My Posts

Answer:

Religion is often characterized by that which binds one to a sense of the sacred. It can provide a believer with an “ultimate meaning” to their life and/or can provide one with a sense of transformation. Religion itself is not static; it has and will constantly change. From an academic view point the most widely accepted definition of religion comes from Ninian Smart. Smart summarizes religion as a living being, “alive and active” with seven dimension. Each of the dimensions shows us characteristics that are necessary for it to be called a religion. The first of these is “myths,” which include historical sacred stories of reverential and venerated persons, or symbolic accounts that exist out of adoration for or a can explain a discrepancy for the subject. The next is “rituals”, which are the repeated activities of the followers which are either re-enactments of religious myth or actions that help to connect a follower with the sense of the sacred. The third dimension includes “experiences”, there are feelings of the presence of divinity or the sacred which often help one to forget about self, troubles or shortcomings and can help connect the believer with something greater. The fourth dimension includes “doctrines”, which provide the belief system or philosophy of the group. It is an attempt at offering a logical system of beliefs. The fifth dimension is “ethics”, which are the moral codes of behavior that controls the society, such as the golden rule, or to not steal or cheat and even provide principles of fairness and justice. The sixth dimension involves the “social” aspect or organization form of the group or the community to live in. The last or seventh dimension includes “material forms”, which are the sacred materials or objects used that connect or act as a conduit for the believer to the divine.

One could use a number of methods to study religion, such as the theological method (which would study religion from a believers perspective with the ultimate questions involving the idea of religious truth), a religious study method (in which the overall goal is the object study of religion from a secular viewpoint), a phenomenology method (which attempts to describe the phenomena experienced by the believer by trying to step into the believers shoes), a sociological method (which attempts to under the social origins and then attempt to analyze how the ideas are developed.) Furthermore one could use a psychological method (which would study what makes one religious from a psychological viewpoint), or from a historical method (which reviews historical events and happenings related to it) or from an anthropological method (which would study primal humans to show how early religions developed in the first place.

It is difficult for one studying to be completely objective, since one is typically brought up with some form of religious background or culture. As one studies there are various approaches employed. Ninian Smart suggests the following three approaches are typically used. One is “antipathy”, which is a more negative view, which attempts to unmask the distortion of a religion, a second is “sympathy”, which while being more positive in nature, would still yield a biased view of the religion, assuming ones personal religion is truth, which often provides a more critical review of the studied religion, and the third is “empathy”, which attempts to understand a religion from the believers perspective. Peter Berger also states that are three approaches, however, he defines his as “reduction”, an attempt to reduce it to its social origins only, “deduction” which makes the assumption of religious truth as based in reformation doctrine, and “induction” which attempts to take seriously the experience of the believer.

A proper method to study religion would use a combination of phenomenological, sociological and transpersonal psychological methodologies to objectively describe the phenomena, and then critically analyze the collected data followed by assessing the religions development stage.

Studying religions is less about studying God and more about studying humans, cultural values and human character/nature. Studying religion can benefit the individual and society in general. As one understands another’s doctrines, they become more tolerant and understanding. This in turn helps break down unnecessary social divisions.

There are six explanations for how religion starts. One is a biological explanation which instead of assigning a mystic reality, addresses what is going on neurologically in the brain, as part of the construction of our neural network, in which we long for a sense of meaning and community. Another is a theological explanation, which concludes that the idea originate from the divine or “God”, who then communicated spiritual truths to various individuals who either spoke them orally or wrote them down in a book. A third is an anthropological explanation, which studies primal human’s evolution of intellect, trying to deify the forces of nature. A forth is a psychological explanation which believes that religion stems from our deeply rooted unconscious mind which is filled with archetypal symbols and that religion is an outward expression of these. A fifth is the sociological explanation in which religions has a social origin, in which a feeling of belonging or community exists. And lastly an egotistical explanation, in which conscious formulation occurs to garner for its creator either praise or income. The theory of origin that I can best relate to is the theological one. In my experience God has imparted certain truths upon us. The biological explanation ties into my theological one, as God would certainly create the neural network in our brains to wire us to look toward and seek him. While a theological explanation is not testable or provable by science, I believe there are things that are just a matter of faith.

Nietzschian explores the concept of the death of God in Chapter Three of “When God’s Decay”. The question arises will God or religion die? The answer is no. What Nietzschian refers to is the decay of how we see God in our culture. Nietzschian states that what is dying off are certain versions of God. Science has been extremely helpful in helping us understand the world around us. This understanding is prompting us to adapt our version of God in order to better match what we now know is scientifically true. This decay of God does not always lead to demise but to a re-birth of God in a new version or form

Susan Blackmore explores memetic theory and how it relates to new religions. For Blackmore, meme’s are certain ideas, behavior, style or usage that ends up spreading or being passed from one person to another. Cultural evolution occurs because of memes. For a meme to be successfully passed on, it must be one that has the ability to be imitated (or self-replicated), be simplistic (the more complicated, the less likely it is to be propagated) and closely relate to basic human needs, desires and fears. Blackmore feels these memes explain how ideas connect our minds and our society.

In the “Politics of Mysticism”, David Lane believes that there is no way to know what one perceives in mystical practices is truthful or accurate. He feels that what can be conveyed is not evidence of our inner experiences, but just merely a testimony. Lane then further extends this thought to the billion plus religious converts who believe they have cornered the market on the truth (in particular the people who believe that if you don’t accept the truth claims of Jesus Christ you end up in eternal hell.)

At first, I agree with Lane, no one can provide evidence of an inner experience, all we can provide is our testimony. I do however believe that there is a real spiritual dimension that exists. Mystical practices (outside of God/Christ) can produce in a truthful and accurate experience. But this genuine experience comes from the demonic and is dangerous as it can allow the demonic to enter into one.

I would affiliate myself as one of the billon or more people who believe the truth claims about Jesus Christ and the repercussions of not coming to this conclusion. Although Lane has some familiarity with the gospels, his understanding of them is not really in line with what they truly communicate. Furthermore without the specific details, I’m not quite sure what he feels are contradictory or insufficient about them. Each of the gospels was written for a different audience to help them understand in a manner relative to their culture. I wouldn’t expect Lane to fully understand them, as is mentioned in the Bible Proverbs 1:7, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline” and as Jesus had said in John 8:31-32, “… If you hold to my teaching, then you are really my disciples, then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” It is not until you take the step in faith to trust God/Christ that real truth would be revealed to you.

In my opinion Lane should take the time to check out Christianity and its claim. Jesus made some pretty incredible claims about his life that can only lead to three conclusions about Himself. Jesus was either a lair (if he was, he wouldn’t have died for a lie, nor would his disciples or countless others), a lunatic (in which case his message would not have been consistent or prophetic) or he is the Lord (Son of God.)