Apr 12 2009
Relocated: Religion and Academia
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Religion and Academia
So I’m reading a book on Islam right now. I know I’m a nerd. And the thought occurred to me. Is it really possible to study religion in an academic way? I’m very curious about this. My thoughts are that it’s not. For a few reasons.
First. Religions rely on faith. And they claim to be adaptable, and revolve around an omnipotent being. For the same reason that they are not provable, they are not disprovable. One can question the specific assertions about facts made in the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, or any other religious document, but can not disprove the overall message, in the same way that believers need to take a leap of faith and just trust the overall message.
Second. Followers of a religion tend to be very non-academic in their writings about it. This is illustrated by the book I’m currently reading. Now I’m not saying that Muslims started the Crusades, or that they were at fault, but the reality of the Crusades, and the historical conflict between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is that there were a lot of deaths all around. They were generally violent times. The author of this particular books paints the Muslims as innocent victims. Second, the author dismisses Muslim Emperors who had harems or used violence, or were intolerant of Christians and Jews as “un-Islamic,” and Muslim violence as un-Islamic as well. He fails to account for the fact that even if it is a minority, there is a segment of the Muslim population that believes that these things are, in fact, justified, if not commanded by, Islam. He at one moment says that there is no universally accepted authority in Islam, and that all worshipers interpret and worship as they please, and then turns around and dismisses the religious beliefs of those who make Islam “look bad.” Finally, the context in which his arguments are framed is telling. There is a Chapter on the types of Islam. Under subheadings, he explains Shi’ism, Sufism, and several other sects of Islam. He does not go into Sunnism, the dominant sect. Instead, it should, perhaps, just be assumed, that Sunnism is “the norm” and the only reason the other types are noteworthy is because they are the exceptions.
Third. It would be hard for truly religious believers of other faiths to write objectively about a religion. This goes without saying. If someone truly accepts the teaching of one religion, how will they deal with the unprovables of another religion? There is a double standard here.
Fourth. Atheists, agnostics, and non-devoted individuals would have a hard time taking religions for what they are. This has been shown over and over again in “religion vs. science” texts and debates. Neither side seems to win. The religious say, “but God’s days could be our milleniums, and it doesn’t say HOW he created, it just says that he created.” Science says, “but God didn’t create. Evolution created.” And religious people say, “But God created Evolution, therefor God created Man.” And scientists say, “How do you know God created Evolution?” And we’re back where we started, with the idea that faith is neither provable or disprovable.
I’d be curious to see what other people’s thoughts on this are.
Posted by Zach at 8:15 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: academia, faith, religion, textbooks
