Friday, August 29, 2008

comparative rel eric j. sharpe 75

Comparative Religion Eric J. Sharpe 1975

xi-Muller’s intro to the science of rel 1873 “one might reasonable idfy as the foundation doc of comparative rel in the English-speaking world” others had looks at rels as science before, but this was “first attempt to systematize the material,” “subject it to a definite method”, some called it “science,” some “comparative”
-1870 was dominated by Darwinian ideas
xii-cites Louis h. Jordan 1905 as saying the science was to measure relative superiority or its origins—we almost don’t do superiority anymore, but no new method takes its place
xiii-now subdivided into history of rel, psycgy of rel, socgy of rel (and others)—but ppl trying to give a title to multidisciplinary study have called it diff—“history,” “comparative”, “relus studies”—and “comparative” seems most common, and no other title is obvious
xiv-for socgy cf nisbet 67
1-comparative rel became widely known in 1860s and 70s (most comprehensive work on beginnings cf de la boullaye l’etude compare 4th ed ’29)—sharpe uses it a lot, as well as l. Jordan 05 and 15, lehmannn 14, menshing 55, de vries the study of rel, waardenburg 73 and sharpe 70
-antecendents r many and “it might perhaps b claimed that the first “comparative religionst” was the first worshipper of a god or gods who asked himself, having first discovered the facts of the case, why his neighbor should b a worshipper of a god or gods”
2-greeks wrote about others’ rels, compared criticized (3) pop rel; astronomical calculations by thales (6th ce bc) “rob the gods of their authority”, Anaximander [6th cebc] said sun and moon were not gods, Xenophanes (6thce) saide no one can know nature of gods, common to greek philosophy
4-herodotus (5th ce bc) studied too, said greek rel came from Egypt, comparing; alexander’s conquest brot writers to other cultures; megasthenes saw same greek gods in india
5-stoics (3rd ce bc) did a bunch of work—commonalities to all cults they called “nat rel”, and also saw gods as allegories of nat phenoma, eg zeus was sky, heara as air—study culminated in Cicero: Strabo (1rst ce ad)wrote on celtic druids
-some collected myths into coherent systems
6-euhemerus (4th ce bc) in opposition to stoics, said gods were great men who came to be worshipped—used in Cicero, hume, h. spencer, freud

7-it has been said that Greeks could study rel b/c they really didn’t respect it—but that was def not the case for the Hebraic (jew and xn)—“attitude of exclusiveness and intolerance in matters of rel”
-xn/jew intolerance rooted in command of yhwh to not worship other gods—they realized other gods existed in other lands, but it was not permissible in theirs—jeremiah 10:5 called other gods “scarecrows”—“useless and powerless object which can neither walk, speak nor stand w/out support” (c fps 115:3-8) or evil demons ps106, and theologians followed in line w/ these descriptions
8-this “virtually ruled out even the possibility of objective study of other rels”—xn did same (acts 4:12)
9-some thot worshipping other rels, foreigners were really worshipping god but didn’t know it
10-clement said he could let plato into “the fellowship of Truth”; but not aug or tertullion, both followed paul on strictness and followed by latin fathers
-a “Hebraic”/cultic v. “hellenic”/philosophic view—but Hebraic view dominated for next several centuries—tho simplified, comparative study of rel has vascillated btwn the2
11-during mid ages, “practically no study of other rels was carried out during these centuries, other than for purposes of refutation and ultimate conquest”

-some 9th-11th ce muslims studied other rels; says shahrastani (12th ce) wrote “fist history of rel in world lit”—rels out to china

-“first relatively accurate descriptions of the resl of n.n Europe” r in adam of bermen c. 1075, and saxo Grammaticus c. 1210—xns
12-xn on all rels –fransciscan roger bacon 13th ce—to defend against charges of sorcery and heresy
-first to try to understand islm was peter the verable who in 1411 commissioned transaltion into latin Q and another text, then a few others studied it

-13th-15th ce explorations took missionaries to far E., created influx of mats on their rels
13-and “when combined w/ new modes of inquiry into the foundations of relus philosophy, posed consiberable probs for xndom”

-the schoolmen simply said non-xn rels were “idalotry, superstition, and falsehood”—“jew,” “Saracen” or “pagan” sometimes
-tho aqui said nonxns were just ignorant and needed corrections, the greek pholosphers less so

