Transcript for:
Study of World Religions

Well, we're beginning our course on the introduction to world religions by dealing with what exactly is the academic study of religion and the academic study of world religions. What is it all about? And the reason why we're going to deal with this first is because for many people their exposure to the scholarly work in dealing with religions is new to them. I'm sure for many of you taking this course, this is your actual first course in the academic study of religion itself. And so we need to talk about what this scholarly discipline is, what scholars like myself do and in relationship to dealing with the study of world religions. And the first thing we need to ask is why study religions to begin with? What's the purpose? Well, the most basic goal, the most basic motivation is gaining knowledge. For scholars like myself, what we're after is gaining knowledge about religions. Uh we're all specialists in different religions. I myself am a primarily a biblical scholar, although I also deal with Mesopotamian religions. I deal with the earliest forms of Judaism, Israelite religion and early Christianities, but I do it to gain knowledge about them. I am curious about them. We're not in a pursuit of truth, but in a pursuit of knowledge. But for other people, why should you study religions? Also for the gaining of knowledge. Why? Because there is an issue or a problem of mutual ignorance. On the whole, most people don't know about the religions, the religious practices, the beliefs of other people than themselves. So for example, most Christians know diddly squat about Judaism. They have really no understanding how Judaism works and functions. On the other hand, Jews also don't know really that much about Christianity, even though those two religions are the dominant religions here in the United States. But, you know, in dealing with recent polls, um, nowadays 70% of Americans claim to be Christian of some sort. And that leaves 30%. And that 30% is made up of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, James, Sikhs, Shintois, Dowist, Confucianists, Parsies, that is Zoroastrinist. Every major religion in the world is present in the United States because they are the re they are the religions held by a good number of American citizens whether as immigrants or actually being born here. And on top of it, a number of what we would call minor religions are present as well. And I'm not even including the religions of Native Americans. That's part and parcel of it as well. And there is this mutual ignorance. Even for Christians, they don't know very much about the origins and the history of Christianity. The same is also true for Jews to a certain extent. So a lot of times people are kind of like ignorant about the origins, the evolution, the development, the history of their own religion. And dealing with this mutual ignorance sometimes is very problematic because of the multi-religiosity of the United States. As I already said, all of the major religions, every religion of the major religions you're going to study in this course are present here, as well as other religions that are also found on the Hitchhiker's Guide to World Religions. All of them are present here. And it really behooves us to understand what our fellow Americans actually believe. And the reason for it is religion is everywhere in our society. Um when it deals with the history of our laws and politics, religion is very much prevalent. Now we have a tradition of the separation of church and state. We have freedom of religion but we also have freedom from religion. But in that wall of separation there are a lot of doors and gates. And that is why a lot of times you'll find politicians for example saying that we got to base our laws on the Judeo-Christian tradition whatever that is because to be honest about it that's a bit of fiction. There is no Judeo-Christian tradition. Judaism and Christianity, as you'll discover, are absolutely different from each other and they are diametrically opposed to each other. They're competitors. But you get this quite a lot um in dealing in the history of the United States when it came to the laws of segregation. They were based on the interpretations of certain passages in the Bible. But then again, the entire civil rights movement was based on the Christian Bible as well. Even in dealing uh in the history of providing health care for everyone, the Affordable Health Care Act, what people commonly call Obamacare, for a number of members of Congress, they went to the leaders of their church, um particularly the Roman Catholic Church to see whether or not they should vote for it or not, if the church was for it or not. And we've already seen by the way that the Supreme Court has declared that corporations are actually people and people with religious beliefs. So every corporation according to the Supreme Court can belong to a religion. It has its own religious beliefs and that deals with also dealing with the affordable healthc care act. See it's part of laws and politics. It also deals with biomedical ethics. You know, along with that, um the whole debate as to whether or not we should do embryionic stem cell research. Well, for conservative Christians, they had their way on that. Um this is a perfect example of how two religions don't agree with each other. uh for Judaism it has no problems with the embryionic stem cell research because Judaism doesn't see embryos as actual human beings but for a number of forms of Christianity they do and so with that uh we were the major country in the world that did not fund embryionic stem cell research researchers by the way had to go to Canada or someplace else uh in dealing with biomedical ethics dealing with issues of euthanasia Asia abortion and again even simply providing basic health care for women that's part of it as well and stems from this along with this also comes just simply science and technology and that coincides somewhat with education when it comes to science and the reason why I say that is of all the industrial nations. We're the one that has a majority of the people disbelieving in actually or rejecting the work of scientists when it comes to evolution, the creation of the world, the creation of human beings and dealing with education on science. introducing creationism into science classrooms or demanding if you're going to deal with science's view of the evolution of our species, you also have to include to be honest about it the Christian perspective about the origins of human beings. So that becomes part of it as well. Then there's also arts and literature. Many of our great works of art are based on biblical themes. At the same time, when it comes to our literature, you know, there's there's the adage, nothing new since Shakespeare. Well, for Western literature, to a certain degree, nothing new since the Bible. I'll put it that way. And we don't even have to go to great art and great literature. We can see it in pop culture. We can see it in movies like Dogma, which by the way is one of my favorites, and I think it should be required of all religious study majors. Uh, but Monty Pythons, Life of Brian, or Constantine, which to be honest about it is really good on a rainy day when you're separating your socks and others. See, it's part of it. It permeates our society here. But outside of our society, there is this whole issue or topic of globalization, that the world is getting smaller, that we have to all relate to each other, not only within the United States, but in a global fashion. And see, that's important in dealing with countries and their cultures and societies. For those of you who might be business majors and you're and you're planning on having a career in international trade or international business, you really should know the religion and the culture behind a corporation that you're dealing with because it could very well be because that country uh is part of a culture that doesn't deal with what is right and what is wrong. That's not part of their religious tradition. but what is honorable and what is dishonorable. You need to know that if you're getting into negotiations or building a plant. But even on a more common level for those of you and this includes myself, we like to travel to foreign countries. A greater appreciation of traveling to that country is knowing the cultural history of that country and that includes the religious history of that country so you can better appreciate it. That's part of it. Now again for scholars like myself, academic scholars, we do our work again in the pursuit of knowledge, not in the pursuit of truth. We don't do it, how shall I put it? We don't do it because of our own religious beliefs, if we have them or not. Because for many of us, we've become experts in religions other than our own. And then for many academic scholars, not the majority, but for many, they don't belong to any religion. But then again, for other people and studying other religions, well, for you there might be more than just simply gaining knowledge or dealing in international business. You know, take Socrates for example, the great Greek philosopher. He said that the unexamined life is not worth living. You got to be a little introspective. Well, one reason why people on the whole should study other religions and this includes their own because the unexamined religion is not worth following. For those of you who are religious, why do you believe what you believe? Why do you practice what you practice? And where did those beliefs and practices come from? What are their origins? How did they evolve and develop? See, this is what most people don't know. We've actually discovered that for many Roman Catholics, they don't know why they receive a wafer during communion. Just for one example. But there is one other there is a plus to all of this as to why we study religions and that is because of the nature of human beings ourselves and that is we are homo religiosis. We're not simply homo sapiens but we are homo religiosis and that's not just us. We can take this all the way back to the Neanderthalss, our cousins. I'll put it that way. They live roughly between 150,000 to 35,000 before the common era. Now, one thing, by the way, that you will notice in this course, and that is we use BCE and CE before the common era and then the common era. We don't use BC and AD because for religion scholars and particularly biblical scholars scholars like myself it doesn't make sense and the reason for it is BC means before Christ but in actuality if we follow major traditions in early Christianity as we find in Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus was probably born between six and four before the common era. In other words, Jesus was born before Christ. Now, does that make sense? Not really. But we do know that Jesus was born when Herod the Great was the king of Judah. And while Jesus was a child, Herod had died. So, Herod died in four before the common era. So, we figure roughly between six and four before the common era. That makes sense. But as for AD anodominy, well, there's a little bit of a historical problem there because anodominy means the year of the Lord. But the dominy here is Mithris, a Persian god that became a major god in the Roman Empire. Eventually, when Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire, that dominy becomes Jesus rather than Mithris. So, it is problematic. And then on top of it, um to be perfectly frank about it, there's a lot of people that really have issues how everything has to be dated according to Jesus's birth and Jesus's life. So, it's also a little bit of political correctness here. It's part of it. But getting back to the Neanderthalss, well, we have found in Europe, China, and Iraq where Neanderthalss have settled. We have found them elsewhere. Um, but these are our three major areas. And what we find with the Neanderthalss, well, they made tools. Uh, they had tools made out of stone, bone, and wood. So, we got stone, bone, and wood tools. But what we also have discovered with the Neanderthalss uh is that when it came to their burials quite often they were very particular about how they buried their dead. So for example at many Neanderthal sites when it comes to their burials they're buried their dead with tools, food and weapons. Why? Why would they bury their dead with the tools and weapons of that particular Neanderthal and then top of it food? Why? Think about it for a moment. When it comes to food, maybe that's because uh the Neanderthalss believed in some sort of afterlife and you need that food