Theists only: Academia and Religion

[Harel13]

For a number of centuries now, academia has stormed the world of religion, analyzing and critiquing various religious traditions and texts. This research includes (but may not be limited to) literary and historic analyses in hopes of discovering connections between various ideas and their respective roots.

In recent years I've been reading more and more academic-type materials, mostly related to Judaism, though I've also read things relating to other religions. Sometimes what these writers say seems to make sense, and it might serve to enhance my own understanding of certain aspects of Judaism, but other times it seems like they've missed the mark completely. One example that's been on my mind quite a bit this past year: A prevalent opinion amongst Jewish Studies academic scholars in Israel is that the circa-Great-Revolt school called Beit Shammai (opposite the perhaps better-known Beit Hillel (see previous link)) were actively part of the Zealots that led the rebellion against the Romans and many students of Beit Shammai died fighting. I won't go into a tangent on why I think this is wrong, but the gist of my view is that the theory is based on a certain interpretation of many sources that, in my view, come close to meeting, but end up actually missing each other. Most academic scholars simply ignore the point that these sources simply don't quite meet because they like the idea that Beit Shammai were Zealots.

Now, does it matter that Beit Shammai may have been Zealots? Some might say yes, because it might serve layers of politics to what has traditionally been seen as a purely legal-academic debate in terms of why most of the opinions of Beit Shammai came to be overruled in the realm of Jewish Law. Are we comfortable with potentially discovering that our religious laws are based on a heck of a lot of politics? Are those even legitimate reasons for changing a customary ruling? There are a lot of things to consider, and this all comes back to the question of whether we should accept this particular academic theory.

What's your view on such academic-type studies of your religion's traditions and texts? Do you think they might legitimately enhance your understanding of your religion, perhaps even assist in your spiritual growth? Or do you think they take these things one step too far? Something else?

 

[SomeRandom]

For a number of centuries now, academia has stormed the world of religion, analyzing and critiquing various religious traditions and texts. This research includes (but may not be limited to) literary and historic analyses in hopes of discovering connections between various ideas and their respective roots.

In recent years I've been reading more and more academic-type materials, mostly related to Judaism, though I've also read things relating to other religions. Sometimes what these writers say seems to make sense, and it might serve to enhance my own understanding of certain aspects of Judaism, but other times it seems like they've missed the mark completely. One example that's been on my mind quite a bit this past year: A prevalent opinion amongst Jewish Studies academic scholars in Israel is that the circa-Great-Revolt school called Beit Shammai (opposite the perhaps better-known Beit Hillel (see previous link)) were actively part of the Zealots that led the rebellion against the Romans and many students of Beit Shammai died fighting. I won't go into a tangent on why I think this is wrong, but the gist of my view is that the theory is based on a certain interpretation of many sources that, in my view, come close to meeting, but end up actually missing each other. Most academic scholars simply ignore the point that these sources simply don't quite meet because they like the idea that Beit Shammai were Zealots.

Now, does it matter that Beit Shammai may have been Zealots? Some might say yes, because it might serve layers of politics to what has traditionally been seen as a purely legal-academic debate in terms of why most of the opinions of Beit Shammai came to be overruled in the realm of Jewish Law. Are we comfortable with potentially discovering that our religious laws are based on a heck of a lot of politics? Are those even legitimate reasons for changing a customary ruling? There are a lot of things to consider, and this all comes back to the question of whether we should accept this particular academic theory.

What's your view on such academic-type studies of your religion's traditions and texts? Do you think they might legitimately enhance your understanding of your religion, perhaps even assist in your spiritual growth? Or do you think they take these things one step too far? Something else?

Personally I welcome such inquires. I am a nerd at heart and love that sort of academic analysis. I think because more than my other geekdoms, I’m massive into literature geekdom and love analysing the various tropes, connections and other academic links in the stuff I read and discuss that other nerds lol

And yes I think such analysis does help my understanding of my own religion, because our traditions are mostly passed on through households. And whilst my mother is quite knowledgeable about our traditions and stories, it was a bit hard for her to truly translate them for me. Because she likes the traditions, but I like learning about them. If that makes sense?
But the translations within households will inevitably add their own quirks to them as well. And I just find that fascinating.
Education is actually a fundamental part of my religious tradition, to ignore academia is somewhat blasphemous. Since it’s often seen as rejecting a gift from the Gods (our intellectual ability.)

 

[exchemist]

For a number of centuries now, academia has stormed the world of religion, analyzing and critiquing various religious traditions and texts. This research includes (but may not be limited to) literary and historic analyses in hopes of discovering connections between various ideas and their respective roots.

In recent years I've been reading more and more academic-type materials, mostly related to Judaism, though I've also read things relating to other religions. Sometimes what these writers say seems to make sense, and it might serve to enhance my own understanding of certain aspects of Judaism, but other times it seems like they've missed the mark completely. One example that's been on my mind quite a bit this past year: A prevalent opinion amongst Jewish Studies academic scholars in Israel is that the circa-Great-Revolt school called Beit Shammai (opposite the perhaps better-known Beit Hillel (see previous link)) were actively part of the Zealots that led the rebellion against the Romans and many students of Beit Shammai died fighting. I won't go into a tangent on why I think this is wrong, but the gist of my view is that the theory is based on a certain interpretation of many sources that, in my view, come close to meeting, but end up actually missing each other. Most academic scholars simply ignore the point that these sources simply don't quite meet because they like the idea that Beit Shammai were Zealots.

