We have been looking at religions as "systems of symbols". There are several aspects in which I think Geertz's definition is loaded with assumptions that have been the unquestioned basis of our discussions; particularly the "sense of factuality" - implying that no religion is true.Now, religions make many incompatible statements; thus, most must be at least partially wrong. And for the purpose of this class, I understand, we do not want to discuss what is true, or which religion is real, but rather their social effect.
I think that when we look at religions as systems of symbols, we are essentially looking at a language. A language - the words, the letters, the grammar - is a set of symbols, each giving something a sense of factuality by representing it. Have we not all experienced that, upon discovering a new word, we suddenly saw this thing wherever we looked? For some reason, I remember learning the expression "grey weather" at a young age. I suddenly became very aware of grey days. Did these days come into existence by the words? No. Did the words create a unique sense of factuality about something that doesn't exist? No. They did possibly bias my view of weather, but only to a degree.
What this means is that we must be careful to realize what we are discussing. I feel comfortable participating in class only because I limit my speaking to the cultural aspect of religion, the languages of religions. I can compare these, find out how they work, maybe see how they are related.
But I also know we are not even touching on the core of religions. As Prof. Smith said, the class might more aptly be named "cultural studies".
Ok, i'm gonna bite on this one again.. I appreciate your questioning. Yes, culture works a lot like a language, and it's study can be called semiotics, or the study of signs (symbols). Wait til we hit Augustine now! I can't quite compute what you're saying about not getting to the heart of religion and just studying "culture." what is deeper than culture? Our culture is the very way we see the world and all the stuff that makes us feel at home in society. What could be deeper or held more closely? You seem to mean some internal feeling as being the deepest part of religion, but of course if we all just laid out our feelings this would not be a college class.. There's no way to talk about those feelings except to acknowledge them. Now we can talk about where those feelings come from.. And why people have such strong feelings in relation to religion. But yes, that feels a little distant from the feelings themselves.. I understand that.
ReplyDelete@Martyn:
ReplyDeleteWhat is deeper than culture? Well, I was thinking of truth. There is are and will forever continue to be philosophical and scientific debates about the existence and nature of God. As I said, most religions make incompatible statements - so then, aside from being culture, these religions also have the literal property of being right or wrong.
I mean that we are not discussing in class, for example, proofs (or disproofs)of Jesus's physical death and resurrection. While there are of course nominal Christians who see Christ merely as an allegory, most consider His real, physical, material existence of central importance to the validity of Christianity.
I'm not arguing for against that here. I am simply giving it as an example of what we are not discussing, and for good reason - it would have far-reaching effects on our lives to come to conclusions about what religions are true or not, and it may cause us to forget that they all also have a purely cultural element. It is that cultural element that we are studying, and I have no problem with that.
(I suppose that, given a naturalist/atheist viewpoint, one must ascribe all religions to feelings. That, or deluded research of history. I am neither a naturalist or an atheist.)