tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post8945665660694323774..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: Religulous and the Problem of BeliefPaul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-1259385246777805362008-10-14T14:14:00.000-06:002008-10-14T14:14:00.000-06:00That's true about numbers. But even as a percenta...That's true about numbers. But even as a percentage I would think there are still far fewer trade books in religious studies.Randallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-92022759512058455262008-10-14T13:56:00.000-06:002008-10-14T13:56:00.000-06:00There are far more historians than there are relig...There are far more historians than there are religious studies scholars in the first place. I'd be interested in percentages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-58738012697302702622008-10-14T12:21:00.000-06:002008-10-14T12:21:00.000-06:00Kelly, that's certainly true about Prothero. One ...Kelly, that's certainly true about Prothero. One could add high-profile authors like Garry Wills or Elaine Pagels. <BR/><BR/>And, blogging, as well as writing for the mainstream media, does seem to be a way to move beyond the academy. But I also think that historians and religious studies scholars should attempt to write for a general audience. I can't remember off the top of my head how many rel studies scholars have published with major trade presses: Knopf, Random House, FSG, Hill and Wang, Norton. My guess, though, is that far more historians have done so.Randallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-47085349781142466052008-10-14T10:52:00.000-06:002008-10-14T10:52:00.000-06:00disregard that last post; misread something above....disregard that last post; misread something above. <BR/><BR/>UUC and Friends are noncreedal, and many Baptists claim to be noncreedal (but others do cite creeds). What an interesting and complicated subject.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-77094985841948355402008-10-14T10:42:00.000-06:002008-10-14T10:42:00.000-06:00And Catholicism, a form of Christianity that outnu...And Catholicism, a form of Christianity that outnumbers your creedal Protestants by a huge number.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-83062106986081983472008-10-14T10:36:00.000-06:002008-10-14T10:36:00.000-06:00Just to clarify: I realize that many Xn denoms ad...Just to clarify: I realize that many Xn denoms advertise themselves as non-creedal, but that is really only in relation to binding nature of certain creedal documents. In fact, many of these denoms are more creedally-oriented than the officially creedal communities.<BR/><BR/>Possible exceptions to my general assertion, however, include the Society of Friends (at least some of them) and various forms of modernistic Xy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-15335047713759297582008-10-14T10:29:00.000-06:002008-10-14T10:29:00.000-06:00Kelly, you're right. I overstated it. But I do g...Kelly, you're right. I overstated it. But I do get the sense that Plate believes that while Christianity is creedal, he thinks it is less than creedal in its essense. I would respectfully disagree with that. He'd be right about most religions, even Judaism and Islam, but Xy is creedal at its very core.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-72611183292527510082008-10-14T10:19:00.000-06:002008-10-14T10:19:00.000-06:00Randall,Wow. I think you hit the nail on the head....Randall,<BR/><BR/>Wow. I think you hit the nail on the head. Stephen Prothero's books have larger audiences, but most of us stay well within our ivory tower. Unfortunately, this means that journalists, authors like Dawkins and Hitchens, and pundits make assessments about religion. How do you think we should broach this? What should we practically do to reach a larger forum? I think blogging is one method but we have to become more visible don't we.<BR/><BR/>Manlinus, Plate would be the last one to assume all religions are NOT creedal. However, what he does assess is that religions contain elements of practice and belief, and unfortunately, practice is often ignored as a legitimate and central piece of religious experience. Christianity has creedal elements, but it also contains objects, rituals, music, dance (practice)to name a few. People do things in religion, and this is commonly overlooked by those who classify belief as the most important.Kelly J. Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14328894784072518452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-69805755947808333082008-10-14T07:57:00.000-06:002008-10-14T07:57:00.000-06:00If Maher is wrong to assume that all religions are...If Maher is wrong to assume that all religions are creedal, Plate is also wrong to assume that none are.<BR/><BR/>Christianity is a creedal religion, so it is not unfair to attack it on that basis. Whether Maher's attacks are fair, accurate or persuasive or not is obviously another question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-32284075035670875292008-10-13T14:40:00.000-06:002008-10-13T14:40:00.000-06:00Kelly - Thanks for crossposting this. I enjoyed r...Kelly - Thanks for crossposting this. I enjoyed reading S. Brent Plate's piece<BR/><BR/>I think that the major problem here is that religious studies scholars do not reach a larger audience. Their works may excite eager undergrads hoping to land an A in a survey course, but remain unknown to a larger audience. There's a reason why Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and now Maher reach millions of readers. These authors (and this one comedian) tell interesting, accessible stories with verve and humor.<BR/><BR/>Plate writes: "Albanese and Taylor have spent decades of their lives investigating this strange beast called religion." But, I wonder, does anyone care? And, more importantly, why doesn't anyone care? Don't these and other scholars write primarily for others in their field? Do they have any interest in writing for a larger public? <BR/><BR/>But maybe things are getting a little better now. Ten years ago historians, religious studies scholars, and social theorists seemed to be walled off by impenetrable prose and matters of no concern to anyone. Here's a pearl of wisdom from Homi Bhabha's _Location of Culture_:<BR/><BR/>"If, for a while, the ruse of desire is calculable for the uses of discipline soon the repetition of guilt, justification, pseudo-scientific theories, superstition, spurious authorities, and classifications can be seen as the desperate effort to 'normalize' formally the disturbance of a discourse of splitting that violates the rational, enlightened claims of its enunciatory modality."<BR/><BR/>Wow.Randallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.com