Humankind has always pondered the origins of life. It is only natural to question our own existence. After all, why do we occupy the space in which we reside, work, play, and breathe? As David Byrne asked in the song by the Talking Heads, “how did I get here?”
Mircea Eliade goes beyond just delving into to question of where we have come from; he also points out the prospect of “is there more?” Whether one is religious or agnostic, this question of the existence of a divine realm is rooted in human nature, of something that transcends the two-dimensional world. In the reading, we are presented with the differences between the sacred space and the profane space.
The difference between a skeptic and a religious individual is the acknowledgment of sacred space. The religious man sees the church, cathedral, synagogue, mosque, or any temple as a manifestation of the divine on earth. While these structures may be a mere "religious institution" to the non-believer, the religious individual sees them as a sacred space detached from the "surrounding cosmic milieu"(26).
Eliade sums up the religious man's mission regarding cosmogony at the end of the reading. Eliad iterates that the religious man's nostalgia is to inhabit a "divine world"(65). In other words, the desire to live in "when it came fresh from the Creator's hands" (65). This, according to Eliade, is the religious individuals belief that their sacred space is at the cosmic center of the universe (42).
While Eliad may argue that the religious individual will find sanctuary in a space in which he or she may be "closer to the gods"(65), the agnostic or the non-believer should not be discounted as one who does not see the world as merely two-dimensional. The religious individual will point out the non-religious man's disbelief in the divine. However, that does not mean that the non-religious are not unconcerned or uninterested in the meaning of life. To imply this would be assuming that atheists and agnostics merely animals without a deeper cause. The difference is that the religious individual will use his or her religious beliefs in answering the questions of humankind's existence on earth. As for the non-religious, the evolution of the philosophy of the meaning of life shows that religion is definitely not the only venue for seeking answers.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Journey “to the center of the world:” A brief overview of the central tenet of Mircea Eliades’ work, “The Sacred and the Profane.”
Mircea Eliade contends that the world space for persons without religion, is flat and one-dimensional; that it is “homogeneous and profane.” The world does not begin for any person, according to Eliade, until they find a sacred and centered place (space) in it. To do this, the religious devotee must engage in a ritualized process to differentiate sacred space from homogeneous and ordinary space.
What then, is sacred space? To answer this question, it is necessary to first understand, that the Universe, according to Eliade, exists on “three cosmic levels: Underworld, earth and sky.” Because of this, “Man” needs what Eliade calls an “axis mundi,” so that “he” can unite these worlds. In unifying the cosmos, man, as Eliade pens, “irrupts,” homogeneous, ordinary space, in a sense going vertical and creating sacred space. For Eliade, this axis mundi is brought into existence via the design and usage of the abode: Cathedral, temple, home. Eliades home is designed and built to unify the “three cosmic levels.” The successful result… space is “consecrated,” placing its resident in “communication” with the divine and holy moment and “at the center of the world.”
The Eliade ideal, in its apparent obscurity and final judgment, presents the modern reader with both difficulty and opportunity. It was Eliades’ contention that the modern, industrialized dwelling was constructed merely, “as a machine to live in” and that one consequence of this type of living was that its occupants were fated to live perennially in profane space. If this is the case, then how can modern readers truly comprehend the meaning of the Eliade metaphysic? Indeed, can Eliade, even if he has experienced “sacred space,” convey his experience, even to other “believers?” Should he want to? Finally, is it possible, that for whatever reasons, Eliade underestimates the number of routes to the “top of the mountain” and that there exists a simpler and more timely, yet no less profound set of nomenclature to describe that path, a path that would render the sacred available to a modern audience, situated in their profane, utilitarian dwellings? After all, who could need it more.
What then, is sacred space? To answer this question, it is necessary to first understand, that the Universe, according to Eliade, exists on “three cosmic levels: Underworld, earth and sky.” Because of this, “Man” needs what Eliade calls an “axis mundi,” so that “he” can unite these worlds. In unifying the cosmos, man, as Eliade pens, “irrupts,” homogeneous, ordinary space, in a sense going vertical and creating sacred space. For Eliade, this axis mundi is brought into existence via the design and usage of the abode: Cathedral, temple, home. Eliades home is designed and built to unify the “three cosmic levels.” The successful result… space is “consecrated,” placing its resident in “communication” with the divine and holy moment and “at the center of the world.”