-but started to change w/ 1) interest in greek mythology already a little in Italy and increased after fall fo Constantinople in 1453 and greek scholars to Italy
-humanism of renaissance thot ppl could best dvlp under guidance of masters of classical culture, esp in lit, rarely w/ rel—tho Erasmus (15th ce) did make clement’s allowal for Greeks
14-2) exploration to America
-reformation and post-reformation xn writers didn’t give others much attention b/c they focused on xny (tho luther did look at islam and Zwingli looked at Greeks)

15-missionaries—ricci (16th ce) said Chinese confuscians were really worshipping god, brot texts back—some thot it as pure rel (w/out priests, mysteries and had moral ideals)
16-this thinking was deism, first coherent theology in lord Herbert of cherbury de veritade; neo-stoic process—supreme power, no ceremony just piety, sin forgiven, awards and punishment in afterlife
-and beibniz (late 17th ce) marked beginning of enlightenment, influend Muller (17)
17-for deism, chiese rel is the—the real “nat rel” and compares others to it—pop esp in fr. And germany; Goethe and Voltaire , j. spencer 1685 compared biblical evidence to jewish evidence; w. Robertson smith called it, “w/ some exaggeration”, first work of comparative rel
18-persian n jew rels 2, but above all nonxn rels (incl Chinese) were used to justify their enlightnemnt theories—and had “very little capacity for placing relus trads in their proper cultural contexts”
-pre-lit ppls rls were rarely studied (just accounts from missionaries n explorers), they wee barely considered humans (b/c of Great Chain of Being idea)
-deBrossas first used word “fetishism” for rels of prelit ppls rel, similar to “nature rel”—it caught on, finally replaced in 1860s by E B tylor’s “animism”, then resurrected by freud for something else
19-deBrosser (and also Bergier 1767) thot their rel was “infantile folly”
-hume 1755 nat hist of rel said rel evolved from barbaric fear of future events, lowest form was polytheism, mono was best b/c it recognized superior/inferior (he was not deist)
-18th ce also had compendiums of rels for comparative study

20-first decades of 19th ce had widespread reaction against rtlsm (fr rev), and raised “feeling” and imagination, intuition and personal integrity were to b the pillars of human life
-“instead of being interpreted purely in terms of reason, rel came to b seen as an inward exprc, self authenticating, conditioned subjectively and determined by feeling”—romanticism gave w. a sense of history (herder, hegel and sir walter scott) and a feeling for the irrational in rel (Schleiermacher)
-herder ideas concerning 1784-91 introduced idea of progress into study of rel which was irrational and logical; hegel said xny was most dvlped rel—so did schleier, tho he said ppl should evaluate diff rels on their “own specific premisies” (21)
21-19th ce interested in ancient near east and indo-european awakening, beginning w/ napoleon 1798 in Egypt and description de l’ (1809-22)
-“the disclosure of the ancient cultures of Assyria and babylonia began in 1811 w/ the visit of james rich”, then under botta layard, then Rawlinson and oppert deciphered cuneiform script
-tho b/c of mid ages xn influence still, “there were few scholarsprepared to draw raw wide conclusion from the mass of accumulating evidence” like ideas that w. civilization came from Egypt (despite evidence)

22-translations of Indian and Persian txts in late 18th and early 19th ces lead to major interest in india—esp bopp’s 1816 comparative grammar of Sanskrit, grk, latin, Persian and germaic langs—“indo-eurpn” studies and then science of rel (comparative) b/c they linked cultures thru lang
-germanic studies grew as an offshoot of nrthrn german and scandinavian ntlsm, raising up of german folklore, esp by grimms—comparing similarities of myths in world
23-Du Perron’s translation of Upanishads 1802 also had argument that “all true wisdom is one”, incl kant, adam smith, Chinese classics—Schopenhauer was most famous admirer; echoed by Unitarians, transcendatlists and other romantics (ppl influenced by Swedenborg)—they used it to support theory of “indv, intuitive philosophy of life” (24)
-transcendentalists lacked “interest in the history or cultural context of the ideas” they were using—so their comparisons weren’t great