with the corpse. So in the afterlife or the journey to the afterlife, the corpse has something to eat. On the other hand, there are cultures and societies that believe that the dead are not completely dead and that with that they need uh food and their grace so they can munch on it. But then why do they have their tools and weapons? Well, one basic theory among many scholars is the Neanderthalss believed in a life after death where you need your tools and your weapons. See, the food that you're buried with will only take you so far, but you need your tools and your weapons to gather more food. But also, if it's weapons to protect yourself, that means the afterlife is dangerous, isn't it? There's another reason why uh someone would be buried with their tools and weapons and we do have this practice and understanding of it um in many cultures in the past as well as the present and that is where did they get their tools and weapons from? They made them themselves. And for many cultures today and in the past they had a belief. And the belief is called animism. A n i m i s n. Animism. And that is a belief that everything has a soul or a spirit. Not just human beings in this case, not just Neanderthalss, but everyone has a soul or a spirit, but also animals, trees, springs, mountains, rocks. See, it's a belief that both animate and inanimate objects have a soul in our spirit. Well, when it comes to the tools that we make, whether they're made out of stone or bone or wood, we made them. And in making them, part of our soul or part of our spirit is in our tools and weapons. And so with it, you need to bury your tools and weapons with the person who made them because part of their soul or spirit are in the tools and weapons that he or she made. And if you don't put them in, that might be a hazard to the person's afterlife. But it also might be problematic to anyone who is alive that tries to use them. They might come down with a disease or be possessed by a spirit. So they can be spiritually dangerous. So that's why they could be placed in the grave. See, it's one of the reasons why that we find for example with the Kelts quite often when a warrior died, they would actually bend his or her sword. You did have Celtic women warriors. and you would toss that sword out into the marsh as an offering to the gods, but also because no one else should actually carry that sword. See, that's where we get the whole legend of the Lady of the Lake and and the sword from the lake, Excalibur. See, it's part of that Celtic mythic tradition. But also what we find with the Neanderthalss is the presence of bear skulls. that we find the skull of a bear buried in a pit next to the deceased or possibly the bones of a bear even in the grave. But why the skull of bears? Why would it be there? Now, could be this be the symbol, the totem animal of that particular Neanderthal clan or tribe or extended family that they are the clan of the cave bear? Could it be that this bear actually killed that person and then they killed the bear in the hunt? So, it's kind of like a final trophy or something to give to the deceased. Hey, this bear killed you. We killed the bear. You can take the head with you to the afterlife. There's another possibility and that is uh for a number of peoples that live around the Arctic Circle, they believe that bears are the messengers of the gods. That bears are messenger of the gods. Maybe their belief can be traced back to this practice of bear skulls. Because for those people who believe that bears are messengers of the gods, quite often they actually make altars out of the bones of bears. Maybe that's it. The next when it comes to Neanderthalss, we do find at many of their graves um flowers or stones arranged around the grave. It's kind of like Neanderthalss are the flores of their time period. And if they couldn't find flowers to kind of like put it around the grave, uh evidently they would have stones and arrangement in that way. And then there's finally the body placement. Quite often in the Anderthal caves, we find the body in a flexed position lying on its side. And with it, what do we find? We find that the head is positioned so that it is facing toward the east which I always find interesting because you would think uh that the face would be looking towards the west you know symbolically looking at the setting of the sun. But this is what we have with our, how should I put it, our ancient cousins, the Neanderthalss. But what about us? When it comes to early homo sapiens, when it comes to burials, our practices are similar in that we do bury our dead with tools, but also weapons and food. Now when it comes to weapons, why would we bury our dead with weapons? And that is because for many ancient religions, the afterlife is dangerous. It's a duplicate of this life. For many religions and cultures, there's a belief that you can be killed. you could die in the afterlife that you will have a second death uh which means complete annihilation. You no longer exist at all. So just as in this world you need to protect yourself with your weapons, you need that in the next life as well. But then we find the presence of shell ornaments. Well, this could simply be, you know, kind of like uh personal possessions of the deceased that they liked and with them. Other scholars believe that maybe the ornaments are some sort of symbol of status within the community within the group or the call them the extended family or tribe. It's kind of like he who has the most wins. On the other hand, it has been seen that maybe the shell ornaments were some sort of an offering uh to the mother goddess or to the gods uh an offering um so that the deceased may enter the afterlife. But again, we don't know because our earliest ancestors didn't leave us any written accounts when it comes to their beliefs. But then there is red ochre. Now red ochre is a red colored dry paint. It's made out of vegetable material and earth. And with that for some early human beings they covered the bodies of their dead with this red dye. But why? Well, was it to mimic birth? This is what some scholars hold. That the grave was seen as a womb by which the dead are reborn into the afterlife and like newborns, the corpses must be bloody like newborn babies? Or was the use of red ochre used as a blood transfusion? Now, this might be the correct explanation. because we do have this practice today with Australian Aboriges. I'll mention this again, but Australian Aboriges represent the oldest continuous living human civilization. And for many Aboriginal groups, they also paint their dead with a red ochre. And the reason for it is if you need blood in this life, you need blood in the next life. And this is in a sense a magical transfusion. But then we find early human beings bound up trust in what is commonly described as the fetal position. And this evidently was done quite early after the death of the person. Now, why the fetal position? Well, some of you might say, well, of course, if you believe that you're going to be going through another birthing process, that you're going to be reborn into the new life. Well, you got to be in the position of a fetus in the womb. And naturally your grave is your womb. But there's problems with that and that is how would early human beings actually know about the fetal position? you know, unless you know, a member of the group um you know, if kind of like an Agatha uh got killed by an animal, let's say a saber-tooth tiger, and she was pregnant, and I know it's getting gross, but she got ripped open, and then you see the fetus. So, that one's a little bit problematic. So, why else do you think that this would be a possibility? Well, the possibility lies in or I should say the key to all of this is the fact that the body is trust up. Again, for many religions today as well as in the past, the dead are dangerous. And with it, you don't want to have them come out of their graves. That is why for many indigenous people today um they will never mention the name of a deceased person ever again. They'll refer to them obliquely as do you remember my mother's sister? So with it it is to confine them to their grave. It is why when you think about it, why is it that we always speak softly when we're in cemeteries? You know, for any of you who have, we speak softly. This is a carryover from this. Um, it's a custom that has survived through the millennium. And that is you speak softly because if you speak too loud you're going to wake them up. See even today some people refer to the dead as being asleep in their grave. You have this particularly with Christians who believe that um you when you die you're not in heaven or you're not in hell. You're still in your grave until the resurrection of the dead and you are asleep in your grave. So it gets to be a carryover. Then what we also find is what I refer to as skulls and cups. And that is we will find in the remotest part of the cave just the skull. um we don't find the jawbone just the skull and we don't naturally find the rest of the body either. So how should we understand this kind of like depository of skulls? Was it that those for those early homo sapiens they believe that the only thing that is important physically about you is your skull? Or are we dealing here with war trophies? that they brought home the heads of their defeated enemies. But then we find skulls that have been shaped into cups. And so evidently there was a ritual by which those early human beings drank from these cups. For what purpose? Well, one of those purposes could be that by drinking from that cup, whatever was the u attributes, the talents of that person could would be carried on or it could be a way of honoring that person. And again, we have parallels to that in other indigenous um people. So, for example, in North America with the Al Gangquin um in battle, an Agangquin warrior when he slew uh his enemy and admired that warrior's strength and courage would actually rip out the heart of of his enemy and eat it there on the battlefield because he wanted to possess the bravery and strength of his defeated enemy and it was also a sign of honor. Then again, in thinking about this, I can imagine some sports team uh let's say the Tampa Bay Buccaneers uh at some point are going to sell beer beer at their stadium and skull cups. Makes sense being Buccaneers for, you know, like for $35 and people will just buy it up like crazy. Um but then again, this is a long practice. um with uh selling uh skull mugs at um Busch Gardens for Hallcream in Tampa or at um Halloween Horror Nights at Universal in Orlando. I've got a couple of those mugs around in my home uh that I get out kind of like for every Halloween now, but for not any religious reasons, but that's besides the point. Um it just conjures up that image for me. But in any case, uh getting back to all of this in a more serious note, one thing that is associated with the religiosity of early homo sapiens are cave paintings. What's interesting about these cave paintings is that for many of them, they are in the most inaccessible part of the cave. Uh it's a part of the cave that only one person can fit into to see the cave painting. Now, why would it be in such an inaccessible part? But on top of it, when you look at these paintings, the animals are very lifelike, as you can see here. But what about the human beings here, the members of the hunting party? At best, you can call them human stick figures. That's at best um they look like Gumby or they look like um uh the natives uh of that planet in the movie Avatar or something like that. Uh you got to ask the question, why is it the animals are lifelike and we look so weird? But there's another aspect to it. Why do a lot of these paintings uh why do they have a uh a long history of editorial activity that at some time uh members of the hunting party were added and then erased? Why is that going on? Why the editing? by the adding and or subtracting of the numbers in the hunting party. For many scholars, uh they've come to the conclusion that the best way of explaining this editorial activity is that the numbers of the hunters have to change to match the numbers of the hunters that are going out on that hunt. Now, why would you change the numbers? Why would you have to have it in that fashion? Again, for many scholars, the answer for them is or the best supposition that they come up with is maybe there's some sort of ritual activity going on here. And that is there's a ritual for a safe and successful hunt. So, if the hunting party is made up of four, you got to have four hunters. If the next time the