Some people see religion as private, intellectual activity, and others as social, bonding factor. Early religious study scholars, being under the influence of dominating Christianity, used to look at other religions from the perspective of the rigid unilineal evolutionist approach. They saw the inevitable movement from savagery to barbarism, to civilization. Therefore, religious believes were an important indicator of the evolutionary level of a society. In other words the general assumption was the inevitable progression from primitive superstition to more sophisticated and monotheistic view.
Later studies analyzed religious phenomenon from various perspectives, such as historicist, functionalist, psychological, structuralist, ecological, cross-cultural, cognitive, and symbolic. Modern scholars, such as Partridge, identified other groups as religious, which have not been traditionally considered as such before. For example the psychedelic users, cyberspirituality, extraterrestrial UFO believers, Occultic Western Demonology, and Eschatological apocalypcists, to name a few. I agree with Smith's (1962) view that when people are saying "I am not religious, I am spiritual", it is more than likely that they are participating in a different and probably competing tradition, requiring devices to distinguish and authorize it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You make a very good point when you say that the scholars approach religions, separate from their own, and see them as foreign and primitive and try to change it. They are often very biased, seeing their own beliefs as correct and the 'norm' and others and incorrect. This is probably where the idea of assimilation originated. Also, I totally agree with Smith's point as well, that when people refer to their faith as spiritual, they are often deviating from the 'norm'. However, this doesn't make it any less of a faith than one that is based in religion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that spiritual belief is not much different than a religious belief if we look at them objectively. But i think in some cases, spiritual belief is different than a religious belief that enforces a predetermined and kind of universal approach to life. one that has a universal code of conduct and practices that are shared by all its followers. But I think spiritual should mean a belief in something that corresponds to a higher form for that person, but entitles a complete subjective code of conduct. one that should correspond to human ethics and religiously prescribed ethics.
ReplyDeleteI think that religious beliefs have a dogmatic component to them, where as spiritual beliefs do not require any dogma at all. I also believe that religious beliefs are more communal than spiritual ones. Both beliefs do, however, have some sort of a belief in a higher power. Both are equally as important in regards to individual so it is unfair to state that one is more important than others.
ReplyDeleteHowever, evolutionary models of religion lay claim that certian religions, specifically monotheistic religions, are better than others, specifically polytheism and "primitive" uses of magic. I think claims of religious evolution are incorrect because religion is religion. If an individual believes and finds comfort in a specific practice then no one can, or should try to take that from them.
So, looking at religion from evolutionary perspective should mean that spiritual beliefs lay in the same evolutionary road that monotheistic religions use to critique earlier forms of organized religion which they refer to as primitive.
ReplyDeleteSo in a sense spirituality is a modern version of monotheistic religions, in which the individual holds on to his belief of higher form but forgos the dogmatic component of religion as you said. I agree with you on the ground that none should be regarded better than the other, but if monotheistic religions take on this criticism of earlier form of religions, than it is only fair if they are held accountable to the same criticism as well!!!