Religious Philosophy
Final Essay
*******************************
Final Essay
I found this to be a most informative course. One of the best things about it was that I was introduced to a few “new to me” religious systems, specifically Tenrikyo and Baha i, well I hadn’t even heard of those two. It was interesting to explore the fact that there are indeed new religions being created in modern times. I hadn’t really considered that. Very interesting to be sure.
Also, Jainism and Shikism, I was slightly aware they were out there but had never gotten a chance to really research them. Both are rather ascetic disciplines however, it was very interesting seeing the extremes of Jainism as to the reverence for life. Though I respect it very much, I doubt I could go to that extreme in my own life. I do have some similar beliefs as to refusing killing for no reason. And I have tried very much to avoid damaging other living things. I do not as of today, sweep in front of my steps in the off chance I should step on bugs. However, I have been known to avoid a step or go a different way if I feel there is more of a likely hood of doing so. As for Shikism, I think that the background there is fascinating and I could see how the outsider may even mistake them for another belief system. I had no idea they’d been so persecuted. We always hope that prejudice is going quickly extinct don’t we? Yet so often we realize it feels more like it only moved from one area to another.
And speaking of the subject, I must say that I was very surprised at the fact that some of the entries in our lessons by our instructor were rather prejudicial in themselves. Case in point, in lesson 20, question 2 part B at the end; Wow! The idea that our instructor presumed in the question that China didn’t have scientific method over it’s 1000’s of years, simply because it was not the “Western” scientific method, well that floored me! Of course the bigger implication was that “the East” didn’t have scientific method. That had developed in the West only. If one only looks even lightly at Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurvedic Medicine (think East Indian), the Eastern Architecture and Astrology just to touch on the subject, it becomes quite obvious that those cultures not only had (and have) developed their own scientific method but used (and use) it. Ayruveda alone had discovered and treated patients with knowledge of what now is known as microbial life. Not to mention that practitioners were performing complicated, studied and perfected forms of surgery 2000 years ago. These were not “guesses” of an underprivileged caveman society. These were the results of a complex community of scientific minded practitioners. Many of the methods of the “ancients” surpass the results of the Greeks who’s developments later lead to our “Western” idea of science and scientific method. This is not to say that they are infallible. If it is created by humans it is indeed fallible. However, there is no basis to make a statement implying that there is no scientific method there in the past or presently. I strongly feel that for people who are not aware of this however, it is a bit dangerous to put that out as “fact” in that way. Even if the question was posed to challenge us, a person with no background in it wouldn’t know to question the way that was written.
I think it encouraged ignorance instead of knowledge or even conjecture. It may be that our instructor expected us to catch it. I don’t think so. I’m not so sure it wasn’t perhaps that the instructor suffered more of a “Freudian Slip” there. :o)
I did think also that the Shamanic and Communal religions were treated a bit as an after thought in this course, or perhaps more, taken for granted. There is such rich and available information on these systems now that it would have been worth exploring in more detail in my opinion.
I certainly did appreciate the comparison techniques offered in this course. The instructor set some ground work and really worked form there, narrowing down the comparisons through a number of methods. It gave us more then just “food for thought”. It allowed us to expand outside of our narrow perspective without getting lost. An example being the Social, Natural, Philosophical and of course the addition of the Political problems of society and how they apply to our subject of Religious Philosophy. The use of these and other outlining directions was very well done.
With different, perhaps even appropriate, definitions of terms such as Globalization, as well as Millenarian, Eschatological and Apocalyptic, I found each lesson gave us not only much to think about, but a more accurate objective look at Religion in general. (another reason why the above scientific prejudice stood out so much) One of the comparisons I enjoyed most was the use of Color and Taste as a criteria for how a belief system sees the world. This was most definitely one I had never thought of and one that I will be using again and again. I found that rather ingenious really and a great example of how perspective influences what we think is “Truth”. Learning more about Doctor’s Schwitzer and Singer along with others was great as well.
All in all I don’t know that the point of the course for me ended up being learning so much “more”, though I surely did learn some new things.
It was more about leaning new ways of looking at what’s there. And what is Philosophy for?! :o)
I would like to thank our Instructor and the Seminary for a thought provoking and enjoyable course.