hunting party goes out and there's eight, you got to add four more hunters to it. But then the next time that you're out, it's down to six. So, you got to get rid of two of them. Now, what aids them in coming up with that supposition? You have to ask, why is it that only one person can be in that room at a time? It's kind of like it's restricted space. Is it kind of like almost like sacred space? A place in the cave that is seen as kind of like the holy of holies. I don't know how else to put it. And that whoever is doing the painting is doing it in a ritualistic fashion. that they have the authority or some sort of maybe power uh that comes to ensure a good hunt when they do the painting. Or maybe there's even more to it than that. Now with that type of activity going on, first off, what does all of this mean that we have dealt with here? you know in dealing with the Neanderthalss and early homo sapiens and that is we see the evidence of religiosity not religion. We can't talk about the religion of the Neanderthalss but we can talk about how some of their activity can be identified as being religious but not in an organized systematic way that we think about the practice of religion today. Religiosity is a much better word. But with all of that, what tells them to do all of this? What tells uh early human beings to use the red ochre to tie up that person in the fetal position. Um, for the Neanderthalss also as well as early human beings to bury your dead with food, water, your tools, uh, your weapons or the shell ornaments or the placing of the head of a bear with a deceased or in a little pit next to the deceased. What tells them to do that? Myths. Now, for many of you, when you think of the word myth, you think of it's a lie, it's fake, it's false news, you know, in a certain way. But that's not what myths are about. For academic scholars like myself in dealing with uh ancient cultures or even modern cultures, it's myths that tell us why things are the way that they are. This is something we'll get into more when we deal with uh the character and the nature of indigenous religions. And this carries over into archaic religions as well and even the major religions today. The religions tell us why things are the way they are. And this foundational stories inform our cousins and Neanderthalss and our earliest ancestors that you know you need to bury your dead in food and water because they have a story about an afterlife. You know that when our body doesn't work here somehow we still exist in a world just like this one. And this is why we need our tools and our weapons with us. It's the myths that tell us about using the red ochre. It's the myth uh that tell us why the body has to be in a prone position or tied up in the fetal position. But we have a problem here and that is we don't possess the myths. See, all that we have are physical objects, physical evidence. What we don't have are the beliefs, the rationes behind the religiosity or the religious activity or the ritual activity of early human beings and Neanderthalss. We don't have it because they didn't come up with a written language. This is why for scholars like myself and um for historical anthropologists in the past and dealing with this, this is why quite often we have to make comparisons between what we find as the practices of early human beings with the practices of a number of indigenous people who exist today. particularly Australian aboriges because Australian aboriges represent the oldest human society still in existence today. But nevertheless, there's a huge gap between Australian aboriges today and all of our ancestors over 30,000 years ago or dealing with our cousins and Neanderthalss of which some of us have some of their DNA in us. See, it's a big gap. And for scholars like myself, we recognize the gap, but it's by making these observations and seeing practices that are similar that are still being conducted today with what seems to be ritual activity of people in the past. that we come up with our theories as to why people were doing what they were doing at a time where we don't have written records. But it's always with the recognition that there's a huge gap and that we are missing data. something that we won't have a problem with when we deal with people of the archaic period as we'll talk about shortly. But all of this is about the religiosity of early human beings and the religiosity of Neanderthalss, not about how they actually had a religion, not in the systematic sense that we talk about and we think about religion today. Now here in all of this we've talked about why we should study religion or study religions or a religion, why we should do it. But what is it that we actually study? What is a religion? What makes a religion a religion? and the answers to those questions. Well, that's in our next video. And this concludes part one of our introduction to the academic study of religions. Well, in the first video, uh, we dealt with why should we study a religion or why should we study religions? But in this video, we need to talk about what exactly is it that we are studying. In other words, what is a religion? What makes a religion a religion? Well, the first thing you need to know is when it comes to the word religion, it's a western term. It's a nonuniversal term and it's quite artificial. Uh scholars uh probably we think in the 16th century in Europe created the term religion. It is derived from an actual word in Latin. It's a Roman term, religio. And when it comes to this word religio for the Romans, what did they mean by it? Well, they used it when they talked about um the worship of a god or a goddess. In that context, Relleio referred to the feeling of awe in the presence of the divine. The feeling of being a mortal in the presence of one of the immortals. But because of this quite often it's startling to many students that because this is again kind of like an artificial term the creation of scholars that you can have what I often call religion without religion and what I mean by that is when it comes to many cultures societies they don't have a word religion It's not in the vocabulary of their language. See, when it deals with the language and the history of its culture, there is no counterpart. There is no word that actually means religion. They might have a word for piety or traditional way of life or something like that, but not religion. So a really good example of this is actually Japan. We do have a traditional religion there which is Shintoism. And again uh Buddhism is present in Japan. It has a long history. But nevertheless in the language of the Japanese there is no word for religion. Even when it comes, by the way, to Greek, there is no word for religion, there's a word for piety. And sometimes scholars will render that as religion, but that's not what it actually means. It means piety, being pious. And so because of it, uh sometimes particularly in dealing with indigenous cultures and telling the people of that indigenous culture, um if you're dealing with a tribe or a clan or uh an ethnic group that you want to study their religion, they won't know what you're talking about. And part of that also deals with a concept of sacred and profane. Now profane means uh non-spiritual non-religious. And when it comes to sacred and profane when it and the question of what is sacred and what is profane again uh for many cultures and societies they don't make a distinction. um putting it in kind of like more western terms that you'd be familiar with. They don't make a distinction between what is religious and what is not religious because to them everything is a is about the traditions of their elders or the traditions of their ancestors. Uh we'll talk about this when we deal with the characteristics of indigenous rel religions. Religions that are connected to a particular ethnic group or a tribe or a clan or a particular geographic area. And for these religions like the religions of uh for example the Navajo, the Hopi, the Aruba that we're going to be studying, they really don't make a distinction between what is secular and what is religious, what is profane and what is sacred because to them everything is sacred. For many indigenous religions, everything has a soul or a spirit. And everything you do in life, you do according to the traditions of your ancestors. And with that, and because everything is sacred, everything you do in a sense is kind of like seen as a ritual because you're very careful about, you know, how you live your life in this context. And so because of that, to be sure, scholars like myself can study the religions of people and they don't even make a distinction that what they're doing is religious because they'll see everything that way. How they fish, how they hunt, how they farm their land, how they raise their children, all of it is done in a ritualistic pattern. So that is what it becomes problematic. And with that, when it does come to definitions of religion, to be honest about it, it's very hard to provide a definition. And let me give you some examples. So one example is this from the Webster's New World Dictionary. It's their first definition that religion is a belief in and worship of God or gods. Well, that's great for some religions, but not all. God with a capital G would refer to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. As for gods, and I always love that they always put this as a small G. And for that, that covers a number of religions that are polytheistic. But there are religions in which they are not focused on a god or gods. They're focused on a cosmic process like Brahman or the Dao for Brahman in Hinduism, the Dao in Daoism. And neither one of those are gods. their cosmic processes. And then again for some religions there's no interest in the gods at all. So originally in Daoism there are no gods. They have no function there. Um when it comes to Janism from India they recognize that there are gods but they are unimportant because they can't help you get off the wheel of rebirth to stop this whole process of reincarnation. When it comes to Buddhism, the Buddha was asked, "Do the gods exist?" He said, "Yes." Then he was asked, "Uh, what is their purpose?" And he says, "I don't really know because they don't have an input for a Buddhist to attain enlightenment and also get off the wheel of rebirth or in Confucianism." So, it doesn't work for all religions. Another one from the Webster's New World Dictionary. This is their second definition that religion is a specific system of belief, worship, etc. often involving a code of ethics. And that's very good. But for some religions, they don't actually have forms of worship. They don't have systematic beliefs. When it comes to religions in antiquity such as the religions of the Greeks, the Romans in the Grecoman period in the time of the Roman Empire, ethics and morality were not part of religions in that time. Ethics and morality was associated with the various schools of philosophy. So that doesn't work there. or again uh the Miriam Webster dictionary, religion is the service and worship of God or the supernatural. Now notice that rules out any religion that is polytheistic in dealing with gods. But some religions don't even deal with the supernatural. We have that with Confucianism, a religion that comes from China. And for that religion the focus its most ultimate concern is not about a god or gods or something supernatural like um although I don't like using the word supernatural with brahman or the dao but in confucianism the focus is on how to produce the best society what is the best form of government what is the true relationships between people in a society and how you live and get together uh for confusion It's the balance and harmony of society. So that doesn't work here. Although to be honest about it, um, Confucious did say that you should do the traditional religious rituals as if there are gods because he understood the function of religion as oh a sociological factor that maintains balance and harmony in a society. Or another one, religion is the belief in the existence of a superhuman controlling power, especially of God or gods, usually expressed in worship. Well, to be sure, um, let's say Dowoism again from China. There's a belief in the existence of a well superhuman power, not a controlling power. But you don't worship the Dao because the Dao doesn't react to anything that you do. The Dao doesn't answer prayers. The Dao is the force of nature. And again, for some religions and branches of the religions, there might be gods, but they don't respond to any form of