1. Approaches to Religion
Introduction to World Religions

2. Boston, “Higher Power” Listen to Boston, “Higher Power” Attendance
Electronics policy?
What components do “religions” have?
Which of these are necessary (without them it wouldn’t be a religion)?
Which of these are optional (a religion may or may not have them)?
What do “religions” have in common?

3. Electronics policy?
The research
Our response
multitasking inhibits learning;
Your choice: engage actively, or multitask.
Distracting others? study published in 2013
Interaction
eye contact
actively engaging with one another
One study on typing vs. writing
synthesizing and condensing
visual connections
habits
Should we have a policy regarding electronics in the classroom?
What should be allowed and not allowed?
First, if you have your laptop open, it is almost impossible not to check or briefly surf the Internet, even if you don’t mean to or have told yourself that you won’t. I have the same impulse if I have my laptop open in a meeting. The problem is that studies indicate that this kind of multitasking impairs learning; once we are on /the web, we are no longer paying very good attention to what is happening in class. (And there is no evidence I know of that “practice” at doing this kind of multitasking is going to make you better at it!)
Now I know that one could argue that it is your choice about whether you want to use this hour and 20 minutes to engage actively with the material at hand, or whether you would like to multitask. You’re not bothering anyone (one could argue) as you quietly do your or check Facebook. Here’s the problem with that theory: From what we can tell, you are actually damaging the learning environment for others, even if you’re being quiet about it. A study published in 2013 found that not only did the multitasking student in a classroom do worse on a postclass test on the material, so did the peers who could see the computer. In other words, the off-task laptop use distracted not just the laptop user but also the group of students behind the laptop user. (And I get it, believe me. I was once in a lecture where the woman in front of me was shoe shopping, and I found myself thinking at one point, “No, not the pink ones!” I don’t remember all that much else about the lecture.)
In addition, I can find your multitasking on a laptop a bit distracting as the instructor because sometimes you are not typing at the right times; I am not saying anything noteworthy and yet you are engrossed in typing, which suggests that you are doing something other than being fully engaged in our class. And that distracts my attention.
There’s also the issue of the classroom environment. I like to foster a sense of conversation here, even in a class of 100 students. If you are on a laptop, I and your peers are often looking at the back of your computer screen and the top of your head, rather than all of us making eye contact with each other. Learning happens best in a classroom when everyone is actively engaged with one another in the exchange of information. This can mean looking up from your notes to listen and to talk with others, which means you may need to make strategic decisions about what to write down. Note-taking is designed to support the learning and retention of material we talk about in class; note-taking itself is not learning. And speaking of what you choose to write down …
A study that came out in June—and which got a lot of buzz in the mainstream press—suggests that taking notes by hand rather than typing them on a laptop improves comprehension of the material. While students taking notes on a laptop (and only taking notes—they were not allowed to multitask) wrote down more of the material covered in class, they were often typing what the instructor said verbatim, which seems to have led to less processing of the material. The students taking notes by hand had to do more synthesizing and condensing as they wrote because they could not get everything down. As a result, they learned the material better.* I think there is also something to the ease with which one can create visual connections on a handwritten page through arrows, flow charts, etc.
I figure it is also good for all of us to break addictive patterns with , texting, Facebook, etc. When you step back, it seems a bit silly that we can’t go for 80 minutes without checking our phones or other devices. Really, for most of us, what are the odds of an emergency that can’t wait an hour? We have developed the habit of checking, and you can see this class as a chance to create or reinforce a habit of not checking too.
Of course, if you need or strongly prefer a laptop for taking notes or accessing readings in class for any reason, please come talk with me, and I am happy to make that work. I’ll just ask you to commit to using the laptop only for class-related work.
August 25, 2014 by Anne Curzan in

4. Studying Religions
“What is religion? Describe its necessary and optional characteristics. What distinguishes religion from spirituality, philosophy, and cultural worldview?”

5. In this class…

6. What is “religion”? What components do “religions” have?
Which of these are necessary (without them it wouldn’t be a religion)?
Which of these are optional (a religion may or may not have them)?
What do “religions” have in common?

