Todays lecture - Differentiation and the Native Americans

I found Professor Lane’s lecture today very interesting and it brought up a number of issues that I think are continually forgotten on a daily basis. For example, to me it highlighted the fact that we continually stereotype and categorize, and I think that these days it is almost so common, that we take it for granted and forget it has occurred. I have never really thought about the amount of generalization that we actually do make in daily life, and I agree that in that sense the majority of things that were are taught about may not be complete truths. I think that we often take things as fact when actually something we are told is only an opinion, and I think that humans as a whole are not very good at accepting a diverse range of options. If we think about religion in this sense we can see that diversity is not liked, and often causes conflict on not just a local scale, but also a global one as well. I think that this stems from the fact that we are so closed-minded, and we often find it much easier to accept one solution rather than trying to explore and interpret multiple options. This is why we are often so stubborn when it comes to the religious practises we follow, and even though these practises or followings may not be entirely logical, they hold more meaning to us if we have full unquestioned belief in them.
Alongside this, I also think religion is a subject we are told not to question, and this is why we are so against diversity, as we have been socialized to believe in one single version of events. As our religions tell us we can’t question, we have to accept it as the only option, as if we start to associate with others, it is seen that we are going against our basic beliefs. Personally, I therefore think that in order for us to break down the religious divides and conflicts that prevail in our society, we are going to need to be socialized in a more objective way, and be told that it is okay to question and explore other ideas. In this sense I totally agree with Dr. Lane’s point that we don’t like to be wrong, and again I see that we are going to need to change this fundamental that wrong is not acceptable, in order for us to gain some benefit in the long run.

I do think that over time however that the religious barriers and stereotyping in society will start to reduce. I don’t think that religion plays such a large role in the lives of American citizens as it once did, and therefore at some point in the future I see that diversity of religion will become more acceptable, and individuals will not be judged so harshly on the beliefs that they hold. Although we accept that many religions exist, I still think we forget how each of these separate religions changes so much, and I don’t think in general we really understand that the lives of the members within them can be so different. When looking into the Native American experience, I came across a website that discussed the diversity within this specific religion itself. The article on the website http://www.allsands.com/religious/nativeamerican_xqu_gn.htm briefly detailed how diverse this one single religion is, and how different members hold varying beliefs and engage in different practises, depending on where they were raised. I think that we often forget that a worldview exists, and as a result of this we need to remember how religions have transitioned over time. Therefore, when it comes to stereotyping and classifying certain individuals, we must look at the practises that are commonly upheld in world today, rather than the beliefs that we held in the ancient past. For example, many consider Native American practises to include rituals and spirits, and as a result we judge the individuals in this category to support these acts. However, the vast majority who consider themselves Native Americans today, do not go around openly celebrating mythology with song and dance. Therefore, it is an aspect of the past that should not be attached to those living in this day and age, and I think that to be stereotyped in this way is illogical and incorrect. Therefore as a result of this I can again see where Dr Lane is coming from when he says that we need to understand and accept diversity more readily, and I accept his argument that this ultimately comes down to our proximity to the issue and whether we have empathized and accepted that other options to our own beliefs do actually exist.

Reaction to post on Speaking tongues and Near Death Experience

I completely agree with your view, and I think that if more people were exposed to religion through the way that Professor Lane is teaching, then we would be more open and tolerant of others when it comes to the topic. I think that people need to be more educated and logical when it comes down to the entire concept of religion, and I think that many individuals are happy to accept what they are told at a young age rather that really considering alternative viewpoints.
Personally, I agree with Professor Lane that theology can be incorporated into almost every sphere and discipline of life, but I think that the way we are brought up plays a major role in our underlying beliefs. I also think that our exposure to certain images has a profound impact on our experience through life, and I think that our mind is primarily influenced through socialization at a young age. In this sense, I think we create our deepest beliefs at a young age, and I think that these can be both intentionally and unintentionally forced on us.

With regards to near death experiences and speaking tongues, I think that at certain states of consciousness we can see a reflection of our true belief systems. I think that what we see at points near to death are our deepest beliefs and thoughts, and they are released at the most desperate times as a protection mechanism that can give us hope and make us stronger. With regards to tongues, I believe that some individuals are far more easily influenced that others and that the brain state of certain individuals can be changed very quickly and very easily. In this sense I personally would therefore attribute the concept of tongues to psychological and sociological factors rather than biology. I think that some of us are more easily influenced than others and I think that this plays out in certain situations. I totally agree that speaking tongues is from a brain state rather than due to a religious force, and I think that in this globalized world that we live today, people should realize that others are experiencing the same things as them and therefore not just close off their minds to others and be convinced that it is only in their religion that these things occur.