worship. So notice this one doesn't work that we get from the Oxford American dictionary or from Ramdenhouse Webster's dictionary. Their first definition is religion is a set of beliefs concerning the nature and purpose of the universe especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency. But the problem here is that for many religions they don't believe in creation. They believe that the world and the universe has always existed. And so example uh Janism from India for the Janes they don't believe in creation they believe that the world has always existed it goes through cycles vast cosmic cycles of change where it kind of like reboots itself um kind of like every 4 billion years. But they don't believe in the big bang theory no more than they believe in accounts of creation from other religions like what is found in the two accounts of creation in Genesis. They think it's absolutely foolish. So see all of these have exceptions to the rule. And then finally we have this one and this is from Paul Tillik. He's a Christian theologian, a very famous one. But also his definition is also followed um in parallels some anthropologists and even some sociologists and that is the religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of the meaning of our life. Now I like this definition because you can deal with ultimate concerns and that ultimate concern uh deals with the worshiping and honoring of a god or gods or ultimate concern is to realize your union with Brahman in Hinduism. Uh your ultimate concern is to live in balance and harmony in nature to be attuned and following the way of the Dao the way of the force of nature. Even for Confucious, see this is fitting because it also uh deals with the ultimate concern being actually society and actual serious concentration on ethics. So this covers a lot but then again this one is problematic because it can cover whole bunches of things. So sometimes scholars see this a little bit problematic because then ultimate concern can be uh the ultimate concern of Marxism and so because of that there are religious scholars that classify Marxism as a religion. Other scholars find that a little problematic. You can deal with a lot of ultimate concerns u and even can be trivialized. You know, for some people that I know, their ultimate concern is every Wednesday they got to be out on the golf course or their ultimate concern is simply making money. And that is not a religion. That's Donald Trump. I'll put it that way. In any case, you know, all of these definitions of religion can uh f uh really are pointing to a particular religion or some religions but not all of them. So, it really is kind of hard, isn't it, coming up with a single definition of religion. And one of the reasons for that are the various types of religions. So, one type we're going to be talking about is archaic religions, religions of the past, the religions of antiquity. I'll put it that way. Uh, the religion of the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, the Sumerianss, the Acadians, the Assyrians, the Israelites, for example. for these religions from antiquity uh they are normally polytheistic but they can also be hentheistic. Now when it comes to a polytheistic religion that religion deals with honoring and worshiping multiple gods. It can be a multitude of gods. For some ancient religions you can have thousands of gods in actuality. Although you really focus on the major gods which can be 40 or even 60 or even slightly less. But that's a polytheistic religion. And that religion holds that there are multiple gods for you because you're a Babylonian. You have the gods of Babylonia. And these are the gods that require your honor, offerings, sacrifices, and worship. But then there are religions that are hentheistic. When it comes to hentheism, uh, and hentheistic, these two terms I'm sure that most of you, if not all of you, are not familiar with. So what's hentheism? Like polytheism, hentheism also believes in a world filled with gods. But in practice, you only worship one god. But the other gods exist. A perfect example of this for archaic religion is the religion of the Israelites. What makes an Israelite an Israelite is that they are supposed to worship one God, one God only. And that God's name is Yahweh. And by tradition, their ancestors, the Hebrews that left Egypt, made a binding contract, a covenant with this God that they will have no other gods. They will worship no other gods. See, you shall have no other gods before me. Yahweh is a jealous God. So he doesn't want you to worship other gods. So while the Israelites recognize the existence of the gods of the Babylonians, the gods of the Egyptians, the gods of the Assyrians, etc. They are only to worship one god. That's why their religion is unique that you only worship one god out of a multitude of gods. That's not monotheism. This is hentheism. For these religions, they are not cons they are concerned with everyday life, not an afterlife. And the reason why I say that is is that life after death is just a part of life. It's a part of nature. It's a part of the way the world works. So for many archaic religions, when you die, your ghost or your spirit or your shade automatically goes uh to the afterlife, usually an underworld of the dead. And that's where your ghost or your shade goes. There there is no reward or punishment as to whether you've been a good person or a bad person. None whatsoever. It's automatic. See, this is what we see in the concept of the house of Hades for the Greeks or Shaol for the Israelites or Kilgal for the Mesopotamians. What your concern is is not whether or not you're going to have an afterlife or not. You are. Your concern is about everyday life. surviving in a world that is dangerous and surviving in the world where there's very little when it comes to the art and science of medicine. So with it, that's why you want to honor and properly worship the gods. If you don't do it, an evil spirit might be sent to you and so you're going to have mental issues. or if you sin against one of the gods that god will punish you with an illness. So this is how they can explain plagues, earthquakes etc. These are punishments from the gods and you want to survive. You want to live a long life properly honor the gods. When it comes to these religions, they are not universalistic. And what I mean by that is archaic religions are tribal, ethnic, national, or it's a religion of a city state rather than a nation or a kingdom. for archaic religions except for one exception that we'll talk about later on when we deal with archaic religions and just focus on them. It's expected that every people have their own gods, their own religion or their own piety. So the recognition is the Romans have their gods, the Greeks have their gods, the Babylonians have their gods, the Israelites, these peculiar people only have one god that they worship. But it's expected, you know, you don't have missionaries going out in antiquity preaching that you have to worship Zeus because Zeus is the true all powerful God. I almost said the true and most powerful Oz. But you don't have missionaries like that. So they're not universalistic. And when it comes to their concept of evil, bad things happen to bad people. Why is it that someone came down with cancer or contracted the Ebola virus? It's a punishment from gods. Because things like that don't happen to people who truly honor the gods. So if a friend of yours or a relative has, you know, has become ill and sick and they died, they see that as a punishment of the god. So there's not really evil, but bad things that happen to bad people. Not evil, divine punishment. Now, that's what we have with archaic religions. But we also have religions that we call indigenous or oral religions. Now, when it comes to indigenous and oral religions, we're dealing with religions that you're actually born into. um you know it's the religion of your tribe or your clan or a particular geographical area. These are religions uh of which when it comes to people today contemporary peoples um at least 200 million people follow these religions. This would be the religions of the Hopi, the Navajo um tribes, linguistic groups in Africa like the Aruba that we'll briefly examine. These religions are polytheistic. When it comes to dealing with the traditions of these religions, they maintain their traditions orally. They have oral traditions. Sometimes we refer to them as their oral scriptures. And they hand this down from one generation to the next. And why are they oral? Well, for some of these religions, because they are specific to a particular ethnic group or a tribe, they might not have come up with a written language of their own to pass on their traditions. But for others, yes, they do have written languages, but they maintain their traditions orally, the stories about their gods, how they worship the gods, how they live their lives according to the traditions of their ancestors because it's more spiritual being oral that orality they associate with spirituality. I'll put it that way. So they have oral traditions. For many of these religions, they have animism. Remember I mentioned this before. Animism is the belief that everything has a soul or a spirit. Everything. Not just people and animals, but inanimate objects. a mountain, a stream, a river, an ocean, individual trees. See, this is why they see everything as being sacred because everything has a soul or a spirit. As we'll talk about with indigenous religions, they don't make a distinction between what is sacred and what is profane. Along with this, we do have people that we we refer to as shamans or shamans. When it comes to shamanism, we're dealing with religious leaders that have the ability to go to the world of the gods or to the world of the spirits. They might be faith healers. They might gain knowledge from the gods to create herbal remedies. These are the people, men and women who communicate with the gods and with it they convey messages from us to the gods and they are also the messengers of the gods as well. When it comes to these indigenous religions, your goal is to live in balance and harmony with nature and to live in balance and harmony with the spirits that fill this world. Or along with that, not only the balance and harmony with nature, but also the balance and harmony of the gods. And so with it, what is evil for them? Bad things happen when you no longer follow the traditions of your ancestors. When you no longer live in a balance and harmony of nature. And the results of that can be plague, pestilence, social chaos. That's how they see evil. But then there are also religions originating in India and that is Hinduism, Janism, Buddhism. When it comes to these religions, they have various classifications of types. Um, some are monistic and monistic is this uh or let's just deal with the word monism where monistic comes from. Monism is the exact opposite of animism. Remember with animism it's the belief that the world is filled with souls. In monism there is one soul one soul only. And each one of us and everything in this world is a part of that one soul. That's monism. And that is something that we'll find in the concept of Brahman in Hinduism that one form of Hinduism is a monistic form and that is you focus on Brahman this cosmic impersonal force or this cosmic soul or universal soul out of which everything came into existence and I mean everything not just simply everyone. One again we also have polytheism multiple gods. So in Hinduism traditionally Hinduism can talk about millions of gods but what it's holding on to is the world is filled with gods. So some forms of Hinduism can be classified as being polytheistic. But then there is religions that are non-theistic and that is what we have with Janism and Buddhism. Both agree that there are gods but they have no role in your life. They can't help you attain enlightenment or get off the wheel of rebirth. So for all practical purposes, the gods are of no help. And we'll discuss why that is um later on. With these religions, the greatest concern or the ultimate concern is dealing with what we often call reincarnation or the transmigration of a person uh from one body to the next. It's being on the wheel of rebirth. And your ultimate goal is to attain enlightenment and eventually stop being reborn, but instead to obtain enlightenment uh to be absorbed into the oneness of Brahman or to dwell in an existence where you're no longer part of this world that you are in um kind of like a spiritual high. I'll put it that way. Although I know uh particularly James