Now, does it matter that Beit Shammai may have been Zealots? Some might say yes, because it might serve layers of politics to what has traditionally been seen as a purely legal-academic debate in terms of why most of the opinions of Beit Shammai came to be overruled in the realm of Jewish Law. Are we comfortable with potentially discovering that our religious laws are based on a heck of a lot of politics? Are those even legitimate reasons for changing a customary ruling? There are a lot of things to consider, and this all comes back to the question of whether we should accept this particular academic theory.

What's your view on such academic-type studies of your religion's traditions and texts? Do you think they might legitimately enhance your understanding of your religion, perhaps even assist in your spiritual growth? Or do you think they take these things one step too far? Something else?

In the end I am sure such studies shed light on religious doctrine and tradition. But along the way there will be, as in all academic enterprise, rival schools of thought and some dead ends. It is probably important to keep a sense of detachment from the cut and thrust of academic argument and wait for the dust to settle before drawing conclusions.

 

[danieldemol]

I think academia exposes the all too human foundations of religion and that is why it makes certain agenda driven theists who are not interested in truth uncomfortable.

Personally I welcome it.

In my opinion

 

[pearl]

What's your view on such academic-type studies of your religion's traditions and texts? Do you think they might legitimately enhance your understanding of your religion, perhaps even assist in your spiritual growth? Or do you think they take these things one step too far? Something else?

I think one of the first things to consider is that these may be reconstructions following deconstruction, and what is finally offered is a hypothesis. With that in mind I find both faith and religion are strengthened. I do however insist that these academics be women and men of faith, not necessarily the same faith. It allows me to reconcile what is in my heart with what my head may believe an absurdity.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What's your view on such academic-type studies of your religion's traditions and texts? Do you think they might legitimately enhance your understanding of your religion, perhaps even assist in your spiritual growth? Or do you think they take these things one step too far? Something else?

I'll give you not my opinion but the opinion of a baptist minister I once heard on a radio show. He did not accept the Documentary Hypothesis, but he valued the research that it stimulated.

Something else?

Can academia truly study a religion when part if it is kept secret? In Christianity women and men are not treated the same way, and the reasons are not clearly explained or the reasons plainly illogical. I consider such reasons to be deflective, because I don't imagine the writers to be so thick as to think them reasons. Another possibility is that the answers are figures of speech that are not understood today. Some are written in such a way that they mean to me "We don't talk about it." If we can keep secret why priests are male, why husbands are in charge and so forth then there could be many other things we don't talk about, so academia may be hobbled through secrecy.

Maybe there are good and decent reasons why things are secret. Some things may be actively kept secret, and there could even be agents about working to make sure you don't recover those secrets. If something is truly sensitive then it makes sense for there to be fabrications against its discovery. In that case don't get your hopes up.

Overall I'd say research is good since it stimulates thinking.

 

[pearl]

If we can keep secret why priests are male

What secret, right or wrong, its modeled after the all-male Apostles. Husbands in charge is a cultural thing, probably less true today, especially in the US.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What secret, right or wrong, its modeled after the all-male Apostles.

Some things are secret. Some are forgotten. Some are only earned through searching. I think that academic interest is good, however you cannot transplant brains.

 

[syo]

What's your view on such academic-type studies of your religion's traditions and texts?

Academics write things about religion, and they want approval from other academics. What the...!

 

[Harel13]

Academics write things about religion, and they want approval from other academics. What the...!

Don't we all want some form of approval from our peers? Academics are looking for approval from like-minded peers.

 

[syo]

Don't we all want some form of approval from our peers? Academics are looking for approval from like-minded peers.

And then what??? Where are the actual religious persons???

 

[Harel13]

And then what??? Where are the actual religious persons???

And if the academics themselves are religious but still tackle the issue from an academic perspective? They draw feedback from, say, a journal that caters only to members of that religion?

 

[syo]

And if the academics themselves are religious but still tackle the issue from an academic perspective? They draw feedback from, say, a journal that caters only to members of that religion?

Shouldn't it be both? Academics + the common religious person.

 

[Harel13]

Shouldn't it be both? Academics + the common religious person.

So you want a kind of integration between communities?

 

[syo]

So you want a kind of integration between communities?

About religion, yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As for academia here is my take as for what I am now, a theist in the end of some sorts.
Since I am a former atheist, current strong universal skeptic and I only have blind faith, as informed by being a skeptic, here is how I do God and how God reveals God self to me as a soul.
I accept that you could have another tradition of God even to the point of who goes to Heaven and Hell. But my faith is still different and only consistent for a personal revelation in that I have personal peace and faith in that God is fair. I know nothing about Right, Wrong, Heaven and Hell. That is with God and God alone.

As a soul in the everyday life I try to learn to love other souls even if different than me and that is a work I try to do everyday. In practice I do that as a Western secual cognitive, moral and cultural relativist with a form of humanism.
And that is informed by the variant of academia of which is in practice philosophy.

 

[Quintessence]

Late to this thread, but I wanted to comment that the academic study of religion was foundational to my understanding of Paganism when I was learning about it. I have a strongly academic inclination, so when I want to learn about something, I go to the experts. That means academics, especially these days when there is far less of a problem with ethnocentrism and blatant cultural biases/agendas. I ended up dabbling in the study of cultural anthropology to learn about magic and religion in particular, which was immensely helpful in understanding the cultural context within which contemporary Paganism arose and its nature as a countercultural movement.

I encourage anyone who is new to Paganism to study the academic writings on it. Well, maybe not anyone - the main problem with academic writing is it is often difficult to parse if you aren't either well-educated or a quick study (or both). There are certainly things I read through that the first time I really didn't get what it was I was reading. Ronald Hutton's writing for example, while spectacular and essential reading for anyone studying Wicca or Druidry, is unbelievably dense and impenetrable to most (at times including myself - I prefer listening to his talks which are much easier to follow).