The Eliade ideal, in its apparent obscurity and final judgment, presents the modern reader with both difficulty and opportunity. It was Eliades’ contention that the modern, industrialized dwelling was constructed merely, “as a machine to live in” and that one consequence of this type of living was that its occupants were fated to live perennially in profane space. If this is the case, then how can modern readers truly comprehend the meaning of the Eliade metaphysic? Indeed, can Eliade, even if he has experienced “sacred space,” convey his experience, even to other “believers?” Should he want to? Finally, is it possible, that for whatever reasons, Eliade underestimates the number of routes to the “top of the mountain” and that there exists a simpler and more timely, yet no less profound set of nomenclature to describe that path, a path that would render the sacred available to a modern audience, situated in their profane, utilitarian dwellings? After all, who could need it more.
Eliad, from The Sacred and the Profane
A Religious Overview: Eliade, From The Sacred and the Profane
In the reading, Eliade compares two experiences: one which involves sacred space and one which involves profane space. Sacred space is used to create meaning in the world through religious traditions and myths. Profane space is a lack of those same religious values which are meant to create a deeper understanding of the world in which we live. Eliade argues that in order to understand religion, there must be an understanding of the difference between what is sacred and what is profane, as interpreted by the religious man and the non-religious man.
The religious man seeks to understand an absolute reality, through universal beliefs and practices by religious peoples. For religious people, there are objects and characters which they interpret to reveal the truth of world. One example given in the reading is the door to a church, temple, or any place of worship. The door is seen as a threshold which separates the sacred from the profane. Not only is the church a place of worship and judgment, it requires a right of passage, such as a bow or a hand shake, before allowed entry into the holy space. The purpose of the right of passage is to make sure that only those worthy enter the sanctuary. In the catholic religion the sign of the cross is done, typically on ones forehead, before entry.
In addition, the church is a sacred place which connects heaven and earth, or the two worlds. In the reading, Eliade explains how the sacred pole of the Achilpa represents the formation of life and the connection to the sky (32), while those in Kwakiutl believe in a cooper pole which passes three levels: underworld, earth and sky, both of which are similar religious beliefs that make the connection with the different worlds. A home is also a sacred place for religious people, typically having an opening to the sky like a home with a chimney or an Indians teepee.
Non-religious men do not give meaning or value to any aspects of life because they live in profane space. All space is the same and there is no sacred space. A home may have personal meaning to the non-religious person, yet it is not seen as a center of the world, or manifests any connection to the world we live in. Eliade explains how a home for a non-religious people has no value or function in modern society; it is simply a mass-produced machine in an industrial society, much like a refrigerator or car (50-51).
Sacred space gives people a sense of belonging, a purpose in life, and a connection with the world they live in and heaven. Life is not simply about survival and profane space; humans give life meaning by having a purpose and avoiding chaos, which can lead to death. We as individuals want our lives, including our behavior, to have purpose in life. We try to understand why we are here and how we got here, and those rooted in religion draw conclusions using their religious beliefs and traditions. Those that are not deeply rooted in religion are not thirsty for meaning or belonging so they make no connections and come to no conclusions.
In the reading, Eliade compares two experiences: one which involves sacred space and one which involves profane space. Sacred space is used to create meaning in the world through religious traditions and myths. Profane space is a lack of those same religious values which are meant to create a deeper understanding of the world in which we live. Eliade argues that in order to understand religion, there must be an understanding of the difference between what is sacred and what is profane, as interpreted by the religious man and the non-religious man.
The religious man seeks to understand an absolute reality, through universal beliefs and practices by religious peoples. For religious people, there are objects and characters which they interpret to reveal the truth of world. One example given in the reading is the door to a church, temple, or any place of worship. The door is seen as a threshold which separates the sacred from the profane. Not only is the church a place of worship and judgment, it requires a right of passage, such as a bow or a hand shake, before allowed entry into the holy space. The purpose of the right of passage is to make sure that only those worthy enter the sanctuary. In the catholic religion the sign of the cross is done, typically on ones forehead, before entry.
