Traditional Forms Of Religion Research Articles

Negotiating Science and Religion in America: Past, Present, and Future

Negotiating Science and Religion in America: Past, Present, and Future

ТРАДИЦИОННАЯ КУХНЯ ДАЛЬНЕВОСТОЧНЫХ ЕВРЕЕВ

The article considers the main ethno-cultural markers of traditional cuisine of the Far Eastern Jews, the relationship of the food model with traditional forms of religion, customs and prohibitions, and the transformation of the main indicators of the Institute of ethnic food.

Schellenberg’s Ultimism as the Proper Object of Non-Doxastic Religion

Carl-Johan Palmqvist (forthcoming) recently examines a well-known form of non-doxastic religiosity called ultimism, which comes to us from J. L Schellenberg. He contends that traditional forms of religion are better candidates for non-doxastic religion for two reasons. First, their specificity makes them more likely to put one into contact with transcendental reality than ultimism. Second, religious experience can only be on traditional forms of religion, not on ultimism. I argue that Palmqvist’s rejection of ultimism is wrong. It’s false that ultimism isn’t specific enough to put one into contact with transcendental reality (if there is one). It’s also false that there aren’t religious experiences consistent with ultimism, but not with traditional forms of religion. There might be reasons for preferring traditional forms of religion to ultimism; however, Palmqvist fails to demonstrate that this is the case.

An Argument for Unbelief: A Discussion about Terminology

The rupture with traditional religion and the loss of belief in God as a widespread religious position represents a sea change in Western thought. However, there were very few self-declared atheists, secularists, and humanists in Western history prior to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and even during the Modern period, there are not many. This is especially true in my own research of nineteenth and early twentieth-century France. Those who took the name of atheist such as Baron d’Holbach or Jacques-Andre Naigeon were exceptional militants. The quest to find other such atheists buried in the pages and hidden messages of key books is a limited endeavor. Atheism as a concept does not originate from any single creed or doctrine and is itself open to permutation. Looking for a clear and distinct form of atheism is looking for a conceptual phenomenon constructed by the researcher. The language and words we use control and direct how we understand the past. The term “atheist” imposes a rigidity to a fluid and shifting phenomenon. Instead, we should open up our research to the emergence of modern “unbelief,” as defined by Gordon Stein and Tom Flynn in The Encyclopedia of Unbelief. This paper will argue for “unbelief” as the proper analytical category as a field of future research that will allow for a much larger, more inclusive, variegated set of parameters to understand the rupture with traditional forms of religion or spiritual practices. The important change in intellectual history was not the emergence of a particular atheism that promoted scientism and which held to its positions dogmatically but the acute doubt of past intellectual and religious traditions that led to a spectrum of new ideologies and religious positions.

The implication of technology in mediatisation and mediation approaches to religious studies

This paper investigates the groundwork upon which the concepts of mediatisation and mediation were erected, focusing on the very definition of what media-technology is. These concepts frame the conversation among scholars in the study of religion and media. However, despite the fact that the two keywords share the same root, media, they are understood as incompatible with one another. On the one hand, mediatisation is broadly defined as a historical shift in which the logic of mass media transforms traditional forms of religion, subsuming them under the imperative of the modern marketplace. On the other hand, scholars studying the mediation of religion affirm that media have always shaped and transformed religious practices. This investigation argues that the controversy between the two modes of analysis does not consist of whether or to what extent media technology affects or transforms religion. Rather, the conflict arises from how media technology is defined.

Religione, politica e secolarismo negli Stati Uniti: una prospettiva storica

In the United States, the idea that modernity brings about secularism and that is in the long term incompatible with has been proved wrong. In fact, the development of modernity has not led to a progressive dismissal of and secularization coexists with traditional forms of religion. The principle of religious liberty - guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution - is a dynamic principle that has requested a continual adjustment to new social, political, and economic conditions. Wall of the metaphor used by Thomas Jefferson to designate the separation between church and state, has been misleading because nowhere in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights Church, separation, or wall are mentioned. The relationship between church and state in the United States must be considered on the background of the religious pluralism that has characterized the society since the colonial times, and it is better described as a line dividing two different spheres without excluding an exchange or a relation. Throughout American history, has played an important public role in relation to three issues: war and peace, economic structures, and racial justice. It should also be noted that there is a religious dimension of American society. This so-called civil religion is the result of a gradual merging between old and new myths and symbols.