7. Definitions of religion
American Heritage Dictionary: "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe; A particular integrated system of this expression; The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognizes the existence of a superhuman power or powers." Durkheim: “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” Wallace: “a set of rituals, rationalized by myth, which mobilizes supernatural powers for the purpose of achieving or preventing transformations of state in man or nature” Geertz: "Religion is (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, persuasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in [people] by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.“ Bellah: "...a set of symbolic forms and acts that relate man to the ultimate conditions of his existence."
William James: “The very fact that they are so many and so different from one another is enough to prove that the word 'religion' cannot stand for any single principle or essence, but is rather a collective name." Talal Asad: My argument is that there cannot be a universal definition of religion, not only because its constituent elements and relationships are historically specific, but because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.

8. Small groups: define religion
Do not use these words in your definition:
spiritual/spirituality
belief
experience
“the sacred,” “the holy,” or “the transcendent”
faith
mystical

9. Religion: Belief? Is religion primarily about belief?
Is what one believes the basis for their actions?
What if those actions don’t follow their religion’s teachings and scriptures?
“When that sick old mythology claimed you as its prize, you pulled the arrow out yourself but the poison’s still inside.” Mares of Thrace, “… And the Bird Surgeon”
My religion courses are full of belief. By this I mean that, for most students (and many other people, for that matter), “belief” is the primary default concept when it comes to religion. Many of us are socially habituated to assume that religion is first and foremost about belief and—even more—that what one believes is the basis for an individual’s action. And when those actions don’t follow the dictates laid out in institutional dogma and canonical text, some students are ready to make moral judgments. In my American religions course, we look at examples of Protestants who hold to ideas about reincarnation, the existence of ghosts, and that the power of positive thinking can change the physical world through mental will alone. This mixing of practices and ideas from a variety of cultural sources is not unusual, but rather something people do all the time. But it is not unusual for students to scoff, viewing descriptions of such blending as not merely ethnographic observations, but rather as evidence for the inauthenticity of the practitioners’ Protestantism. What could be a scholarly examination of religious practice becomes instead a theological act of calling out heresies and upholding orthodoxy—not about what people think and do, but about what some think people should think and do.
Given this, one of the things I work on in our undergraduate majors theory and methods class, Orientation to the Study of Religion, is to get students to question their assumption that whatever we call “religion” must always be primarily about belief. The initial way I approach this is through discussing definitions of religion. On one of the first days we spend the whole period (nearly three hours with a 15 minute break in the middle) discussing what might be meant by the term “religion.” We look at some abbreviated scholarly definitions of religion, including excerpts by Durkheim, James, Wallace, Albanese, and Geertz. I always include this sentence by Talal Asad as one of the passages to consider: “My argument is that there cannot be a universal definition of religion, not only because its constituent elements and relationships are historically specific, but because that definition is itself the historical product of discursive processes.” After we look at and try some initial unpacking of the definitions, I put the students into small groups and give them a short period of time to come up with their own definition (or non-definition) of religion. I also give them this list of “red flag” words that they are not allowed to use in their definition:
spiritual/spirituality
belief
experience
“the sacred,” “the holy,” or “the transcendent”
faith
mystical
By the end of the class period, my goal is to have students starting to think about what kinds of work defining religion in particular ways does. In the following weeks we look at terms such as “belief” and “spiritual” and ask similar questions. Why, I ask, do many of us prefer “belief” to “practice” in our everyday conversations about religion? By the end of the semester, when we revisit the topic of religion definitions (to see if our conversation has changed), belief is still the default concept to which some return. Like the arrow’s poison in the Mares of Thrace song above, the concept remains embedded. Habits are hard to break, and belief is hard to shake.
Sean McCloud

10. Necessary components Connects humans to a supernatural reality
Is organized:
Is shared with others
has recognized authorities
Has rituals

11. Optional components Teachings: Practices:
Meaning: what is the purpose of life, the universe, and everything?
Salvation: How to escape the basic human predicament
Ethics: What is right and wrong?
What happens after death?
Practices:
Rites of passage
Expressing devotion: Worship, Prayer, Thanks, Praise, Sacrifice, Appeasement
Scriptures
Education
Service

12. “Religion” or something else?
What is the difference between a “religion” and:
Spirituality?
Spirituality can be individual; Religion is shared with others. (e.g., New Age spirituality)
Philosophy?
Philosophy ignores the supernatural, or at least supernatural persons. (Confucianism? Scientology?)
Cultural Worldview?
May not have recognized authorities or rituals.