In addition, the church is a sacred place which connects heaven and earth, or the two worlds. In the reading, Eliade explains how the sacred pole of the Achilpa represents the formation of life and the connection to the sky (32), while those in Kwakiutl believe in a cooper pole which passes three levels: underworld, earth and sky, both of which are similar religious beliefs that make the connection with the different worlds. A home is also a sacred place for religious people, typically having an opening to the sky like a home with a chimney or an Indians teepee.
Non-religious men do not give meaning or value to any aspects of life because they live in profane space. All space is the same and there is no sacred space. A home may have personal meaning to the non-religious person, yet it is not seen as a center of the world, or manifests any connection to the world we live in. Eliade explains how a home for a non-religious people has no value or function in modern society; it is simply a mass-produced machine in an industrial society, much like a refrigerator or car (50-51).
Sacred space gives people a sense of belonging, a purpose in life, and a connection with the world they live in and heaven. Life is not simply about survival and profane space; humans give life meaning by having a purpose and avoiding chaos, which can lead to death. We as individuals want our lives, including our behavior, to have purpose in life. We try to understand why we are here and how we got here, and those rooted in religion draw conclusions using their religious beliefs and traditions. Those that are not deeply rooted in religion are not thirsty for meaning or belonging so they make no connections and come to no conclusions.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A brief explanation of my screen name using a part of the Sosis article as an example.
My screen name, JTB, is short for 'justified true Belief.' The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), in an essay titled, "A Priori Justification and Knowledge," explains that "Having a JTB is not sufficient for knowledge, but that it does seem necessary." "Using Edmund Getters' argument," the SEP states- "Knowledge is generally thought to require justified true belief, even if justified true belief is not sufficient for knowledge." The article then gives an example of this idea in action, and I paraphrase: "You see poodles in a field that have been bred and clipped to look like sheep and on this basis you believe that there are sheep in the field. Luckily there are some sheep in the field, but they are hiding behind boulders. So you have a JTB that is not knowledge."
My point is, that when it comes to religion and spirituality, we all are, in a cosmological sense, staring out across the same field and, depending on our perspective, there is much that is hidden from us. So, as a rational agnostic (if there is such a thing), when I look across this particular field, I ask myself, 'what JTB can I possess that is knowable (if any), and is there a method that I can employ to measure another's belief?'
For example. In the case of the Sosis article on "The adaptive Value of Religious Ritual." Sosis quotes an Israeli biologist, Amotz Zahavi, who interprets the Springbok antelopes habit of jumping straight up and down when threatened, as analogous to the intense ritual behavior of certain religious groups (If you want to know the details, you'll have to read the article). From his place 'in the field,' this is a JTB... From mine, after a little google searching, I discover that there are other explanations for the Springbok's behavior: "It communicates alarm, gives the animal a better view of the predator, and also confuses or even intimidates it-" Taken from The Honolulu zoo website. Could I, in turn, use these facts to argue in favor of a contrary analogy, from my perspective 'in the field?'
Of course.
My point is, that when it comes to religion and spirituality, we all are, in a cosmological sense, staring out across the same field and, depending on our perspective, there is much that is hidden from us. So, as a rational agnostic (if there is such a thing), when I look across this particular field, I ask myself, 'what JTB can I possess that is knowable (if any), and is there a method that I can employ to measure another's belief?'
For example. In the case of the Sosis article on "The adaptive Value of Religious Ritual." Sosis quotes an Israeli biologist, Amotz Zahavi, who interprets the Springbok antelopes habit of jumping straight up and down when threatened, as analogous to the intense ritual behavior of certain religious groups (If you want to know the details, you'll have to read the article). From his place 'in the field,' this is a JTB... From mine, after a little google searching, I discover that there are other explanations for the Springbok's behavior: "It communicates alarm, gives the animal a better view of the predator, and also confuses or even intimidates it-" Taken from The Honolulu zoo website. Could I, in turn, use these facts to argue in favor of a contrary analogy, from my perspective 'in the field?'