-but a new trend for comparing rels was in “cats of history, progress dvlpmnt and evolution”, roots in renaissance, Descartes and bacon (early 17th ce), in 18th and 19th ces idea of progress won ground in “eurp as a philosophical idea”—and notable philosophies of history were done on dvlpmntl lines by fichte, schelling and hel in german and saint-simon and comte in fr
25-Hegel and comte, most influential styles. Hegel saw history as culminating in present (used phenomenology); comte writes like a more significant period is coming, (used esp by fr. Socgsts and anthros durk and levy-bruhl)
-same time as lyell’s principles and elements fo geology, “in which existing ideas on the origins of the world were virtually turned upside-down”
* -1840-carlyle talked about m. as a hero; 1859 darwin’s orgin of species sealed new evolutionary age—science theory joined w/ philosophical theory of history—says “neighter, on its own, could have made the impact on the pop mind that ‘evolution’ was so rapidly to achieve; together they conquered the 19th ce”—esp thanks to their synthesis by H. spencer “system of synthesis”; “w. became obsessively historical”…”the whole of human culture was examined afresh on new principles, w/ a view to discerning the origins, dvlpment and goals of ea separate manifestation of the human spirit. Rel was no exception…”
26-what was lacking in the variety of approaches by this pt. (xn theological—all divine, philosophical approach –“pressed” theories into its own use; and scholarly –limited areas of study)
-“evolution was..or seemed to be…one single guiding principle of method which was at the same time able to satisfy the demands of history and science”
27-btwn 1859 and 1869, it was so academincally productive, comparative rel didn’t exist in 1859 but it did in 1869
28-at the time, there was a war btwn science and rel—science rejected rel and rel saw science (and comparative rel) as “unbelief”
-most ppl still believed in genesis, nonxn rels were mostly dismissed “as the work of the devil” or as ignorance—rcs still used dictum of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (pope Boniface II in 1302 and confirmed in 15th ce council of Florence) for nonxns and alternative xns
29-pt. of contestation was divine revelation
30-but the question still remained—“why had humanity ever found it necessary to b relus?”—why did ppl still need rel?
-few who asked these ?s “belonged wholeheartedly to any orthodox xn trad”—tho many called selves xns—they tried to reconcile both rel and science
31-tho most scientests of rel (a term that goes back to germany to first decade of 19th ce) weren’t relus b/c it prevented them from being objective, esp according to Muller
-used scientific method of not taking things a priori, comparing known to unknown; and historical theory that past things have effect on present

32-h. spencer (late 19th ce) “occupies a special position w/ regard to rel, since it was pre-eminently he who widened the boundaries of evry theory so as to take in the pehnon of rel. and for this reason if for no other, he occupies an important position at the threshold of comparative rel”
-spencer began w/ “an indistinct theism” and “progressed to absolute agnosticism”
33-started w/ euhmerism
34-believed that evolution (from simple to compelx) was manifested in everything, even manmade instittns: govt, lit, science, art, implies rel is as aspect of govt (dead ancestors, dreams=ghost) and tylor too
35-had no followers of importance in comparative rel—and was even criticized for not being well read but, along w/ Darwin and Huxley, created a “climate of opinion”

--2 serious contenders for title “father of comp rel”—dutch Egyptologist c. p. tiele and muller (philologist), but muller was more universal figure.
-muller’s father was a romanitic poet
36-“in max muller, three streams met. First, the stream of german romantic idealism; secondly, the stream of comparative indo-eurpn philogoy; and thirdly, the stream of post-hegelian philosophy of hroty”—not the evry school or anthrgy, owed a bit to Spinoza, Klopstock, lessing, schiller and Goethe
-also personally influenced by baron Bunsen (scholar, diplomat, “man of the world”), “passionate natlst” who divided world into ‘germans’ and philistines’—his work aimed to show man’s moral evolution, which is practical w/ a ntlsm, a “humanity for god”—he got e. india co. to pay for printing muller’s book
37-his translation of the 4 vol rig veda helped bring new interest in hinuism and its revival

38-Muller concerned self w/ 2 issues: 1) origin of rel and how it became associated w/ morals and myths 2) appropriate methods to study rel
-1)he said that “all human knowledge begins w/ perceptions of finite entitites… Hwever…in perceiving the finite we always perceive the infinite also”—this is the origin of rel tho after combined w/ a moral sense (39)
39-rel def: “the perception of the infinite under such manifestations as r able to influence the moral character of man”—a nat rel, kantian, enlightnemnt idea
-did not like priests—seen as poison to rel
40-2) first, believed that man has always had reason—anti-darwinian, had theory lang evolved tho (41), and when it cencompassed nature words, those were abstract and thus gained person characteristics and myths dvlped (42)—tho mythologists disagreed (43)
43-myths were just an outward expression of the ture exprc—rel. so u must penetrate myths to undersand rel
-2 methods: comparative—heistorical rel; and theoretic—looked at dogmas and doctrine
-focused on first more
44-thot by learning all this it would lead to new “true rel of humanity”, “enthusiatstic” supporter of chi worlds parliament of rels 1893