More on Michael Reiss comments

Reiss overall point in the article is his argument that creationism should be taught in science lessons across the UK. He said science teachers should acknowledge that they form a view of the world held by about 10% of students – and the comment that became controversial was when he said “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

Personally, I don’t think that creationist ideas should be discussed in school science classes, as I think the subject itself should focus only around issues that have been empirically proven. The whole idea of science is to test and prove varying issues in our environment, and therefore as religion can’t be tested due to the fact that there is no physical evidence (being only based on ‘faith’), it should not be included in scientific settings. However, I do think that the issue should be something that can be discussed in religious classes in schools and I don’t think that the topic should be ignored completely. I agree that any teacher should openly talk about the issue if it were to come up in a science class, although I don’t think it should be a specific issue on the agenda. Overall I think that creationism should be taught as something that certain individuals in society believe, and I think the best way of teaching children all over the world is to give them an open and well-rounded view of the world.


However, this also brings up the issue of when children are able to fully understand the religion/science debate, and at what age should they be taught about the ideologies and meaning surrounding the subject of religion?

News article on the science/religion teaching methods in schools

Although I do agree with Professor Lane’s views that religion is a outlook in which to gain meaning, and that science, psychology, sociology and many other factors all influence religions themselves, I think that as it is such a fragile issue in the present world that we live, we are not allowing ourselves to get to the core route of it. I have attached a news article which I think highlights the problems we face, and although it focuses primarily on the religion vs science/evolution debate, I think this shows why the issue is unlikely to be truly tackled on a global scale at any time in the near future.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4735469.ece

The article itself discusses the concept of teaching about creationism in the classroom, and argues that more individuals would open up and understand the science/religion debate if they were taught this way in school from a young age. It goes into a recent speech given by Rev Professor Michael Reiss, a Royal Society scientist, and it discusses he theory that creationism should be a “world view” in science education, because at the moment he sees it as demonstrably unscientific.

Personally I’m not sure I agree with Reiss views on this issue, although I do think that both science and religion should be taught differently from a young age, and that the issues that Professor Lane is discussing now, should already have been introduced and related to us whilst we were growing up and were being initially socialized into the world.

Rection Post 1 - What is religion?

Reaction Post 1

In class we talked about how religion surrounds the idea of finding meaning in life and how it is often used as a way to help us survive and transition through our lifetimes in the best possible way. I therefore thought it would be interesting to therefore see how the term “religion” itself is defined by different individuals and have found some web pages that go into greater detail on this issue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A19645167
This page is off the BBC site and tries to answer the question ‘what is religion?’ and goes into greater depth about how the concept itself is understood by many. It compares the viewpoints of psychologists, sociologists and biologists, and compares various groups, sects, superstitions to try and understand what religion really is

The website shows how there are so many different issues involved when thinking about the topic, and it also shows the diversity of beliefs that individuals consider as religious outlooks. Different theorists have different views on the subject and individuals such as Ninian Smart consider there to be 7 different dimensions within the subject such as:
The Practical and Ritual Dimension
The Experiential and Emotional Dimension
The Narrative or Mythic Dimension
The Doctrinal and Philosophical Dimension
The Ethical and Legal Dimension
The Social and Institutional Dimension
The Material Dimension
Taken from “In 'The World's Religions' (Cambridge 1989), by Ninian Smart
Overall, the website shows how religion and religious diversity are very controversial subjects and that it is an issue that will be continually explained in a variety of ways depending on the individual in question. I think that it shows how everyone takes something different out of the topic, and that it provides a different meaning to each one of us. The web site says that “Religion addresses the most fundamental questions about what it is to be human” and as it often becomes such a personal issue, it is manipulated by every one of us, so that we take out of it what we want and need to feel better about ourselves which is what we discussed in class today.

The other website I found whilst looking into this issue of what religion is and how it is defined was http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm
This site basically lists the various definitions of the term ‘religion’ and shows how academics, dictionaries and religious groups often have varying opinions about what the term represents. I thought it was very interesting to see how varied the definitions on the site were, and how hard it is to actually pin point what religion really is. From this variation I think we can see why religious beliefs themselves can be so different, and therefore why religious diversity exists not just in America but throughout the whole world.

Overall I think that by seeing how various individuals from a wide range of disciplines all interpret the term differently, we can better understand why such extensive diversity exists. Although we often relate religion to God, I don’t think there needs to be a set way for people to believe and I think that diversity within religion should be viewed as something to learn from, rather than something that creates tension throughout the world. Personally I think that by studying the various factors and issues within the subject we will be able to understand each other better, and I think that we can learn a lot from the topic. Therefore we should accept the various ways of looking at the subject and understand it as a discipline that each one of us treats differently depending on whom we are and what we feel we need in life.