Charting the Russian religious renaissance∗

painting'. I presented a study of the epistles of St Paul. We began to realise that a systematic study of theology was needed. The idea of a religious-philosophical seminar in which we would all learn from Charting the Russian Religious Renaissance 61 each other was proposed by Tat'yana Goricheva. We started meeting at the end of October 1975. Goricheva turned out to be an excellent organiser it took great skill to stimulate and direct the activity of the assorted crowd of people who attended the seminar. What kind of people did this crowd consist of? A portrait of a typical participant will to some extent be the portrait of a young, religiously minded member of the 1970s intelligentsia. This type of person would normally be doing something creative (or would say he was) an artist, a poet, an essayist and would tend to view his creations as the revelation of a divine principle. The overwhelming majority of the seminar's participants would be very far from traditional forms of religion. Even those who insisted they were church members normally held quite individual religious views. What unified all these people was not similarity of dogma, but conviction that the religious search should be completely free: in the psychological atmosphere of those years it was not difficult to accept this 'spirit of freedom' as the Spirit of the Lord. The atmosphere at the sessions of the seminar was to a large extent defined by those who came to them: bohemians, some of them alcoholics and drug addicts, habitues of the famous 'Saigon' cafe on the corner of Nevsky Prospekt and Vladimirsky Prospekt. The sessions sometimes turned into 'happenings': people came who were drunk or high on drugs. Quite often people who were simply insane turned up. It must be remembered that our seminar was the only open, active, unofficial cultural activity in Leningrad at that time (all the others were deep underground). There was simply nowhere else for people wanting to meet in cultural freedom to go. They came, then, not so much because they wanted to learn but because the atmosphere satisfied their desire to find something 'different' and to break free from the constraints of official atheism. It is therefore understandable that the membership of the seminar was constantly changing. We met in different flats and each time there were different people present, apart from the core group of six or seven. Sometimes as many as 80 people crowded into one room. They sat on tables, on windowsills, on bookcases and on blankets spread out on the floor. Most of them did not participate in the discussion of the lectures; it sometimes seemed that they were not interested in the subject at all. Nevertheless, 30 to 50 people came every time. Several hundred people attended the seminar at one time or another. In circumstances like these any systematic study of patristic theology was of course doomed to failure. There were too many people and the meetings were wrongly organised. So we soon had to change the format. We would have a lecture on some theme concerned with Christianity and culture, and then discussion. Topics included religion and poetry, Christianity and humanism, Christianity and nationalism, 'neo-Christianity'. In the final stages of the seminar we again turned to what had originally stimulated our religious search: Russian religious philosophy of the turn of the century. Developing this tradition, we published a collection of articles under the title Tserkov', kul'tura, ideologiya, in the style of the famous Vekhi. I fear that its main value was as a courageous idea. The best time for the seminar was when it met at flat 37, no. 20 Kurlyandskaya Street near the Baltic Station, where Tat'yana Goricheva and the Leningrad poet Viktor Krivulin, who were married at that time, lived in the later 1970s. The flat was in the semi-basement and you could get in through the window. As well as the constant crowd of people there were a great number of stray cats which were fed generously by both hosts and guests. The number of this flat gave its name to the journal 37, which from 1976 was the journal of the seminar. It was subsequently given the subtitle Zhurnal pravoslavnoi kul'tury (The Journal of Orthodox Culture), which in

Polysymbolism and Modern Religiosity

Previous articleNext article No AccessPolysymbolism and Modern ReligiosityLonnie D. KlieverLonnie D. Kliever Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 59, Number 2Apr., 1979 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/486684 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1979 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:ALMUT HINTZE Monotheism the Zoroastrian Way, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland 24, no.22 (Dec 2013): 225–249.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186313000333Ronald L. Grimes Bibliography, Religious Studies Review 10, no.22 (Apr 1984): 134–145.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0922.1984.tb00273.x

Tolerance of Non-Believers: A Cross-Tabular and Log Linear Analysis of Some Religious Correlates

It was noted that there may be two dimensions to religious intolerance: (1) intolerance of those defined as belonging to traditional religious groups and (2) intolerance of those who are labelled "anti-religious." Little research has been done on the characteristics of those who are tolerant of the latter group. Utilizing national survey data (NORC 1973), those characteristics were explored through cross-tabular and log linear analysis. Religious preference and church attendance were related to intolerance of atheists. Explanations were offered along the lone of status crystallization, civil religion, and religious particularism. It is generally accepted that sociological research should be precise and inclusive in its concept formulation (Hage, 1972: 12; Gibbs, 1972: 5; Willer, 1967: xix; Marx, 1968: 10-12). Those people who do not accept the traditional forms of religion, however, have for the most part been overlooked in the concept formulation of religiosity (Yinger, 1969; 1970: 29-40).1 In data gathered on college students, Wuthnow and Glock (1973) showed that non-believers are a significant group. They found that 52% of the senior males expressed some sort of unbelief (27% agnostic, 10% atheist, 15% none). Though their sample was not a random sample of the American scene, the amount of expressed unbelief should be noted. Contrasted to the sociological lack of interest in atheism,2 religious thinkers have taken up the significance of the atheistic alternative. Gilkey (1969: 9) argued that the current debate is not the debate that has been carried on outside the Church for centuries but rather it is a new debate and dialogue within the Church on the very meaning and significance of traditional religious concepts. Various formulations of this debate range from making doubt an integral component of faith (Tillich, 1958: 18)

What is Driving Men Today back to Religion?

He is but a superficial observer of the times who can think that the movement of life today is altogether against religion, and that only the denial of religion has the spirit of the age with it.For, certain as it is that blatant denial still holds the public ear and is more and more permeating the masses, yet in the work of the intellect, and likewise in the depths of men's souls, the case is different. Here, with ever greater vigor, is springing up the feeling that religion is indispensable, the yearning for religion. What is understood by religion is often anything but clear, and often very different from the traditional forms of religion; but the demand is unmistakable for more depth of life and for the establishment of profounder inner connections than our visible existence affords.