Of course.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Response to"The Cognitive Psychology of the Belief in the Supernatural"
This article was very interesting and it had brought up some ideas and thoughts that truly intrigued me. I never knew thought that intense religious behavior would be looked at as "madness." I believe that every individual has their own outlook on religion and has their certain set of beliefs. If an individual considers himself or herself devoted to a certain religion usually they have to abide by that religions code of belief system and its rules and regulations. Some people are fully devote and some believe half way and some just do their own thing. I personally am Christian but I do not fully follow the Bible entirely. I do read it and I believe in it yet I have my own spiritualistic system of my own. I believe in self -meditation and when I do get into my meditating mode I feel as if I am one with my own spirit. When I am finished doing this after I feel a lot stronger and a lot more in tune with myself and my spirit. This brings me back to Berings article when he talks about the primitive societies in the past and how they used to believe dreams are real and that they believe that spirits survive death. In which a lot of religions that we can take a look at have very similar beliefs when it comes to spirits and its survival after death, because as in the Christian religion we believe there is life after death and that life is Heaven that is if our "spirit"/"soul" is righteous enough and "good" enough. With this said there is a lot of controversy and talk about whether there is life after death. Yet religion in historical societies and in the present has always had positive influences. Whether it was to help establish some type of control to regulate violence or a type of system that was established to farm and help people get into jobs to support their family. Though Religion has always had a big impact on society I believe that it is has created a very positive influence rather than a negative one.
"Why Me?"
Through Berings', "The Cognitive Psychology of the Belief in the Supernatural" I found myself thinking how many times I had asked, or heard someone else ask this question of, "why is God doing this to me?" While I do not consider myself a religious person, I have probably uttered these words more than a handful of times. Of course, we never seem to feel this way when things are going well, only when things don't go our way. What is it that causes us to "blame" God when things go wrong? I believe that religion, as well as the belief in God was created through fear of conflict and the unknown. Death is a scary aspect to many people, and believing in a higher power allows us to take some of that fear and anxiety off ourselves and place it on someone else. When religion requires us to strictly adhere to certain guidelines, yet when we do, things still go wrong, we feel we must blame the one being that is supposed to protect us.
As rule-abiding citizens I think people feel that God owes us something. That because we follow His guidelines, everything is supposed to work out perfectly. Never do we consider bad things happening. So when they do, people have a hard time blaming themselves, for they did everything "right." Hardly do people even consider consequences for their actions. As Sosis noted in his article, seventy-two percent of people believe in heaven, yet only fifty-two percent believe in hell. We all want to end up somewhere in the clouds listening to harps playing, yet Hell is thought of as somewhere that only murderers and rapists go, not someone who maybe had sex before marriage, even though God says that we are not supposed to. So when we are sick or injured or lose our jobs, the feeling of being in a living hell is so overwhelming, we cannot possibly blame ourselves; there must be a higher power at work.
When we say "everything happens for a reason", we are justifying the negativity. Even though the reason for one's sickness is due to eating too much junk food, "everything happens for a reason." Maybe the reason is ourselves? Many Church's love to put the fear of God into us. To mold us into the people they want us to be, they make us fearful of "what if?" If I don't give the church 10 percent of my paycheck, God will send me to hell. And yet, corruption in the church is vampant, as we have all seen with the many pious child molesters or thieves stealing from the donation bowl.
As Martin Luther King said, I believe that "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." I feel that when we place responsibility on ourselves rather than something or someone of a higher power, we are more likely to be satisfied in good times and bad, and we will be less likely to blame others when things go wrong. Of course,I will probably find myself saying "God, why me?" again throughout my lifetime, more out of habit than anything else. Yet now I am more likely to anylyze and investigate the true culprit, myself.
MLK Online. Intellectual Properties Management.25. August 2009.
As rule-abiding citizens I think people feel that God owes us something. That because we follow His guidelines, everything is supposed to work out perfectly. Never do we consider bad things happening. So when they do, people have a hard time blaming themselves, for they did everything "right." Hardly do people even consider consequences for their actions. As Sosis noted in his article, seventy-two percent of people believe in heaven, yet only fifty-two percent believe in hell. We all want to end up somewhere in the clouds listening to harps playing, yet Hell is thought of as somewhere that only murderers and rapists go, not someone who maybe had sex before marriage, even though God says that we are not supposed to. So when we are sick or injured or lose our jobs, the feeling of being in a living hell is so overwhelming, we cannot possibly blame ourselves; there must be a higher power at work.
