I thought I would clarify what I’m doing in the Religious Studies programme, particularly in light of some frequently asked questions. It’s a tad long and not essential reading – there will not be a quiz. In a nutshell, with explanations below:
-
- No, I have not found god (I’m atheistic and agnostic)
- No, I have not converted to anything (though I enjoy learning about conversion practices)
- No, I am not involved in any cults (though I enjoy learning about them).
- I am studying religion from a multidisciplinary perspective: historical, psychological, philosophical, cultural/sociological – every which way other than from “the inside.” I am particularly interested in how religions ‘package’ philosophical approaches to daily living, how they connect belief to behaviour and how they are individually and socially constructed.
- My position, with respect to religions, is that of an “atheistic agnostic”; atheist, meaning I am a non-theist (without belief in a personal god) and agnostic, meaning that I am unsure whether knowledge of anything ‘transcendent’ (like a god) is possible. I am therefore a highly unlikely candidate for ‘finding god’. That said, I’m certainly open to experience some form of “unmediated revelation.” Should that happen, though, I’d probably look for psychiatric or pharmacological explanations before anything supernatural – since I don’t believe that anything can ‘be’ supernatural. Without meaning any disrespect, I tend to believe that one-on-one conversations between god and a receiver are either knowingly “creative” or, if truly believed, a neurophysiologic quirk.
- Religion does not require a god, which is a challenging idea for many – Buddhism is the most obvious example. This begs the question of how one defines religion and spirituality. While there are no agreed definitions in academia, the following will serve (these are by a clever Dutch religious studies scholar named Hanegraaff):
-
- Religion = any symbolic system which influences human action by providing possibilities for ritually maintaining contact between the everyday world and a more general meta-empirical framework of meaning.
-
- Spirituality = any human practice which maintains contact between the everyday world and a more general meta-empirical framework of meaning by way of the individual manipulation of symbolic systems.
- These demonstrate – analytically – that god is not required. Aside from the “officially” atheist branches of some religions, there are also atheistic Jews and Christians, though certainly on the fringe – far from mainstream. (I have not yet come across a self-described atheistic Muslim.) I have been learning this year the extent to which the major religious traditions each encompass a breadth of opinion, belief, practice, etc. – even when it comes to the existence of a god. Saying that someone is Jewish, for example, tells you almost nothing about what they think or do. Hinduism is a particularly extreme example – almost any religious concept you can mention can be found under the umbrella label of Hinduism. Whether one believes in a particular god or kind of god may be more a matter of temperament than education and family experience – this may be an area of research for me.
Why study religion?
- Religions are philosophical packages designed over time to be woven into life. I believe religions are perhaps the best case studies available for how humans have designed and evolved ideas and behaviours that integrate and align world-view, beliefs, and values. Just as military leaders study tactics from across human history, one can examine religious traditions for ideas that can be leveraged – regardless of whether particular beliefs have bases in reality.
An approach to an individualised model of religious constructivism
- I believe that the most authentic approach to determine one’s world-view – in the face of agnosticism – is ‘personal religious constructivism,’ a term I am using to define an individualised process for one’s ongoing construction of belief and behaviour. Mom used to say “take the best of what you find from all religions.” I suspect this is a common notion for liberal secular-humanist types – like mom. The model I am evolving is an attempt to systematically put that recommendation into practice. Similarly, new parents often say they intend to “let the children decide for themselves when they’re older.” This idea also could use a methodology. How exactly could that work?
- One of my intentions is to derive the greatest value I can from religious traditions so that I don’t throw the proverbial baby (genuine value) out with the bathwater (theism and supernaturalism). Many wise people over many centuries have evolved the ideas of traditional religions; some of these may be worth considering. I think the extremely vocal atheist commentators (like Dawkins) are missing the point by focusing on what is objectively real. Strong belief has objectively real consequences, regardless of ‘reality’ behind the belief.
So, where is this all going?
- There are a number of areas of interest for me that combine religion and my love of teaching, instructional design and instructional media, such as designing religious studies curricula for children. I suspect it will become increasingly popular to include such a subject in public schools around the world in order to foster inter-religious understanding, empathy, tolerance, etc.
- More speculatively, I can also envision a curriculum based on ‘personal religious constructivism’ that helps people develop individualised alternatives to ‘a’ religion or ‘no’ religion. Parents who are interested in raising their children spiritually – but not within the context of a particular religion – might also appreciate programmes and materials for that purpose.
- I’m also interested in inter-religious dialogue and its potential role in reducing violent conflicts.
That’s all for now : )