individual with the greater loss cannot really accept the idea that the money is gone).

What I have always found interesting is the research showing that the fastest growing religions are those which require their members to go out and make converts even though their beliefs or practices seem odd or even bizarre. What seems to happen is that the fact of rejection intensifies the faith of the person rejected--and those who do convert typically attribute this to the sincerity and intensity of those who are already believers. It seems paradoxical, but it does explain a great deal, whether we are talking about the people who come to your door from the Jehovah's Witnesses or the legions of individuals who commit themselves to be "martyrs" as suicide bombers.

In the Los Angeles Times for 2/16/06 there was a story about how the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) are handling the DNA evidence that conflicts with their belief that Native Americans are descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel. Some are disillusioned, but, as the article points out, there are other ways devout Mormons attempt to handle the cognitive dissonance, including an imaginative new interpretation of the Book of Mormon. This is wonderful case study of what I am talking about.

Often in an early assignment I've asked students to think about how a course in comparative religion might affect the believer. In the lecture notes I cite the reaction of an early Christian bishop to the clear similarities between Christian beliefs and practices and those of other mystery cults of his time, especially the Osiris and Mithras cults. Greek and Roman writers had long cited similarities to assert that these must all be man-made traditions and therefore not "really" true. Bishop Eusebius as a believer commented that this was how the Lord had prepared the way for the Gospel! I talk then about a Eusebius principle: the believer need not be disillusioned by what he learns, while the non-believer can draw a completely different conclusion. And who is right? That's the point, of course: we do not have a way of stepping higher to see who might really be right, the believer or the non-believer, but neither has to be threatened--or encouraged--by looking at other traditions. We cannot use comparative religion as a stick to beat someone else over the head--and we shouldn't try.