religion

[jojojojoanne]

just wondered if religion as a subject has 'academic' research (like other areas:such as science) and if so how is religion (as a collective whole) explored?and in what way?does it evolve/adapt/change?or is it mostly rigid?

[beryllium]

The word religion means....

a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

[beryllium]

Sorry to just paste this up... and I know lots of people on here will give you lots of conversation. But this is something I haven't read thoroughly yet but will do at some time :-)
My personal view is that philosophical points of view seem to go round in ever decreasing circles.... but everyone has an opinion. Don't we?

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/re ligion/subject_home.html

[Octavius]

Religion, spirituality and God or gods are all studied under 'Theology'. Here is an example of a theology faculty:

http://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/

[mibn2cweus]

Theology and science are branches of philosophy. Religions, for the most part, are devoted to a preconceived notion that we and the world we live in were intentionally and purposefully created by a God who was not. Basing their entire belief system on this notion they then set about seeking evidence that supports this belief discounting any perceptions, evidence or rational arguments that bring it into question or tend to disprove it. Such a biased approach to discovering and revealing truth is a blind alley leading to a dead end.

Philosophy, just as life, must evolve to keep in step with advances in knowledge and technology which are the fruit of the tree of the scientific process of examining and determining the laws governing the nature of the world we must learn to understand in order to survive and thrive within it. The antiquated percepts defining moral behavior passed down from millennia ago have not evolved to maintain relevance in the world as we now know it to exist. This creates an ever growing danger having at our disposal powerful technologies undreamed of when those ancient guidelines were first carved in stone. The reasons justifying laws must be understood as well or better than moral dictates or their in-viability and lack of growth will bring them and their usefulness to wither and die along with those who blindly follow.

History unquestionably provides us with invaluable knowledge regarding the consequences of our actions. Perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from history is that change is inevitable. We must be prepared to adapt to the changes we face in the future or we face the fate that befell the dinosaur.

[Octavius]

Sorry, I got a bit bored after the first paragraph. Isn�t such research aimed at questioning the foundations of belief (religious, spiritual and philosophical), thus presenting arguments for and against all of these in symmetry? Perhaps such research is not trying to justify beliefs, but find out why people have them in the first place or interpret them in a certain way. Why do you narrow-mindedly assume it is all about finding the truth? I don't believ it is, even if they did, less than half the world would believe it.

The question asked about �academic research� and I felt that this is covered in theological studies.

[mibn2cweus]

Octavius, If, as I "narrow mindedly assume", you are referring to the previous answer I submitted to jojojojoanne's question, please do not assume that my remarks regarding the question were intended as anything more that a presentation of the thoughts the question evoked in me as a person who believes it is an important matter to seek and reveal the truth, even at the risk of occasionally being in error.

I do not demand belief in or acceptance by anyone nor do I intend what I offer to be regarded as �God�s� or �Gospel truth�. If not one reader finds my words worthy of consideration, I have no problem with that. If I incorrectly assumed that the answerbank is an open forum and that the questions author was prepared to consider answers such as mine, I offer to all that require it, my humble apology.

Regardless of my assumptions I welcome you or anyone else to question my motives or critique my �answers�. Please do not assume that I am �narrow minded�, whatever the hell that means?

[Octavius]

No, my apologies. I just didn�t agree that theological research is solely about proving the gospel and revealing the truth, which it seemed you inferred. As my link above shows, it is more than that.

[mibn2cweus]

Octavius, I agree that your answer was more appropriate and to the point of the question. You having provided that useful information, my �sermon� was not intended as an attack on or to dispute the value, pertinence or validity of your answer. If you perceived my post as nothing more the inane ramblings of a madman than I failed to make the point I was attempting to make as intended. You were not the first to misunderstand my intentions and I doubt you will be the last. I acknowledge my shortcomings and accept the hazards the accompany my outspokenness. While continuously pursuing the obvious need for self-improvement, I will persist in my efforts to speak my mind.

I consider the relaying of your concerns helpful to my personal development. Thank you for your conscientious input. �Onward through the fog!� (Oat Willie)

[chakka35]

If you want to see the concept of religion analysed, dissected and viewed from all possible angles, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. You won't need anything else.

[naomi24]

Chakka, I'll agree with that.

[VS Prasad]

During 1800s, Anthropologists had a problem as to
how to classify human beings. One researcher
proposed the expression "intelligent animal".
After advanced studies on monkeys, it was dropped.
Another researcher proposed "tool using animal".
After observing some animals making wooden tools
and sharpening them with knife like stones, it was
dropped. Another researcher proposed "weapon using
animal". A decade ago, a rare film was shot by an
amateur in an African forest. One short monkey was
hit very badly by a big monkey. The short monkey
prepared a wooden knife using stones and hid it on
the top of a tree. After some days, when the big
monkey came to attack the short monkey, it ran up
to the tree for the weapon it has hid and killed
the big monkey. The one thing that the
anthropologists found with any group of human
beings, even if they did not have contacts with
the out side world for thousands of years, has
spirituality with some form of religion. So, man
is a "spiritual animal" if you want to call him
that way.

The Upanishads say that "Manush" (human) was so
named because he has "Manas" a mind higher than
that of the animals which realizes the divinity in
creation. It was present since the creation of
human beings. Religion is the characteristic
feature of most of the human beings. It was not
attained through reasoning using mind. Illiterate
tribes located in inaccessible forests also have
religion. It is as eternal and and as unchanging
as the Almighty. Disbelief by a few will not
affect it.

"The percentage of atheists in the world is less
than 5%"

http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c48a .htm