45-muller popularized term “science of rel”, but more importantly he gave “the study of comparative rel an impulse, a shape, a terminology and a set of ideals”, he “recruited an entire generaton of scholars to his cause , as editors, translators and commentators in his sacred books fo the E. enterprise; and in his own chosen field of indology had set standards as high as he knew how to make them. Almost incidentally, he had prepared the w. world for what has since came to b called the dia of rels, insisteing not only on accuracy w/ regard to dead tras, but sympathy w/ regard to living trads”
46-before muller, relus studs was wide, but disorganized—“After him, the field could b seen as a whole, subjected to a mthod”
-he was criticized by Darwinian anthros; and philogy was leaving linguistics behind; and had some disciples that lacked common sense
47-in its first 20 years, comparative rel was dominated by myth-studying philologists who were only concerned w/ texts, “other data concerning the earliest history of mankind, and man’s earliest rels, interested them hardly at all”—“lower rels,” still “fetishism”, were seen as degenerated
-“By about 1880…the Darwinian hypothesis was becoming virtually impossible to resist …[b/c] Spencer had in theory brot [in it] every aspect of human culture”
-anthropology was becoming “the best label for comprehensive evory science as it concerned man”—initially anthro (t. h. Huxley 1878) said it didn’t concern itself w/ the tureness of rel, tho value judgments were common (48)
-for them, “rel became something which it had never really been before…a dvlping organism”
-antecendets of antogy were diverse methodologically and focused on bizarre, and not even a “respectable” scholarship—but darwinianism changed the view of “lower rungs” of hierarchical man to a “human, if childish, and therefore worth study”
49-more and more ppl were studying “primitives”, plus thomsen and worsaae provided “3-age” system of history; dvlpmnt of prehistoric archeology; idea that primitive tribes survived prehistory’s –“survival”, things that survived , like rel and folklore (since 1848)

51-first 2 writers (besides h. spencer) in brit who combined significantly anthrogcl data and relus speculation were sir hon Lubbock and e. b. tylor
-lubbock more concerned w/ prehistory and his pre-histoic times 1865 “was largely responsible for familiarizing the English-speaking public w/ the idea of prehistory
52-and book terms “palaeolithic” and “Neolithic” first appeared
-tylor more concerned w/ surviving primitive ppl
-lubbock was the first brit example of combining comtean philsopy of history w/ scientific data of Darwinism to produce a relus history
-said all races had “very similar relus concepts”—unilinear ev—then worked out a 6 rung evry ladder of dvlpmnt, aetheism to ethical monotheism
-the idea that primitives did not have rel (aethests) was common, but rejected by tylor “and has never again been seriously maintained”
-and his rungs as evry (not functional purposes) “is simply incapable of proof”
53-tho his belief that morals were added only at the higher levels continued, even somewhat to today

-tylor is important in fields of ethnological and anthrplgcl theory and in compara rel; for the “anthrogcl school” in study of rel and begggeter of “animism”
-tho stahl used it in 18th ce—but tylor gave it new meaning
-tylor was quaker so not from xn trad that hated compara study of rel
54-“he made the usual assumptions concerning the possibility of deducing the dvlpmnt of spiritual culture by analogy from the dvlpment of material culture”—and introduced term “survivals”—smthing that “the stream of ev has left behind”
56-tho sees primitive rels as rational

-his def of rel: “the belief in spiritual beings”—“animism” based on primitive’s curiosity about diffnc btwn live and dead body—assumes it’s a soul, same things that he sees in dreams and ecstatic visions—tylor correctly notes that word for “breat” and “soul” r same in many cultures (57)
57-animals and plants also have souls
-Tylor calls all this “lower psychology,” “infant psychology”
58-Tylor says animism is “the direct product of nat rel”—but sharpe says Tylor was wrong for saying “levels of mat culture must correspond exactly to levels of intellectual, moral and relus culture” and survivals in one area corresponded to survivals in another—wasn’t warranted and could not b proven or disproven
-sharpe says his contribution was giving a compendium of some of the relus beliefs and practices of preliterates; animism as a descriptive term

61-andrew lang, a disciple of tylor, criticized muller b/c lang found similar myths in non Aryan ppls—said myths were prelogical stories
62-but he also found some primitive tribes had supreme beings—criticized evst view
64-distinguished btwn higher rel (and god) and lower ones (mythology based)