wouldn't like that way of expressing it, but it works for us here. When it comes to evil, there's not really evil. People see um occurrences or events and they classify them as evil. But what they don't really realize is that you're not dealing here with evil. You're actually dealing with suffering. This is the best way of do talking about it. Suffering and suffering is due to not having a correct perception of the world and what the world is all about. When it comes to revelation and here I mean divine revelation. There is none. For the scriptures of these religions, they are the creation of human beings who have attained enlightenment. For some scriptures, they have no origins whatsoever. And we'll see this in dealing with the Vadic literature of Hinduism. But actual divine revelation, the way Christians, Jews, Muslims, for example, understand divine revelation in association with their scriptures, you don't have this here at all. Moving from India, there are the religions originating in China and Japan. And this and these are Daoism and Confucianism from China and Shintoism from Japan. When it comes to these religions, uh they can be classified as polytheistic, non-theistic. So for example, Shintoism is an apoltheistic religion that you want to live in balance and common um in harmony with the gods of Japan, the kami which can also not be gods or goddesses but actually spiritual forces or the forces of nature. for Dowoism originally it was atheistic or non-theistic and that is when it comes to the original form of Dowoism there's no mention of gods or gods and the need to worship them no the focus is living in balance and harmony with the Dao the force of nature that created everything but eventually there are forms of dowoism that eventually appear that you do worship gods When it comes to Confucianism, this one scholars have not decided on whether it's theistic or non-theistic. But the gods have no role in Confucianism. Again, your ultimate concern is balance and harmony in society. The balance and harmony in relationships with the people that make up a society. And again for Confucious he says yes you should do the rituals the religious rituals as if there are gods because he saw the role of of religious rituals is a tool that you can use in maintaining balance and harmony in a society. Now again when it comes to nature that's associated with dowoism and Shintoism. When it comes to Shintoism, there's also a focus on your elders, your ancestors, and we see this also in Chinese culture that you know your role models, your leaders even within your own home are the elders of your family. Sometimes in the west we call this ancestor worship. there I it's kind of like veneration of your living ancestors as well as your deceased ancestors and again as I said with Confucianism the focus can be on society but with these religions also there's a element of tolerance and assimilation and adoption we'll see the these characteristics also found in particular with Buddhism also. But what I'm getting at here is is that for many religions, you can belong to more than one. So in actuality in China, you can be a Dowist and a Confucianist at the same time, plus also being a Buddhist. In Japan, or if you're Japanese, you can be a Shintoist, but also a Buddhist. The understanding is different religions focus on different ultimate concerns. And so with that, why not be a member of two of them or three of them? And again, when it comes to evil here, evil is not following the traditions of your ancestors in Shintoism. not living in balance and harmony with the kami, the gods, the spiritual beings or the forces of nature. In Daoism, bad things happen when people try to go against the Dao, go against the way of nature or evil comes according to Confucianism by not living in balance and harmony with one another. See, not doing unto others what you don't want done to yourself. That's one of the teachings of Confucious, but not from evil supernatural beings. And then there are the types of religions, religions originating in the Middle East, the Middle East. Well, what are these Middle Eastern religions? Zoroastrianism that originated in Persia, Judaism that originated in the country of Judah, Christianity which started its origins are actually in Judaism but eventually it broke off from Judaism and in antiquity its home was actually in present day Turkey, Asia Minor. And then of course there is Islam. All of these religions are world religions, international religions. But with these religions is the belief in a supreme creator God. One God, one God only. These are the religions that are monotheistic. For these religions, you only have one life to live. There is no wheel of rebirth in these religions. These religions are also unique because they have a linear view of time. Whereas for our other religions, religions is in cycles. Just like for them, history itself is actually in cycles. But not here. The history of the universe goes from zed well from zed to completion. See, for these religions, they have a tradition of dealing with a pivotal point in the history of the world. In the history of some of these religions, there's a view that the world will come to an end. We still have that in Islam. But for some of these religions is a belief that this world will come to an end and there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Or there's simply going to be new management on earth. or the earth is going to be rebooted again. The ecology will be fine. And the understanding is in following this pivotal point in time, if there's going to be a new heaven and a new earth or a rebooted earth, no more evil, no more bad guys because the evil forces or the pivotal evil figure has been defeated or destroyed. For these religions they are exclusive and that is you can only belong to one of them. Now this is also true for Hinduism but for these religions coming from the Middle East you can only practice Judaism. You can't claim in actuality to a certain extent you can't be part of the Jewish community but your religion is actually Christianity. That makes you a Christian not a Jew. If you understand a Jew being those who practice Judaism, you can't claim I'm a Christian but my religion is Buddhism or I'm a Muslim but I'm a Hindu when it comes to my religion. It doesn't make sense with these. So we have this wide varieties of religions. So this brings us back again to the question. So what about a definition of religion? There is one that I like very much but it does have exceptions to the rule and for a working definition of religion. This actually comes uh from the first chair of the department of religious studies at the University of South Florida uh Bill Treml and he wrote a book what is religion and it was a book kind of like an introduction to the study of religion and in it he had this first religion is a complex form of human behavior whereby a person or community is prepared intellectually and emotionally to deal with those aspects of human existence that are horrendous and non manipulable. That emotionally, intellectually, it's how you can deal with those events in your life that you have no control over whatsoever. Like having a terminal disease, a death of a child, dealing with catastrophes, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis. They help you get through the most problematic aspects events in your life. Along with it, Treml included that religions deal with a conviction of a being or beings or a process, a divine reality. So that can allow for dealing with monotheistic religions that only hold to one God or polytheistic religions that hold to a world filled with gods and you worship a lot of divine beings or it can be a process of divine reality such as Brahman or the Dao. But religions also involve according to treml various techniques, prayer, song, dance, fasting, meditation, spiritual exercises, yogas, uh forms of aestheticism that religions use various techniques in the accomplishment of the particular goals of a religion. But also what's important here and that is when it comes to religions there is the experience of great satisfaction and immense personal worth. One of the problems that I have with those other working definitions it doesn't bring in emotions. It brings in beliefs. It can bring in ethics. It brings in worship. But there's an emotional aspect for people who truly practice their faith. They get great emotional worth out of doing their meditation or being in prayer or being at a worship service. So there is an emotional factor and sometimes this is left out. See this is where it gets a little problematic that quite often people say look I'm not religious but I'm spiritual. Now I know what they're getting at and that is they don't see themselves as a part of a religion and what they have in mind is an organized religion but spirituality is a part of religions. There is an emotional aspect that has to be there. Even for religions that formally don't have an emotional dimension. Nevertheless, the there's an emotional need that breaks out in them. We have something like that with the Greeks and dealing with classical Greek religion. It's supposed to really be cold and impersonal, but this spiritual emotions eventually have to break out. That's part of it. But also, religion is something that happens to them. It's something that happens to people. It's a curiosity. Um and it also is uh dealing with society itself. People are unaware that people create religions. People do it. But when a religion is created, it kind of like it takes a life of its own. It's something that has always been there, although it hasn't been. See, the major religions we're going to be dealing with this course are rather young religions. Even though with Hinduism, it has its origins going back thousands of years. But for classical Hinduism, Hinduism itself that appeared in the sixth century before the common era. Judaism sixth century before the common era. Zoroastrian probably sixth century before the common era. Janism, Buddhism, 6th century before the common era. Christianity, second century of our era. That's when we actually have a religion called Christianity clearly. And then for Islam, see, we're dealing centuries after that. See, for Muhammad himself, he's living in the sixth century of our era. These are baby religions. They only represent onetenth of 1% of human history. And so with it, nobody thinks of a time when Christianity didn't exist or a belief in Yahweh, the God of Israel, hadn't occurred. But once religions are created, they really do take a life of their own. Just like with society and culture itself, we quite often see society, this is the way it has been. This is the way it always has been. And that is not true. Human beings create societies and cultures. And when we create a society, it also takes a life of its own. It has an impact on us. Now, with this definition, I think this is the best working definition. It still doesn't work for every single religion because I can see exceptions to this with a number of religions of antiquity, but as we go through the course, see how well this is a fitting definition that covers our major religions. But then there is the issue, how do you actually study these religions? And that is the focus of our third and final video. But this ends this one. Well, here we are with our third and final video to an introduction to the academic study of religion and world religions. We dealt with why study a religion or religions. uh we dealt with the whole issue as to what is a religion and the problems of coming up with a single definition here. Well, the topic is quite simple. How is it that we do study a religion or religions? What is the studying like? Now, let me throw out this question to you. How do most people study a religion? Just think about it for a moment. put this on pause to think about it. Now, I'm going to continue. I hope you did think about it. But there are three basic ways that people study a religion or religions. And these ways or approaches are the devotional approach, what we call the charismatic approach, and the religious approach. Starting with the devotional approach, who does it? What's the object of study? Normally the people who do this approach, they're studying their own religion. They're studying their own religion. See, this could be a Bible study group, a Quran study group. Uh it could be a group that is studying the history of their religion or the history of their branch. So it might be a course on the history of Methodism or the Lutheran church or something like that. But the object of study is the