RELG Revision
.pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
McGill University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
207
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
Pages
2
Uploaded by DrIronButterfly33 on coursehero.com
How are religious education and religious studies different, according to Rodrigues and
Harding? How would you characterize the individual communities such a distinction means to
serve? What key idea does your text (slides) offer to ensure that objectivity is not compromised
by such a distinction?
According to Rodrigez and Harding, religious education and religious studies differ primarily on
the approach which they take to acquiring knowledge about religion. While the former has an
insider perspective which leads to accepting religious texts as ultimate truths, the latter has an
outside perspectives and considers critically all aspects and contexts of these established texts.
Religious education is accepted as belonging to the theological community - fostering a deep
understanding by believers -, while religious studies is often taught by academics, who often
approach the topic through a scholarly view. Rodrigez and Harding emphasize the need for a
balanced approach to be undertaken in order to best ensure objectivity in the research and
evaluation of religion. This consists of retaining an objective view on the religion being studied
while still accepting and appreciating its emotional and subjective value.
2. What are the patterns in the study of religion and what do such proposals aim to circumvent?
In other words, why speak of patterns and not an essence of religious traditions?
The difference between first order traditions - religious traditions - and second order traditions -
the actual study of religious traditions - is subtle variance that remains essential to best
understand religion in all its complexities. Establishing these as two distinct patterns in the study
of religion allows for us to differentiate between individual practices and beliefs and actual
categorization of these beliefs by religious scholars. By separating these two, we can avoid
creating tension between faith itself and academic analysis of religious traditions.
3. Discuss pertinent aspects of philosophy and theology (“metaphysics”) from the textbook
(R&H, pp. 19-21 and 35-37 respectively). You may use elements from the slides to assist you in
your overview.
Philosophy is often perceived in the West as a rational apprehension of the ultimate truths, while
theology is described as a purely faith driven intellectual interpretation of the divine. However
according to Eastern traditions these two realms are not separate, but rather interchangeable.
This is captured in the term Sanskrit term
Darshashana
which encompasses both philosophy
and religion into one. Ultimately this view challenges the Western perspective that theology
constraints thought to accept the view that god is real by reshaping the vision of god, not as an
entity, but rather as an interconnected essence which permeates existence.
4. Describe how “early Greek thinkers” and early “philosophy in the East” compare. In what
ways are they similar and different.
Early Greek thinkers (6th C BCE) share both surprising similarities and powerful contrasts which
interestingly reveal the paralleled evolution of the interpretation of philosophy along regional
lines. One main point of agreement is the assertion of conceptual dualities, expressed differently
in both regions. Greek thinkers such as Anaximander suggest the existence of a formless
essence - apeiron - responsible for the dualities such as the hot and cold or wet and dry.
Similarly, Eastern thinkers from the Daoist school of thought emphasized the role of the Dao a
concept from which all dualities emerge - the yin and yang. Contrastingly, these two
philosophies differ on their interpretation of these dualities. While Greeks believed in unity in
form of a formless essence of the apeiron, Daoists perceived the Dao as a balance of these
dualities.
5. Discuss key elements that contributed to the synthesis of early Greek thought and the
Abrahamic perspective in the Middle Ages when philosophy effectively becomes theology.
Ancient Western schools of philosophy, responsible for the first stage of serious reflection about
religion in the West, emerged out of the mythopoetic speculation of figures such as Homer and
Hesiod (c. 700s BCE). The Middle Ages represent a synthesis of subsequent conceptual
thought, that of Plato and Aristotle (c. 4th century BCE), for instance, and the beliefs of the
Abrahamic religions (i.e., 2 Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). A key moment in this development
is the 10th and 11th centuries when Muslim natural philosophers developed medicine,
astronomy, and mathematics unparalleled in the Christian West. Their preservation and Latin
translations of works by Plato and Aristotle allowed for the medieval synthesis that ensued with
celebrated Christian and Jewish thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Moses Maimonides. Thanks
to Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, and Al-Ghazali, among others, the bottom-up approach of reason and
speculation could be coupled with the top-down approach of faith and revelation.
6. Without going into detail about classical forms of philosophy and theology, discuss what
characterizes the modern approach as different and/or new. How did Descartes and Kant
contribute to this development?
Modern approaches to religious studies is characterized by the focus on rationality and the
scientific method, which in effect made it more apologetic. Descartes’ theory of I think therefore I
am highlights the emergence of deductive reasoning which define thought as the foundation of
existence, an analysis of existence. Kant also used this scientific method to criticize
metaphysical claims in the field of religion by underlining the imposed limits of consciousness
which prevents any from reaching an ultimate truth.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help