When we say "everything happens for a reason", we are justifying the negativity. Even though the reason for one's sickness is due to eating too much junk food, "everything happens for a reason." Maybe the reason is ourselves? Many Church's love to put the fear of God into us. To mold us into the people they want us to be, they make us fearful of "what if?" If I don't give the church 10 percent of my paycheck, God will send me to hell. And yet, corruption in the church is vampant, as we have all seen with the many pious child molesters or thieves stealing from the donation bowl.
As Martin Luther King said, I believe that "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." I feel that when we place responsibility on ourselves rather than something or someone of a higher power, we are more likely to be satisfied in good times and bad, and we will be less likely to blame others when things go wrong. Of course,I will probably find myself saying "God, why me?" again throughout my lifetime, more out of habit than anything else. Yet now I am more likely to anylyze and investigate the true culprit, myself.
MLK Online. Intellectual Properties Management.25. August 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Introduction and Blog
Welcome to the blog for Religion and Political Controversy in the United States, an upper division Religious Studies course at San Jose State University. My name is Prof. Todd Ormsbee, and I'm the professor for the course and the moderator of the blog. Please find below a few rules for posting on the blog and a description of the contents of the course.
GENERAL BLOG RULES: The purpose of this blog is to create a forum for students to explore in more depth the topics of the course, and to open up the possibility for engagement with other readers. Because the primary purpose of the blog is educational, I will carefully moderate to ensure a learning environment and experience for my students. Because by nature this is a course that deals with controversy, the blog will treat hot-button, difficult topics, so here are some ground rules:
- Students are required to maintain a degree of anonymity on this blog for obvious reasons. They may use nicknames, screen names, or just their first name without any identifying markers. I am not anonymous, however, and my faculty web page can be found here. Non-students are not required to remain anonymous.
- Student posts and comments are meant to follow a high standard of argumentation. They will be striving to introduce criticism, analysis, argumentation, and evidence to the conversations about these topics. They are being graded on their participation. Non-student commenters are not held to this standard (and are obviously not graded) and may discuss personal experiences, etc.
- This is not a free speech, anything-goes, free-for-all blog. All participants should consider two key ethical concerns: a) mutual respect and consideration for participants on the blog; and b) objective and fair treatment of the religions and people who are the subjects of the blog. Note: Objectivity does not mean that posters will not be critical; rather, it means that their analyses and criticism will be based in evidence and argumentation.
- Non-students may comment, but will be carefully moderated to maintain the blog as an educational space. Ad hominem, vulgarity, personal attacks, and hostile comments will be deleted.
- Disagreements are welcome, but should be presented in respectful and constructive ways. Both tone and content should be carefully composed before posting, being sure to follow appropriate ethical guidelines.
THE COURSE: In this section of Religion and Political Controversy in the United States, we will be examining the odd intermixture of religion with the public sphere in American society and culture since the founding. We will look at both historical and contemporary issues in American religion and attempt to understand why Americans are particularly religious and how that religiosity plays itself out in the public sphere. To that end, we will examine four broad areas:
- Theories of society and religion: We will begin by examining critical questions about the nature of religion, why humans are religious, the social role and function of religion, and the way American society specifically has dealt with religiosity.
- Liberal religion: Then we will examine some historical and contemporary examples of how “liberal” religions have worked to influence American politics, including disestablishment, abolition, social gospel, and the Civil Rights movements of the 1950s and 60s. What makes some religions “liberal”? How does the shape of American politics, social inequality, race, and gender push people to create more liberal forms of religion? And how do those liberal religions in turn interact in the public sphere?
- Conservative religion: For other Americans, religion has been an anchor in an ever-changing cultural landscape and promotes a kind of conservatism and sometimes even reactionary politics. We will examine religion and evolution, the birth of fundamentalism and pentacostalism, and we will examine in depth the modern Christian Nationalist movement and its focus on sexuality and “American identity”. Where does this kind of religion come from? How is conservative activism different in American politics from liberal activism? What kinds of inequalities and social structures promote conservative religion? What kind of religious experience promotes a conservative activism?
- Finally, we will end the course by asking questions about American religious pluralism and look toward a normative discussion of how peoples of divergent religious backgrounds from around the world might view politics in contemporary United States. We will consider the experiences and ideas of two American Muslims, one from Pakistan and one from Ghana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)