Anna M. Pohl
Also, Jainism and Shikism, I was slightly aware they were out there but had never gotten a chance to really research them. Both are rather ascetic disciplines however, it was very interesting seeing the extremes of Jainism as to the reverence for life. Though I respect it very much, I doubt I could go to that extreme in my own life. I do have some similar beliefs as to refusing killing for no reason. And I have tried very much to avoid damaging other living things. I do not as of today, sweep in front of my steps in the off chance I should step on bugs. However, I have been known to avoid a step or go a different way if I feel there is more of a likely hood of doing so. As for Shikism, I think that the background there is fascinating and I could see how the outsider may even mistake them for another belief system. I had no idea they’d been so persecuted. We always hope that prejudice is going quickly extinct don’t we? Yet so often we realize it feels more like it only moved from one area to another.
And speaking of the subject, I must say that I was very surprised at the fact that some of the entries in our lessons by our instructor were rather prejudicial in themselves. Case in point, in lesson 20, question 2 part B at the end; Wow! The idea that our instructor presumed in the question that China didn’t have scientific method over it’s 1000’s of years, simply because it was not the “Western” scientific method, well that floored me! Of course the bigger implication was that “the East” didn’t have scientific method. That had developed in the West only. If one only looks even lightly at Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurvedic Medicine (think East Indian), the Eastern Architecture and Astrology just to touch on the subject, it becomes quite obvious that those cultures not only had (and have) developed their own scientific method but used (and use) it. Ayruveda alone had discovered and treated patients with knowledge of what now is known as microbial life. Not to mention that practitioners were performing complicated, studied and perfected forms of surgery 2000 years ago. These were not “guesses” of an underprivileged caveman society. These were the results of a complex community of scientific minded practitioners. Many of the methods of the “ancients” surpass the results of the Greeks who’s developments later lead to our “Western” idea of science and scientific method. This is not to say that they are infallible. If it is created by humans it is indeed fallible. However, there is no basis to make a statement implying that there is no scientific method there in the past or presently. I strongly feel that for people who are not aware of this however, it is a bit dangerous to put that out as “fact” in that way. Even if the question was posed to challenge us, a person with no background in it wouldn’t know to question the way that was written.
I think it encouraged ignorance instead of knowledge or even conjecture. It may be that our instructor expected us to catch it. I don’t think so. I’m not so sure it wasn’t perhaps that the instructor suffered more of a “Freudian Slip” there. :o)
I did think also that the Shamanic and Communal religions were treated a bit as an after thought in this course, or perhaps more, taken for granted. There is such rich and available information on these systems now that it would have been worth exploring in more detail in my opinion.
I certainly did appreciate the comparison techniques offered in this course. The instructor set some ground work and really worked form there, narrowing down the comparisons through a number of methods. It gave us more then just “food for thought”. It allowed us to expand outside of our narrow perspective without getting lost. An example being the Social, Natural, Philosophical and of course the addition of the Political problems of society and how they apply to our subject of Religious Philosophy. The use of these and other outlining directions was very well done.
With different, perhaps even appropriate, definitions of terms such as Globalization, as well as Millenarian, Eschatological and Apocalyptic, I found each lesson gave us not only much to think about, but a more accurate objective look at Religion in general. (another reason why the above scientific prejudice stood out so much) One of the comparisons I enjoyed most was the use of Color and Taste as a criteria for how a belief system sees the world. This was most definitely one I had never thought of and one that I will be using again and again. I found that rather ingenious really and a great example of how perspective influences what we think is “Truth”. Learning more about Doctor’s Schwitzer and Singer along with others was great as well.
All in all I don’t know that the point of the course for me ended up being learning so much “more”, though I surely did learn some new things.
It was more about leaning new ways of looking at what’s there. And what is Philosophy for?! :o)
I would like to thank our Instructor and the Seminary for a thought provoking and enjoyable course.
Anna M. Pohl
*******************************
The Universal Life Church is a comprehensive online seminary where we have various classes in Christianity, one on Wicca, along with several Pagan courses, more than a few courses about Metaphysics with more being added regularly.
Ordination with the Universal Life Church, is free, legal and lasts for life, so please take advantage of our Free Online Ordination.
The ULC, run by Rev. Long, has created a chaplaincy program to help train our ministers. We also have a huge catalog of minister supplies. I've been ordained with the Universal Life Church for many years and am proud to have started the Seminary.
Try our new free toolbar at: ULC Toolbar
No comments:
Post a Comment