13. For Next Time For next class: Looking ahead:
Moodle “Quiz: Why are there religions?” on the readings from Freud, Nietzsche, and Marx
Looking ahead:
Moodle “Quiz: Making Sense 1”
Moodle “Quiz on Chapter 2: Indigenous Religions”
For Wednesday
Read online readings for discussion
Freud, Marx, Glynn, Stenmark, & Tillich

14. Three approaches to religion
“Describe the three main approaches to religion. Who are some of the most well-known proponents of each approach? How does each explain why religion exists?”

15. Why are there religions?
Three main perspectives:
Materialistic perspective
Functional perspective
Belief perspective

16. Materialistic explanation for religion
Humans invented religion.
Feuerbach
Gods are idealized projections
Freud
Imagine God protects and expects
Marx
Was: combat exploitation
Became: tool for oppression
Humans invented religion.
Feuerbach
Gods are idealized projections of ourselves; by contrast we see ourselves as sinful.
Freud
Religion is a childish illusion; we imagine God protects us from the terrors of life and expects us to behave.
Marx
Religion originated to combat exploitation, but failed and was transformed into an otherworldly expression of our desire for a better life.
Religion now has become a tool for oppression.
“Man makes religion: religion does not make man....The religious world is but the reflex of the real world....Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people....”

17. Functional explanation for religion
Religion is useful.
Durkheim:
glue that holds society together
Bowker:
improves chances of society’s survival
Religious people have better health
Religion transforms people into better people
mental strength to act unselfishly
courage in the face of difficulty and death
Religion is useful.
Durkheim:
Religion is a glue that holds society together
Bowker:
Religion improves the chances of the biological survival of a society.
Religious people have better health
Religion transforms people into better people
Religion provides mental strength to act unselfishly
Religion provides courage in the face of difficulty and death

18. Belief explanation for religion
There actually is a supernatural reality.
Two main ways of coming to this belief:
Rational, pondering questions such as:
What is the ultimate basis of existence?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do we perceive right and wrong?
Non-Rational (Wach)
Mystical experience
Enlightenment / awakening
Where do perceived miracles fit?

19. Why are there religions?
Three main perspectives:
Materialistic perspective
Functional perspective
Belief perspective

20. Freud What role does wishful thinking play in religious beliefs?
According to the three perspectives on religion?
In your view?

21. Marx
Why, according to Marx, must religion be abolished?

22. Nietzsche What did Nietzsche mean by “God is dead”?
Did he think that was a good thing or not?

23. For Next Time For next class: Looking ahead:
Moodle “Quiz: Making Sense 1”
Looking ahead:
Moodle “Quiz on Chapter 2: Indigenous Religions”
Watch movie “Seeking Netukulimk”

24. Presentations
In the News
In the Calendar

25. Service Learning

26. From “Introduction to Higher Education and Religious Studies”
How do these affect religious studies:
1. the pervasiveness of religion in everyday life;
2. the diverse nature of religious studies; and
3. religious presuppositions

27. Evolution of Religion
“Give three specific examples of how religions have changed over the centuries.”
As we study various religions, we will notice that they often change over the centuries, so that in some cases the religion that goes by their name no longer represents their founder’s teaching in some ways.
Buddhism: worshipping the Buddha; desire for personal prosperity
Confucianism: the importance of divine beings
Christianity: the use of force; following rules
Sikhism: pacifism

28. Are all religions equal?
How might one evaluate a religion?
Its truth?
Is it consistent with scientific discoveries?
Is it internally consistent?
Its methods?
Does it treat people with respect?
Its effects?
Does it make better individuals?
Better in what ways? Happier (at peace)? Healthier? More free?
Does it improve society?
Does it make people less selfish? More cooperative? Less violent?
Does it contribute to the survival of the species?
Protect the environment?