religion of those who are doing this approach. What is the perspective here? Faith seeking understanding. And notice what takes precedent. Faith. It is faith seeking understanding. See what are the goals of this approach? You want to be a better Jew, a better Muslim, a better Hindu. uh a better Zen Buddhist or just simply a Buddhist. Do you want to know more about your religion to make it more meaningful in your lives? That's what it's about. You know, understanding your faith. But it is faith-seeking understanding because again, this approach is only performed by those who are members of that particular religion. And this is what you find in many religious institutions whether it's a church, a mosque, a temple, a meeting house or what have you or in people's homes. The next approach is what we call the charismatic approach. And this was actually a term coined also by Bill Treml. And Treml created this term from a Greek word carurrima. The word itself means proclamation speech. When it comes to this approach, who does it? Well, it can be done in a number of ways. Um to explain that we need to know why is it done and what are its goals. And the goals here are twofold. In the charismatic approach, the orientation is to present one religion as a religion that has the truth, the absolute truth, and that all other religions are wrong. So, it is a proclamation of one religion being the true religion and all other religions being false religions or just simply being the creation of human beings or something like that. And so with it um in this approach, it this could be in an educational setting if you're dealing with a school that has a strong connection to a particular religion or branch of a religion. So it could very well be you know uh could be just as an example a course on his history history of Christianity but the professor or the lecturer or the instructor they're not simply teaching you the history of Christianity they're also teaching you why Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong now that's part of the charismatic approach but there is another goal and the goal is in the charismatic approach. By making proclamations in a sense, you're updating your religion. All religions evolve, develop, and change over time. They need to redefine themselves at times from one generation to the next. And so with it, the religions need to be updated. Now for some religions uh that are characteristic of them are systematic theologies. Theologians create new ways of systematically presenting the beliefs and doctrines of their religion. The most basic way of doing this is actually through a sermon. So to give you one example of this um let's just deal uh with a typical Christian worship service. uh quite often you'll have a reading uh from what Christians hold as the Old Testament. There'll be a reading from the New Testament and then whoever is going to give the sermon, they base their sermon on those readings and they use those passages of scripture as a foundation of their sermon to update the meanings of those passages to make them relevant for today. to put them into a new context, a context in the 21st century. See, that's updating your religion, making it relevant, keeping it alive. Now, who does this? Pastors, ministers, rabbis, imams, priests. See, this is done within religious institutions. And again it has two goals. Updating a religion, making it relevant for today, dealing with 21st century issues, not issues in the founding of that religion are not the issues that actually were the reasons why uh those passages of of scripture are used, but how they can be used today. And then finally there is the religious approach. When it comes to the object of study and the religious approach, it can be a course on world religions. That the students of this approach, the students of such a course are going to learn about the world religions. But the purpose for it, the goals is normally the students here are learning about other religions so they can convert the people of those religions to their own. This is what happens particularly in seminaries where you will have a introduction to world religions. But the purpose of it, the goal of it is to be a tool that missionaries can use to persuade other people to abandon their faith and convert to Christianity. See, it's got a missionary purpose here. It's more than simply the gaining of knowledge of world religions. Now all of these approaches are appropriate. They're appropriate in their context which is within the faith. Uh these are approaches that are part of religious institutions. They are not the academic study of religion. When it comes to the academic study of religion, it's very new in the history of the world. Its origins go back to the age of enlightenment in Western Europe from the mid- 17th century to just about the end of the 18th century. This is a movement primarily in England, France, the English colonies. We can also include Germany here as well. In many respects, we can talk about this as a Protestant Christian movement, but it's really not really a part of Christianity. When it comes to the age of enlightenment, it is the age of reason, science, and respect. It is the age of enlightenment that is the age of Isaac Newton. It's a time when we're discovering the laws of nature and presumably also the laws of humanity. Here we have the birth of the hard sciences and the social sciences. It's in the age of enlightenment that we have the origins or the birth of sociology, anthropology, psychology. Psychology did exist before Freud, but also the academic discipline of history is born at this time. the study of classical literature, but with it, see, they're looking at the laws of nature, the laws of humanity. And whose laws are these? The laws of the creator. For the leaders of the Enlightenment, they believe that there was a creator God. And that this creator God not only created the earth, the world. This creator God created the laws of nature as well as the laws of humanity. But how do we know these laws? How do we know them? Not through scripture. for the leaders of the enlightenment and say look you don't find the laws of nature in the Bible or the scripture of any religion. No, you do it through experimentation. You do it through science. You observe things to see how the experiments work. And for them, what is the origin of knowledge? Well, John Lockach said it best and that is human reason is natural revelation. Now, the goal of the leaders of enlightenment is to make this world a better place. And they believe that we can make this world a better place through science, through knowledge, through respect. For them, the goal is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But one of the problems that they face is authoritative institutions. This is the age not only of enlightenment, this is the age of rebellion against all authority. That includes religious authority. And for them, they saw religion as a stumbling block and a roadblock for humanity making this world a better place. They say look when it comes to science look what particularly the Roman Catholic Church did to Capernicus and Galileo. You know that the church would ban books or ban the publishing of books if they go against what the Bible says. So this whole thing about how the earth revolves around the sun is Christian heresy and there should be limitations put on thinking like that. And so because of that the leaders of enlightenment were against anything that borders on the supernatural or in offense organized religion in particular the Roman Catholic Church. Now within the enlightenment movement there is a submovement called deism and the members of it are called deists. Prominent Dists were David Hume of Scotland, Dero, Volaltater of France, Lesing of Germany, and then Jefferson and Franklin. Now, the Deas went a little bit more when dealing with the creator god because some leaders of the enlightenment were secretly actually atheists. But for the deans, they did believe in a creator god. This god created the world. But what else did that god do? Well, according to some of the deas, uh, is it possible this creator god left us with a narrow ethical code. See, for the das, they say, "Don't we basically know what is right and what is wrong? Doesn't that seem to be part of our nature that we can make a distinction between what is right and what is wrong?" Maybe this was a gift from the creator God. For others, they'll talk about how there is a kind of like a basic common philosophy plus a belief in an afterlife. After all, don't we have an innate sense that we will still exist after we die? So for some deists they had this for other deists they said look the only thing that this god left us with was the ability to reason and think logically that reason and logic. This is all that the creator god left with us. As volater put it the creator god created this world like a watch maker creates a watch. He makes the watch. He winds it up and then he lets it run. Nothing more. For then this creator God does not interfere in the history of humanity. This God does not work in history. Now because of all of this the DS came up with two categories. One is natural religion and what is revealed religion. And what is natural religion? For the deists, natural religion was the innate sense that there is a god who created this world. So for example, David Hume said this, this world had to be created by a single god because if you have a group of gods, they really would have screwed up the job because has anything really been done well in a committee? I'm kind of like updated him on that, but it kind of like works. So, natural religion is that innate sense. It's just like um oh, I guess it was six or seven years ago now. I had some Jehovah Witnesses come to my home and you know, they knocked on the door. I opened it and they say, um, don't you believe in God? And I said why? I also asked which God. But they say you know when you see creation doesn't that just tell you that there is a God who created this world? See an innate sense. That's what the deists were holding on to because they're coming from a western perspective. Um I was a little you know evil when it came to the two Jehovah Witnesses because I said no I belong to a religion world the world always existed and this whole foolishness about a god or god's creating the world according to my faith is foolish the dao I'm a dowist and I believe this force the force of nature created everything and it's totally impersonal and then they started backing away from me you know didn't want to talk to me and I said don't you want to give me your literature cuz I wanted to use it in a at that time I was teaching a course on um religions in America for another um institution not USF um so that kind of like shocked them that's natural religion what about re revealed religion for the leaders of the enlightenment and particularly for the deists revealed religion is organized religion it's a little bit of a pun intended here. Revealed religion is organized religion and they saw a problem with organized religion because it's authoritative. It demands certain things that you need to do to be part of a revealed religion like conversion, excluding other people, denigrating, being disrespectful to other people who belong to other religions and their beliefs. It's why for some of the DS and leaders of the enlightenment they were against organized religion unless it goes back to being very democratic. You know just to have that innate sense that there is this creator god. But for the deus and for the leaders of the enlightenment who is this creator god? Not the God of any religion. The God who created this world is unknowable to us. He is unknowable. This creator God is not the God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, nor any other gods that human beings have come up with. See these other gods, the gods of revealed religions and for the leaders of the enlightenment and particularly the DAS, they would refer to organized religion as priestcraft. These are tyrannical institutions. They're against that. Now from the age of enlightenment we got the tools to study religions uh comparative literature, sociology, anthropology, psychology, the discipline of history. But there's more to it than that because why are the leaders of the enlightenment important today for the study of religion? They are important because they answered some basic questions and that is what has been the history of humanity. The history of humanity is in every historical period human beings have created religions that there hasn't been