65-tylors disciple and successor was marett
66-was a philosopher at oxford based in idealism (platonic)
67-rel “stands for a certain composite or concrete state of mind wherein various emotions and ideas r directly provocative of action”
-said behind tylor’s animism there was a “relus sense or instinct, made up of fear, awe, wonder and admiration in face of what is considered to b the supernat”—and man began by venerating an impersonal power or force which he felt to b present in virtually any unusual object or striking nat phenon”—the spirit is not the first thing he senses
-chose, among the terms, from many cultures, the Melanesian term “mana as the focus of his theory”—also came up w/ by j. h. king 1892
68-his views were accepted by hartland and wundt, and preuss
70-tho the expert on Melanesian rel that marett got his info from said mana was a quality of spirits, not something separate
-marett also criticized brit (and thusly us) tendency to judge rel in terms of indvlsm (he was influenced by fr)—the result of personal reflections, not so much on social and actions
72-marett influenced, b/c of his emphasis on social, study of ritual—b/c prior to that ritual was seen as secondary, “accidental”—transentalism
-eg van gennep 1909 characterized the “rites of passage”

74-term “totemistm” coined by john lang, used in many ways tho

76-mclennan 1896 first suggested that totemism was an evry stage of relus dvlpmnt
-for him, totemism was similar to de brosses fetishism and tylor’s animism, tho said it was passed thru mother and exogamous marriage

81-robertson smith emphasized the role of ritual, esp worship of animals—totemism

82-durk was influenced by comte, wundt—used totemism in (83)
-his work was a reaction against psychologically-oriented indvlsm “social” thot of late 19th ce, thot some “social facts” exercise compelling power over the indv, and which were beyond the minds of the invs who make up the collective. Only these “social facts” can b scientifically investigated—diff levels of groups, ea w/ own mind
-and “rel is the most characteristic product of the collective mind” and values r imposed on the group members—ideas given from his teacher fustel de coulanges—but expanded those ideas
84-says all social “facts”, history, ecy, etc. have influence on rel—rejects separate treatment rel was getting from science, but replaces it wa/ another presupposition—non-existence of supernat whatsoever
85-and sicne he says gods aren’t fundamental for durk, says the sacred orders r given by group, it’s called collective mind
-and since rel is result of ignorance, it will end
-def of rel said had to have sacred things set apart, and everything unites in a moral community called a church—totemism establishes what is sacred and profane
86-also believes in “survivals”, mana, tabu—tho some of the anthro data and theories of totemism and mana have been shown to b unreliable—tho sum still use him, ignoring this

87-frazer was influenced by rob. Smith and tylor, cometean histy, gibbon, gepper
88-influenced freud and t. s. eliot
92-believed “age of majgic” (manipulating nature) predated age of rel (revering nature)—tho this does not hold up to primitive societies
93-and most often magic is a degereation of rel
-he also traced instittn of divine kingship to magic—contentious but opened the ?
-and made pop idea that vegetation deitites r due to change of seasons

94-compara rel btwn 1870s and 1920s was dominated by anthros and their theories
95-and b/c evsm was so pop and anthogy had it, comparative rel ppl followed the anthros (even philos and historians)
97-muller’s intro to the was dedicated to emerson and the transcendentalists

-us distinctive contribution to compara rel was psych of rel around turn of ce: james, starbuck, leuba and pratt
98-tho has lost popularity b/c of difficulty of techniques and ppl said psychgy wasn’t a distinctive part of rel—and after 20s ppl genrlly focused on behavioral psychology, subconscious motivation
-psychgy looked at how indvs reacted to envrnmnt, patterns—this is the “mod” view but thses guys studied the psyche—“that non-mat part of the indv (which might b called the soul, mind, feeling, consciousness, Transcendental Ego, or whatever) thru which the indv as such operates”
99-no broad agreement on methods and goals, but all saw rel as important to the field, and described a lot of studies as psychgy (even tylor’s work on animism)
-but said archeogy was not as good: it was “a process of random observation and conjecture”, differed little from anthrogy or compare rel

100-1879 wundt started experimental psych at Leipzig (mecca of psychgy), causing reactions in rats, and found physical relationship to pschgy
-amers, influenced by this, used experimental approach for study of rel: ?aires asked person to speak for himself (it was assumed he adequately knew his conscious)
-attractive b/c of us emphasis on “personal rel” and indv experc—more influential in us intellectual thot thatn in eurp, and philosophical idea of “pragmatism” (101), also influx of many rels and indv relus expercs
101-and used for xn apologetics for emphasis on conversion, esp controlling it, tho it eventually merged w/ the work in other fields

102-first amer to go to Leipzig was hall, who founded first eng j of psycgy, first pres. Of amer psych assoc, first brot freud and jung to speak in 1909 (103)—created forum