29. The encounter between science and religion
Science, like religion, searches for universal principles to explain reality.
Plato: soul is superior to body; reason superior to senses
18th century : rational knowledge more important than religious knowledge.
Darwin’s theory of evolution challenged the biblical view of creation.
More recently, scientists have:
sought to understand religious belief without rejecting it outright
questioned the nature of science itself
encountered major complexity in the universe
Intelligent design: scientific discoveries prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
scientific discovery itself may deepen one’s religious faith.
acknowledged the complicating factor of our own role as observers.
proposed models of the universe with affinities to some religious models
evidence of purpose or intention in the development of the universe.
Science, like religion, searches for universal principles to explain reality as we experience it. Since ancient times, the two have often gone hand-in-hand. While some of the ancient Greek nature philosophers sought to understand the world through their own perception, Plato argued that the testimony of the senses differs from that which is determined through reason. Plato considered the soul superior to the body, and reason superior to the senses, a judgment which has had profound influence on Western thought.
The eighteenth-century Enlightenment placed greater respect on rational knowledge than religious knowledge. In the nineteenth century, Darwin’s theory of evolution challenged the biblical view of creation.
More recently, however, some scientists have sought to understand religious belief without necessarily rejecting it outright, and have also questioned the nature of science itself. Scientists studying the cosmos have encountered virtually insurmountable complexity and have also acknowledged the complicating factor of our own role as observers. Some physicists have proposed models of the universe which have certain affinities with some religious models, to the extent that their work may be seen as approaching metaphysics or philosophy based on theories of subtle realities that transcend the physical world.
The conflict between science and religion is exemplified in the opposing views of creationism — religious concepts of intentional divine creation of all life forms, and Darwinism — the scientific concept of a universe evolving mechanistically. The intelligent design movement holds that scientific discoveries may be seen as proving the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Some scientists have also argued that there appears to be some evidence of purpose or intention in the development of the universe, again revealing a potential affinity with religious views of creation. Finally, some scientists find scientific discovery itself an experience which may deepen their own religious faith.
There are four general positions in the current dialogue between science and religion: the conflict model, the view that science and religion deal with separate realms, a position of dialogue in which scientists and religious believers find common ground in interpreting religious propositions as metaphors, and an integrationist position which sees an overlap between religion and science.

30. Four positions regarding science and religion
Conflict:
Science and religion are irreconcilable
The conflict between science and religion is exemplified in the opposing views of creationism — religious concepts of intentional divine creation of all life forms, and Darwinism — the scientific concept of a universe evolving mechanistically.
Contrast:
No real conflict since science and religion deal with entirely separate realms
Contact:
scientists and religious believers find common ground: ways in which science shapes religious understanding.
Confirmation:
religion supports and nourishes the entire scientific enterprise
Hubble telescope reveals star nurseries 6 trillion miles high in the Eagle Nebula.

31. Negative aspects of organized religions
Religions may:
split rather than unify humanity.
devote more energy to preserving the outer, institutional form of the religion than its inner spirit (Weber’s “routinization of charisma”).
be used to dominate and manipulate the faithful
people may put their faith in unethical or misguided spiritual leaders.
lead to an exaggeration of guilt in people with perfectionist or paranoid tendencies
become a form of escapism
be psychologically harmful to some.
be used as a rallying point for wars against other peoples or nations, since it is a potential center for political power
no religion sanctions violence against innocent people
yet battles fought in the name of religion have led to horrific violence.
Fisher indicates some key problem areas to which the reader should pay close attention:
Religions may split rather than unify humanity.
Religions may devote more energy to preserving the outer, institutional form of the religion than its inner spirit (Weber’s “routinization of charisma”).
Those in religious power have the ability to dominate and manipulate the faithful; people may put their faith in unethical or misguided spiritual leaders.
Religion may lead to an exaggeration of guilt in people with perfectionist or paranoid tendencies; religion may become a form of escapism; religion may be psychologically harmful to some.
Religion is a potential center for political power, and may be used as a rallying point for wars against other peoples or nations.
As Fisher states, no religion sanctions violence against innocent people, yet battles fought in the name of religion indeed often have led to horrific violence. Fisher concludes the chapter with a call for clear, careful, and compassionate understanding of different religions rather than an “us” and “them” dichotomy.