a culture, a society, a nation that did not have a religious dimension. that that society hadn't produced a religion or religions. See, it's from the leaders of the enlightenment and the DS the recognition that human beings are homo religiosis. That whole thing about homo religiosis came from the enlightenment period. And again, I've kind of hit on this as well. What is religion? Where does religion come from? Us human beings. All religions are human phenomena. And what's important about that is just like you can examine and study other human phenomena like the history of a country or a history of a people or a biography of a person or even dealing with studies of the hard sciences. You could study religion in the same fashion. That's why they're important. Now with that that has eventually led to the fundamental observations of religion scholars and the first one I just dealt with. It's human beings that create religions not gods or spiritual beings. On top of it concepts of divinity or what is absolute are human concepts. Although this will hard to take in for academic scholars of religion, human beings created the gods of those religions. All religions, not the gods creating us, we created them. When it comes to religions, all religions are the product of a specific society, a culture. But many of them transcend their culture or their country. That's why Judaism, which is the religion of the country of Judah, is throughout the world. Islam, its origins are in the Middle East. But most Muslims live actually in Southeast Asia. Most Muslims you find in Malaysia, Indonesia, not the Middle East. Buddhism its origins are in India but its flourishing was in Eastern Asia, Southeast Asia, not really in India, its home country. All religions are social. All religions are historical. Now what I mean by social is that consciously and quite often subconsciously religions borrow from each other. They share things. At times, we'll talk about this with archaic religions. There is what is called the practice of synretatism. Now, with synratism in practice, often times it's just simply defined as uh the people of two religions identifying their gods with the gods of these other people. In other words, identifying Zeus, the chief god of the Greeks, with Jupiter, the chief god of the Romans. It's the same god known by different names by two different peoples. But synretatism is also the adaptation, the adoption of beliefs and practices as well. And this takes place consciously but also subconsciously. Religions communicate, interact with each other and also interact with the society that they are in. And if a religion transcends its original point of origin, when it moves to this country or that country, it socializes in a sense with the culture of that country and that creates changes in practices or beliefs. All religions are historical. They all have a history. They all have a past. All religions evolve, develop, and change over time. They never remain the same. For the types of Judaism today, they didn't exist 400 years ago, 500 years ago, 600 years ago. When it comes to all of the forms of Christianity today, on the whole, they don't resemble in many ways the original forms of Christianity. They all change. What we also observe is that all religions eventually reject the teachings of their founders either completely or partially. Why? Because in the evolution and development of a religion for the members of that religion, their beliefs have changed so much that they disagree with a teaching or all of the teachings of its founder or founders or the teachings of the founder are rejected because they are now misunderstood or they don't fit into how a religion has changed through cultural influences when it moves from one country to the next. When it comes to absolute truth, no such thing. This is something that historians like myself has recognized, but scholars of religion as well. Many religions claim that they have the absolute truth. But that absolute truth didn't exist before that religion existed. Now, there are religions that recognize there's no such thing as absolute truth. Janism is a perfect example of this. But absolute truth is based on time, place, and circumstance. Not that long ago, the absolute truth was non-whites in this country were only three-fifths human. That was absolute truth. Not that long ago, absolute truth was the world is flat. Absolute truth was dinosaurs couldn't make any sounds. They were all coldblooded lizards, reptiles. Not exactly true. Absolute truth constantly changes. See today for many people absolute truth is marriage can only be between one man and one woman. But the absolute truth for most of the Hebrew Bible, what Christians call the Old Testament, it's a man, a woman, a woman, a woman, a woman. And sometimes the women are not even wives. they're female slaves that you get pregnant or concubines or the absolute truth is women are the property of their fathers than the property of their husbands. That was absolute truth. So there really truly is. It's kind of like the absolute truth is there's no such thing as the absolute truth. Now what does all of this mean when it comes for the actual studying of religions? Well, in practical terms, it means this. Every religion demands our respect. Now, to be sure, uh you're going to encounter religions that some of you will find odd and you don't really see them as religions. And the problem is they don't represent anything like your own religion if you have one. But every religion demands our respect. Second, no created being or object that has been or will be worshiped by a religion shall be ridiculed or condemned. Third, no book will be acknowledged or received as the infallible word of a god or gods. But no book or writing that is recognized by a religion as infallible shall be ridiculed or condemned. For academic scholars of religion, we do not recognize divine revelation. We see scriptures as the creation of human beings just like all religions are the creation of human beings. Now in all of this again when it comes to religious beliefs or practices I want to again reiterate this that no religion shall be ridiculed or condemned. To be sure, there are religions that scholars like myself see that there are what we find as uh problematic issues. Um, some religions make claims of certain events that they claim actually occurred as actual historical events. For scholars like myself, we find that as problematic. And actually, as historians, we reject that these were actual historical events. But they're not to be ridiculed or condemned. They should be respected because those are the beliefs of people that belong to that religion. But also no fear, no favor. What I mean by no fear is don't be afraid of learning something new. Don't be afraid of learning about other faiths, other religious beliefs, other religious practices. But also no favor. Every religion should be examined and investigated like any other human phenomena. Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism etc. should be studied in the same way that you would study um the history of a particular nation or the history of the social institutions of a culture or society. no favoritism. And then finally, empathy and loyalty. Now, by empathy, you want to, and I'll talk a little bit more about this in a moment, but you want to be empathetic to what other people believe to be sensitive to the differences in beliefs, the differences in religions. Doesn't mean acceptance. but are willing to try to understand them from the perspective of those who belong to those religions. When it comes to loyalty, loyalty is the pursuit of knowledge that one should be loyal to that pursuit. Now these are the practical terms and this will be problematic for some. Now, there are difficulties in the studying of a religion. In the study of a religion, first off, no two religions are alike. I expect that many of you at some point um will come to a stance where you believe that most reli religions basically believe the same thing and they teach the same thing. That is not true. When it comes to value systems, theological concerns, every religion is different. When it comes to a belief in everybody has a soul, that's not a belief in every religion. When it comes to a concept of salvation, not every religion has a belief in salvation or something like it. Nor does every religion, as we dealt with, has a concept of evil. Not every religion believes in a life after death. Not every religion has clergy. Not every religion has pastors, ministers, priests or like rabbis or imams or other religious officials. Even within Christianity itself, there are branches of Christianity that does not have any ministers, no clergy. Not every religion believes in revelation, divine revelation. Not every religion has scripture. Some of them might have authoritative writings, but they're not scripture. When it comes to worship services, well, for some religions, you have a weekly, even a daily requirement for worship services. But then for others, no, there is no specific day. Not every religion has something like the Christian Sunday or the Jewish Sabbath. you know it there's no organized worship services. So all religions are different. For some religions they might share the same scriptures and those scriptures have the same words but not the same meanings. So for example in the Christian Bible you have the New Testament but you also have Jewish scripture. See, for you Christians, what's in your Old Testament is Jewish scripture, Jewish writings. Now, when it comes to Judaism and Christianity, they've got this shared scripture. They share the same terms, but they don't translate those scriptures the same way. They don't interpret them the same way. So for example for Judaism there is not one mention of the Messiah in Jewish scripture nor Jesus for that matter. It's not there. Judaism recognizes that the belief in the coming of a Messiah is a non-biblical belief. But for Christians they have a tradition of looking into Jewish scripture to prove that Jesus is the Messiah. and deadlike claims that Jewish scripture has predictions about the coming of a Messiah or the coming of the Messiah, but not according to Judaism. And for Judaism, the concept of the Messiah is not the definition of Messiah in Christianity. Same words but different meanings. with that. Sometimes students have a problem and others do when studying you know a number of religions is that you find competing and incompatible claims on what is ultimate reality the world or what is sacred. You know was there a point in time when the world did not exist or did it always exist? Are there only a god? Are there gods? Is something more important a cosmic process? It's all different. And because of these competing and incompatible claims between the religions, sometimes students have a problem of belief and unbelief. You know that I used to get this a lot from some students in teaching world religions. Dr. Schneider, we've been in this class and we've learned a lot. What am I supposed to now believe? And my my common answer to this is the same as just about every scholar that does world religions is this. Don't worry about it. You got questions of what to believe and not believe. You will truly go back to what you believe before you ever took this course. Although for those who don't go back, they might convert to another religion or they as I always put it, you join the dark side and you become a religious studies major and you come become like me. Luke, I am your father sort of a deal. But because of these competing incompatible claims between religions and um competing and in incompatible claims to what you yourself believe, sometimes that leads to people having a reluctance in learning about other religions. But like I said, no fear, no favor. Part of the difficulties at times is dealing with how does your religion view other religions? What is their perspective? And in that light, how do religions view each other? Well, they take different stances on that. Uh one stance is what we call the inclusivist view and that is my religion is true for me, your religion is true for you. See this is what we find in religions in antiquity. This is what we find in indigenous religions. uh particularly this is what we find in Janism. What you believe is true for you, what is true for me is true for me. That's being inclusive. Or there are some religions that are pluralist and that is every religion has something true to tell us. Every religion has something very important to share not only with the members of that religion but with other