103-leuba, like hall, was a “positivist”—materialist, used to disprove rel, swiss, not very relus, tho had a conversion experience, then became really scientific
104-b/c of his experc, worked on conversion for his dissertation in US 1896, similar to starbuck 1899 and james 02 work
-did not believe in transcendental experc (unlike starbuck and james), saide relus belief was projection
105-used a priori assumption of non-existence of supernatural

106-starbuck, quaker, pupil of james at Harvard—made “first successful ue of the ?aire method of research”, Hegelian , evry
-sent out ?aires, james used them for varieties—but this was seen as unscientific method—sharpe said it was “bold, naïve and immature…nevertheless it worked”

108-for james, psycgy was just a gen approach to speculative philosophy. His father was a Swedenborgian theist, transcendentalist critic, hated ortdx Calvinism, opposed extreme indvlsm
109-william’s 1890 book was first to look at psycgy from biology and functl perspective
-tho he rarely looked at nonxn rels, he provided stimulus for it
-rejected transcendental monism
111-saw rel as the experc of divine of the indv—opposite of durk
112-he canonized the indv approach

113-after varieties it was a pop approach to rel, in us thru 30s

114-pratt was first to apply theories to nonxn rels and ahad a balance of indv and social
115-said por couln’t answer everything about rel

117-they also looked at (unlike other compara rlgionsts) mystics in its revival at turn of ce
119-academic recognition was difficult. Objections: from theology schools that it was corrupting (mostly eurpn] rel and secular schools didn’t’ want to touch rel [mostly us]
120-first rel chair was history of rels at u of geneva where j. muller lectured from 1834-75

137-us: 1867 james clarke (whose ten great rels1871 was pop and an early milestone in compara rel) was “Prof of Nat Rel and Xn Doctrine” at Harvard—had a xn lean, as did other followers. 1891 harvard made chair for hist of rel, 1892 chi for compara rel

136-1893 world parliament of rels had 41 separate denominational and inter-denominational conferences
137-attacted by orthodox xns; and criticized in gen for promoting world peace, many euro scholars didn’t come
145-xn missionaries, in trying to convert ppl, had veen making “detailed and accurate” descriptions of other rels; esp rcs eg dubais’ hindu manners was made “at the instigation of the e. india co in 1816”’ while orthdx xns still saw nonxns “as opponents to b overcome” and their defenders were “heretics or persihsing sinners”
146-some xn theologians, after a while, started taking compara rel seriously, eg w.e. grffis 1895—they were genrlly libs, w/ hellenstic views, not bebraic
-usu based on Schleiermacher, Coleridge and emerson

148-b/c scientific knowledge was becoming so ubiquitous, theology sometimes shifted “from belief in the authority of Book or Church, to belief in the authority of a God actually revealed int eh process of history”—lib Protstntsm and cath modsm. Transcendent Doctrines were being replaced w/ immanent ones
-“views which saw Diety as essentially external to the historical process was being replaced by a doctrine of God “at work,” progressively revealing himself w/in the very process which evry theory was engaged in tracing”—several compara relsts were xn (muller, tiele, sussaye) and wrote about relus ev
149-some german theologians started looking at the historical situation of xny, their theorist was troeltsch (‘50) who said ev theory too, popularized history in xnty

151-missionaries then, as now, had clearly defined presuppositions of xny—so all they could do (since they weren’t theorists) was “distort and misrepresent the relus trads they were professionally concerned to undermine” –but compara rels influenced them
153-farquhar popularized ev theory for missionizing (xnty is the fulfilmnet of all rels) and took other rels seriously

155-soderblom “was responsible for creating an atmosphere in which compara rel and theology were reconciled as never before or since” –lib prtst theory
156-thruought history god has been revealing himself to man, and science is what god is revealing; and man’s knowledge has reached hi pts. In other rels
158-saw sui gen nature in all rels as rels; followed ritsch (159) [God reveals self in and thru historical process and xnty is the ultimate], created idea of holy by otto (160)
160-def of rel: “relus is the man to whom something is holy”; like otto influenced by schleiermachr, tho warned holiness wans’t same in all rels