32. Distinguish what religion does from what religion is.
Religion provides:
Meaning to life; answers to life’s ultimate questions
Social cohesion; improved chance of a culture’s survival
A way to control people; support for political causes
A basis for morality; higher levels of altruism
Etc.
Religion is:
An organized way for people to connect to a reality beyond the natural world

33. Understandings of Sacred Reality
Terms: (These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive)
Immanent: present in the world.
Transcendent: existing above and outside the material world
Theistic: understanding the sacred to be a personal reality
Monotheistic: ultimate reality is worshiped as a single being
Polytheistic: there are multiple attributes and forms of the divine, then it is designated.
Monistic: behind the plurality of apparent forms there is one underlying substance
Nontheistic: sacred reality is not in the form of a personal God.
Incarnations: sacred reality manifested in human form or events.
Exclusivist: there is only true deity and that all others are pagans or nonbelievers.
Universalism: it is possible different religions are talking about the same thing in different languages, or referring to different aspects of the same unknowable whole.
Atheism: there is no deity.
“New Atheism” (Dawkins): religious faith is not just wrong, but evil
Agnosticism: it is impossible for humans to know with certainty about the existence of the sacred.
Understandings of sacred reality
That which has been experienced as the sacred has many faces. Eliade helped develop comparative religion which compares religious patterns found throughout the world. Eliade used the terms sacred and profane; however, not all cultures make a clear distinction between the two.
A vocabulary exists in the study of religions to help us understand the different ways, culturally and historically, in which ultimate reality has been approached and defined.
Sacred reality can be envisioned as immanent, which means present in the world. Reality can also be conceived as transcendent, that is, as existing above and outside the material world. Religions that understand the sacred to be a personal reality and which are based on one’s relationship to the personal sacred are called theistic. In these religions, if ultimate reality is worshiped as a single being, the religion is called monotheistic. On the other hand, if a religion maintains that there are multiple attributes and forms of the divine, then it is designated polytheistic. Religions which maintain that behind the plurality of apparent forms there is one underlying substance are termed monistic. Nontheistic views assert a sacred reality that is not in the form of a personal God. Some religions believe that sacred reality can be manifested in human form or events called incarnations.
Exclusivist religious authorities claim that they worship the only true deity and that all others are pagans or nonbelievers. In contrast, universalism is the view that it is possible different religions are talking about the same thing in different languages, or referring to different aspects of the same unknowable whole.
Atheism is the belief that there is no deity. “New Atheism,” promoted by thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, argues that religious faith is not just wrong, but evil, because it can be used to support violence. Agnosticism is the view that it is impossible for humans to know with certainty about the existence of the
sacred. It is important to emphasize to students that these categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Religions which conceive of a personal sacred reality may think of that reality as simultaneously immanent and transcendent. It is also possible that at times some of these distinctions may blur. For example, a Hindu may be a polytheist and believe in the existence of many gods but may be somewhat monotheistic in practice when she or he places one god at the top of the pantheon. Fisher concludes this section by explaining how the book will explore, in Eliade’s term, the phenomenology of religion—its specifically sacred aspects—and also use Geertz’s “thick description” to explore not just outward behaviors but also attempt to explain what such behaviors mean to believers.

34. Key Terms absolutist agnosticism allegory atheism awakening charisma
comparative religion
Creationism
Darwinism
dogma
enlightenment
exclusivism
Fundamentalism
gnosis
heretic
immanent
incarnation
intelligent design
liberal
metaphysics
monotheism
mysticism
myth
orthodox
phenomenology
polytheism
profane
realization
redaction
religion
ritual
sacred
scientific materialism
spirituality
symbol
theism
transcendent
universalism
Living Religions
7th ed.
by Mary Pat Fisher
1-38
PRENTICE HALL
©2008 Pearson Education, Inc.
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458

35. For Next Time For next class: Looking ahead:
Moodle “Quiz on Chapter 2: Indigenous Religions”
Looking ahead:
Watch movie on First Nations spiritual principles
Moodle “Quiz: Making Sense 1”
For Wednesday
Read online readings for discussion
Freud, Marx, Glynn, Stenmark, & Tillich