people. And this is what we find in Buddhism, Dowoism, Confucianism and Shintoism. See, that's why you can be a Buddhist, a Dowist and Confucianist all at the same time. Or a Buddhist and a Shintoist. Why? Because they deal with different aspects of life, different aspects of the world, different orientations. So they have something important to teach us. So why not be a member of more than one? On the other hand, there are religions that are exclusivist. And I've talked about this already. The orientation here is my religion is not only true, but it is the only truth. See, this is what we have with Christianity. Traditionally in Christianity, Jesus is the only way because Jesus is the truth, the light. You can only come to God through Jesus. For people who belong to other religions, the Christian traditional view is when you die, you're going to hell. Now, we'll talk about variations on that when we deal with current Christian beliefs, but that's been the traditional view. This exclusivism you also have with Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam. However, and there are exceptions for Judaism, you do not have to convert to Judaism to be saved. For Judaism, you can belong to another religion, but as long as you live an ethical and moral life, you too will be saved. Now, some forms of Judaism do not have a concept of salvation, but those that do, you can be a non-Jew and be saved. You don't have to convert to Judaism. For Hinduism, you can only be a a Hindu at practicing Hinduism. Hinduism recognizes there's many pathways to what is ultimate reality and what Hinduism sees as ultimate truth for Islam. Well, for Christians, Jews and Zorastrians because they are people of the book and that is they have scriptures that have come from God, the one true God, they too will be saved. They're not going to have as great a salvation or or a greater place in heaven or in paradise as devout Muslims have. But you're in. So this is where I talk about a however and exceptions. But what about scholars? See how do academic scholars of religion view religion or religions? Empathetically. We want to when we study a religion, we want to know it as best as possible from the viewpoint of someone who's a member of that religion. For myself, as a scholar of early Christianities and the New Testament, I'm interested in, how shall I put it? How early Christians, what they believed as Christians. My interest is not in what Christians today believe because it's not normally quite often the same thing. or how to practice your religion. For scholars like myself, we are not concerned whether a religion is true, but how that religion is interesting and important in the history of humanity. Or to put it another way, every religion is true and every religion is false. Every religion is a heresy to someone. Now in going a little further in this one of the approaches that many of us take is what is called the phenomenonistic approach. And what this approach is it's an awareness and acceptance of diversity. Diversity of beliefs and practices. In a phenomenonistic approach, scholars like myself um what we attempt to do is define, understand and appreciate the differences between religions. We want to answer the question, how does a religion function? What is the origin of that religion? If we can actually deal with the origins because some religions, we can't really find their origins because they have existed for so long. But what is the development the evolution of a religion? How do we go from the multitude of early Christianities to end up with the multitude of 21st century Christianities? Because they're not necessarily the same. We want to know about who are the important persons or events in the life of a religion that influence its development and evolution. Again, we want to use again empathy, what sometimes we call the empathetic imagination. You know, quite often for scholars, you know, we read or discover accounts of sacred experiences. And with the empathetic imagination, we want to try to view it from the way of those who believe in those accounts. And what do they mean? Now again that doesn't mean acceptance. There is a critical perspective. And again what I mean by a critical perspective is is that for a number of religions they lay claims to certain events happening. But for those of us who are historians, we actually have to deal with whether or not those events or we have to come to a conclusion whether or not those actual events actually occurred the way they are being described in those authoritative writings or oral traditions or scriptures or what have you. Another important element in the academic study of religion and doing the phenomenonistic approach is what a number of us refer to as defamiliarization. And what I mean by that is when you come across a religion that you have some knowledge of um study that religion as if you don't know anything about it. Particularly your own religion. Defamiliarize yourself. Study it. learn about it as if you never heard about that religion at all. Why? Because there are many things about one's own religion that that person doesn't know anything about or has no knowledge of because their perspective again has normally been faith-seeking understanding. So due the defamiliarization this is often at times uh with students in um courses in an introduction to world religions when they come to their own religion they think they really don't have to study it because they already know it and when it comes to an exam on their own religion that's when sometimes they have the worst score the worst grade. The other thing also with the phenomenonistic approach and this is true for the academic study of religion, we are bound by the natural and social sciences. So what that does really mean is if we're dealing with an account that goes against physics recognize that's something that people believe in but it is not something that could actually have a happened the way it is described because the laws of physics have not changed throughout in a sense the history of the world. We might not have known them at early periods of time, but they always existed. Which is why for historians of religions, and this is a problem just for historians of religions, we reject supernatural events. In other words, there's no such thing as miracles for us. And this includes biblical scholars who are part of the academic study of religion. And again, we can only study what is empirical. There is no empirical proof of the existence of a god or gods. None whatsoever. Now, having said all of this, what is it that scholars cannot do and can do? The things that we cannot tell you is which religion is right and which one is wrong. The Buddha was right. Jesus was wrong. Uh Moses was right. the Apostle Paul was wrong, etc. We don't judge religions. We don't re judgment on their validity. We appreciate all of them. We recognize problematic areas or things that we see as problematic issues, but we're not judgmental. We don't make moral judgments to be honest about it. We leave that to politicians to do. What we can do is tell you what are the beliefs and practices in Hinduism or in the various forms of Hinduism or what has been the history and the origins the development the evolution of the various forms of Christianity that now exist today and how did they come from and what was the original Christianities see that we can do but we're never going to tell you which religion is right which religion is wrong because again all religions are true and all religions are false. Truthness, falseeness is in the eye of the beholder. I should say in the eye of the believer and non-believer. So we don't do that. But when it comes to not being judgmental, how do academic scholars of religion do that like myself? By what we call bracketing. We bracket our beliefs and we put them off to the side. For some of us, this was really natural for us to do. Just bracket what we believe, put it off to the side, and then appreciate what everybody else has believed and practiced, etc. For some of us, it actually took us a while to do that. See, the bracketing of our beliefs and recognizing that and bracking them off, that's how we try to be objective. Now there's no truly objective person. But objectivity for scholars like myself is recognizing the things that we like, dislike, what we favor, not favor. That's what we call biases. We're all biased about something. I have a bias for coconut ice cream or orange Italian ice. That's a bias. You wouldn't think of it as a bias, but I favor them. Just like I favor my theories in dealing with the origins of certain forms of early Christianities over the theories of others. But in bracketing I recognize I might be wrong and some other scholar is right. But we do it by bracketing. Now having said all of that, there is one final problem in studying religions and it's the problem of insider versus outsider. It's something I'll mention again in dealing with studying indigenous religions. But for scholars like myself, when we study religions and we're not a member of that religion, there's some things we won't truly know or we won't have an innate sense of. See, being an insider, you have a certain perspective of what you truly believe, what you practice. As an outsider, we try to fit into that to to attempt to look through the eyes of an insider, but we never can because we are always an outsider. See, for those of us who study Islam and we're not Muslims, we see Islam in a different way than Muslims do. And but as an outsider, you can see things that an insider can't. Let me give you two examples of what I mean by that. Um, ages ago when I was still a doctoral student at Colombia in New York, I periodically drove home. Um, the reason for it to see how my grandmother and my mother were doing and I got into a really good routine of going between New York City and Clearwater, Florida. And I did it normally in two hops. I would stop in Florence, South Carolina, because there the motel I stayed at across the street was a really great movie theater, a classical movie theater. Applebee's was up the way. There was a mall I could shop close by. I was in hog heaven. But also what I noticed was that you can go on a street and on that street um you'd see a Southern Baptist church, a Presbyterian church, a Methodist church, a reformed synagogue. And basically they were all on the same side of the street. And the thing of it is, picture that in your mind that you're on one side of the street and you have all of these churches and a synagogue on the other side. Now you're going to see things and observe things that those inside cannot see. Inside they have the beauty of the music, the beauty of the worship services, the beauty of seeing the light going through the stained glass windows, but outside I can see the way the stained glass windows were actually put into the building. If I stay there long enough, I'll see who does the washing, who does the mowing. By checking out the parking lots and looking at the types of cars or trucks, it helps me figure out in a sense the economic status of the people who go in. See, of course, if you stay there long enough, the police will come along and think you're stalking. But see, you're seeing things that an insider is not observing. See, this is where you see kind of like church row in a number of southern towns. The other way is this for many of you. Uh when you've got a decision that you need to make, you know, should I really date him or her or should I really continue dating him or her or something like that? Well, quite often, don't you ask your friends for advice? Should I do this? Should I do that? uh should I go to this party or that party, whatever. And why do you go to your friends? Because they know you very well, but in a way that you don't know. After all, the person who knows him or herself the best should be yourself. But quite often, you want outside advice. You want that outside perspective, that outsider perspective. And if you don't have friends, then you go what? To a psychiatrist or a psychologist. But see, your friends know you in a way uh that you don't know yourself. So there is an advantage to being an outsider, but there is still that disadvantage that since you're never quite in, there are some things that you will miss. You won't have that. Even though you want to understand a religion from the perspective of those who do it, you're never identical in your view. There'll always be a difference there. And having said all of that, this actually finishes our introduction to the academic study of religion and world religions.