161-Ottos idea pop b/c it appeals to nonrtl in man and justifies indvlsm and experc over dogma and instittn
163-1910 otto wrote article about lang’s idea of sensus numinis as origin of rel—studied hindu and came up w/ idea of holy, coined word numinous (164) and mysterium tremendum
165-tho cannot b proven or disproven in history—like marretss’ animism which was similar idea; experc of numen is sui gen
-sharpe says is a “faith-judgemnt” and “otto does not—indeed, he cannot—adduce solid evidence to prove his case”; also criticed by evans-pritchard for same thing
-otto asks reader to look for it in his own expercs
166-sharpe says “despite its profound influence” on comprara rel and por, idea of the holy ”is a work of theology”. “Primary datum is a faith judgment, not a rtl demonstration”

167-baillie (based on soderbolm) said rel could only b understood from inside, criticizes compara relsts for this, tho ptd out even science requ’d faith, tho ppl (170) didn’t acknowledge it
172-after WWI, there were criticisms to ideas of ev to progrogress—most common to associate it w/ war—caused disillusionment, but also anthro theory of diffusion of culture (ie not all ppl evolved from same culture), and (173) impact of ntlsm, which thot nation’s ethics r more important in which was originally used to justify imperialism, but led to preservation of culture
174-relut for compra rel: 1) more attention to indv rel and 2) criticism of unilinear evo—these lead scholars to specialize more and less grand theories

--malinowski (inspired by frazer, tho moved beyond w/ “participant observation”) and Radcliffe-brown believed in anthro “fieldwork” and no longer focused so much on history as funct (also boasinus)—“inaugurated a new eara in social anthrogy”—and discouraged use of histy for English-speaking world, but germans were still using it?

177-weber focused on rel and culture
-weber’s the socgy of rel “is in effect a compendium of anthrogcl compara rel, bound together by the conviction that” rel is primarily influenced by ecoc and historical situs—each 1 of those is a culture
-and looked to compare rels w/ ecoc systems, published after his death
178-he used errored scholarship and wasn’t known to English speaking world until 50s

179-around WWI Schmidt (rc priest) was publishing using lang’s theory (first person to take “lang’s theories w/ the seriousness they desevered”; the 1 guy who said primitives had hi gods and orgins of rel r unkown), and convinced the scholarly world to take lang seriously

180-ratzel was the “originator of the ‘culture-historical’ movmnt in ethnology”, said unilinear ev was ahistorical, but all ppl have a history, particularly culture-contacts (181)
181-said if 2 cultures have same idea of a “specialist funct”, then there is a connection
-his student, frobenius, added that there needs to b a lot of use of the specialist method
-first to apply theory to rel is grabner who looks at Australians

192-anthro levi-bruhl said primitives had “prelogical”, “mystical” thinking, not logic—old primitivism
195-the turn of ce psygsts of rel studied conscious exprc; psygcl findings, b/c the study of rel wasn’t compartmentalized, were used by anthros, socios, theosts, historians—“tylor, marrett, levy-bruhl, wundt, soderblom, otto and many others were all to some extent psychologists of rel in the “old” sense, in that they were all concerned to edlucidate the role of rel in the heart and mind of the indv believer” and having him speak for himself—up thru 30s
196-but a branch of psycgsts who thot it should only b anatomy based criticized starbuck and james; and socgsts critized its indv approach to rel
197-jung and freud’s emphasis on unconsciousness (they were physicians who were looking for cures) had another criticism: they began to theorize about the mind and rel played a big part

198- freud’s totem 1915 based on R. smith, frazer and wundt, but anthros “dismissed it abruptly as fanciful nonsense”
199-book had a big influence on w. intelligentsia; freud links primitive man and mod neurotic—both have compulsive behavior—so orgin of neurosis is same as origin of rel and since he thot all neuroses were from repressed childhood exprcs of secual nature—so is rel; esp oedipus complex
200-the final essay, “the infantile recurrence of totemism” is “one of the wildest and most bizarre construction in the history of mod thot”—boys killed father then guilt made him god
202-“totem …exposes no historical truth whatsoever” but tho his ideas were “sheer rubbish”, his focus on unconscious ended ?aires
203-sharpe agrees w/ eliade who thinks freud was pop b/c ppl felt guilty for not believing in god anymore

205-jung sees similarities btwn ppls dream and mythology—thot this indicated a collective unconscious that the conscious tried to regulate—when it does u r mentally healthy
210-he had a lot of influence b/c of 30s “eranos confs” which was dominated by this thot—a conf on compara rel that was attended by a # of scholars
212-neumann, Campbell, and eliade relied a lot on jung—“depth-psychogy”

215-eliade, influenced by time spent in india and state of Samadhi where time is ended, he harshly criticized w’s obsession w/ history, believes in “archaic man” who orients self by trying to return to mythic times, leaving out the Jungian archetypes (216) and mod man should search for his lost soul

217-structualism is based on depth-psychogy—says human communication (esp myths) “reveal the working of the human mind or minds which have produced the communication in ?”—levi –strauss, influenced by depth-psychgy in that he believes the mind works mostly on a subconsciouslevel—tho anthrogy
220-pressures of post war and eurp made a more critical attitude to compara rel and “also had the unfortunate effect of widening an already existing breach btwn scholars of diff inclinations and temperaments” ; 1 side had specialists, the other started to synthesize mats, integral understanding , and refined methods
-the unilinear ev idea was criticized for imposing “so many alien values-judgements on the mat”, the reaction, supposedly value-free, turned to “phenomenology of rel” which had been around sicne 1880s, tho as “little more than a thematic counterpart to the history of rel”, tried to find rels’ essence

221-late 18th ce philosophers eg hegel, tried to understand the essence behind rel, using kant’s idea that we can understand something by its phenoma
222-and van der leeuw said there were ppl classifying rels by phenomas before, including meiners and de brosses (1760)
-tho term was coined by de la saussaye in 1887 and refers to hegel as first—says he’s just bringing together “groups of relus phenoma” (223); but this was diff from later use

223-around 1900, Husserl was defining “phenomnlogy” diffly. Said philosophy must end metaphysical presuppositions, he provided 2 ideas: epoche and eidetic vision (224)
-epoche—means suspension of judgment, or bracketing something in its essence
-eidetic vision—“the observer’s capacity for seeing the essentials of a situation, or in the case of a phenon, its actual essence as opposed to what it has been, might have been, or ought to b”, implies subjectivity
225-immediately used in hermeneutics, a discipline traced back to shleiermacher, dvlped by wach for history of rels, and Soderblom, lehman (226) and kristensen

228-kristensen criticized the fact that “scholars using evry theory “again and again the scholar had come to assume that his own scholarly presuppositions were adequate for understanding of any relus phenon” esp w/out first hadn sources—so believiers own understanding of his faith must b given absolute priority”
-even whien believer seems “disastrously wrong”—it is to “protecht the integrity of other believers against the unintentional distortions of scholars who, while not unfriendly, had never learned to understand” (229)

229-btwn 1925-1950, phenomgy” was associated almost exclusively” w/ van der leeuw. Admired Soderblom (230), also kristensen, saussaye, otto, Husserl, dithey, bultmann, levy-bruhl
231-says phenma r not just created by the object, but by the subject as well. He ?d if we could really know anything, and said it was the job of other phenomelgsts to continually improve on previous findings
233-said b/c god is neither subject nor object, u can’t use it on him and therefore can’t look at origins of rel (234)
235-agrees w/ levy-bruhl that there exists everywhere a primitive [illogical?] scholars shoun’t rely absolutely on emprirical data

236-his most influential successor was bleeker, who was similar

238-wach denied idea that ppl only study rel for puely academic purposes, he said they want to expand their own fiath, and he must have faith to b able to understand phenomlogy

240-then this trad (hermeneutical) was doen by kitagawa and eliade—tho instead of being xn like wach, eliade believes in new humanism (241)

246-says phenomenogst say they’re not philosophy, only use history but the 2 aren’t really that separate: “after all, the historian connot even begin to b a historian (tho he may b a chronicaler) unless he is prepared, first, to ask the rt. ?s, and secondly, to interpret (creatively) his material so as to provide cogent answers to those ?s. and this is suspiciously like a type of philosophy!”

249-“it seems that the phenomgist of rel, must if he is honest, confess that the enterprise on which he is engaged connot but invove these subjective faculty of interp if it is to avoid degenerating altogether into a barren catalogue of what r taken to b relus ‘facts’. But this once having been admitted, it seems that would-be phenomlgst is plunged into infathomable depths of epistemological theory”—and harshly criticizes a recent book that uses it
256-there were several interfaith groups sicne late 1800s, done from xns, intellectuals, and non wrs

258-some compara relsts said need to have goal of world peace

276-there is still a debate over the issue of ability to b objective

283-w c smith argued that scholars were too focused on w. methods and should look at nonxn rels in terms of their own analyses

292-in thi time of conflicting theories, sharpe says “the scholar may express any opinion, provided that he always nails his colours to the mast and makes it quite clear on what criteria he is passing judgemtn”
293-criticizes the “either or” perspectives—“the study of rel must remain the meeting-ground of complementary (not competing) methods—hsitorical, soclgcl, phnmlgcl, philosophical, psychglcl”

No comments: