- This topic has 5 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
Would you say it is absolutely necessary to understand religion in order to understand history? There is no way you can know history if you don't know the religious atmosphere of the time.It seems, no matter what period or area of history, religion has always been at the center in one form or another.
Wow Ski! This has been my viewpoint for years. In fact, I've been thinking about minoring in religious studies because I wholeheartedly believe religion & history go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately, I had such a horrible experience this semester in my Religious Studies class that I'm rethinking this plan. My prof was so totally "out there" that none of us could follow what he was saying. Plus, he was extremely anti-Christian, anti-Jesus; really turned off the class. I'm very disappointed, now.
If you take a snapshot of today and ask yourself how a person from another planet could understand our culture, how would you do it? Certainly understanding religion would help, and so would understanding politics and economics. Also understanding leisure activities, or even sports or cuisine trends would help as well. Really understanding history requires understanding a whole range of things. I would say that historically, yes, religion is one of the most important things to know in order to understand history. It's not the only thing, but it is quite crucial, especially the further back in history you go. This is because many of the things we know about more ancient civilizations (e.g. through art, architecture, texts, etc.) have resulted from religious belief.
There are whole schools of historical thought that avidly seek to avoid history-of-religion approaches. The most notable are the New Left, Economic Determinists, and of course Marxist Historians. These groups are ideologically driven, or at the very least, they seek empirical analysis through scientific stimulus (e.g. socio-economic factors, geographical influences such as climate or topography, or through inter-disciplinary approaches involving Political Science and or Humanities (which depend on literary criticism). Take your pick, but I find History-of-Religion to be a very versatile and worthwhile approach because religion is one of the dominant sociological motivators that move History forward.
e.g. socio-economic factors, geographical influences such as climate or topography, or through inter-disciplinary approaches involving Political Science and or Humanities
I thnk all those are important too, and should be part of the learning process, but religion is a major factor and because of that, cannot and should not be ignored or brushed aside.
Ken, you should ask your History professor what school of thought they subscribe to or are most heavily influenced by and then do a historiographical study on who he/she cites to see who influenced them and so on. It's very iluminating to know who taught your teacher and who taught their teacher's teachers etc…
Yeah but Donnie don't you think that can only go so far? I realize that students can attach themselves to their mentor's socio-political philosophy, but it might not be the case with everyone. Sometimes students could follow a mentor because they like the mentor's style or research, or thoroughness, or just because that mentor is the only expert in the world related to some specific sub-topic. Or do you think that the history profession is filled with a lot of agenda-driven people?
Yeah but Donnie don't you think that can only go so far? I realize that students can attach themselves to their mentor's socio-political philosophy, but it might not be the case with everyone. Sometimes students could follow a mentor because they like the mentor's style or research, or thoroughness, or just because that mentor is the only expert in the world related to some specific sub-topic. Or do you think that the history profession is filled with a lot of agenda-driven people?
From my experiences, I must sadly report that many of my professors were agenda driven. They were closet activists using their research to further their own biases. Now back in the day (say a generation ago) historians were less agenda driven and more of the purist variety. Those days are long gone, but that's not to say there aren't objective researchers still out there because they most certainly are. It is the job of the student to find them and latch onto their teachings because the others who have an axe to grind aren't going to do their students justice. Of course this is from my experiences only.
I prefer not to follow a mentor, I think there's dangers there that could lead to one-sidedness…you have your favorite mentor(s) because you agree with him. With history, and especially religion, you could have good professors on both “sides” and still get a good, well-rounded education. Personally, I want to learn both sides to get a better perspective and also to be stronger in my convictions why I choose one side over the other.A Western expert on Islam and an Muslim Islam expert could both be very good, but could also be at odds over certain issues. Same with a British historian or an Irish historian when discussing, like the Black and Tans or the Irish War of Independence or something.BG, gave a good example of a bad professor. Maybe I'm wrong about this and still have lots to learn about professors, but a good teacher isn't anti anything, he'll just teach the facts, perhaps give his perspective and/or opinion, and leave it up to the students to decide. I'd like to eventually have a Leftist professor, as long as he's not closed-minded (unlikely) and marks wrong everything he disagrees with. If he or she is that extreme, I'll drop the course.
At least in my field the way it's normally done when one gets to the doctoral level is by finding a scholar that one wants to study under and then trying to get into that academic program. So essentially it's necessary to get a mentor in this regard. But thus far I haven't seen much that has been viewed at through a prism of agenda-driven ideology. I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I could recognize it. One little thing that still irks me is the use of "BCE" and "CE" rather than "BC" or "AD". Now I'm trying to get over it but the whole concept seems somewhat silly to me. I wouldn't want to rule out studying under someone who used BCE and CE in their language but I suppose it would be a bonus if the person used BC and AD.
Phid you are in the Midwest too. Midwestern values are still prevalent in many of the universities there. It's not the case this side of the Mississippi River or definitely in Ken's neck of the woods.
My bad, I did not realize you needed a mentor for a PhD. I assume it's the same if you are taking one of those UG independent study courses?The school I'm attending seems OK as far as not being Leftist, and I think P.C. would be a safe bet when it comes to religion and history.
There are whole schools of historical thought that avidly seek to avoid history-of-religion approaches. The most notable are the New Left, Economic Determinists, and of course Marxist Historians. These groups are ideologically driven, or at the very least, they seek empirical analysis through scientific stimulus (e.g. socio-economic factors, geographical influences such as climate or topography, or through inter-disciplinary approaches involving Political Science and or Humanities (which depend on literary criticism). Take your pick, but I find History-of-Religion to be a very versatile and worthwhile approach because religion is one of the dominant sociological motivators that move History forward.
Donald, should I continue with my plan to major in History and minor in Religious Studies? As I posted previously, last semester's experiences totally deflated my enthusiasm. I'm extremely interested in US History in relation to religion but am rethinking this...
BG, I would stay the course in History as it's a field that offers more job opportunities and teaches you to how to apply critical thinking methods in greater detail. Many lawyers are History majors for a reason…it teaches one to argue points more accurately. You can make religion a core emphasis if you so desire though. Religious studies is a degree that just frankly won't do much for you. However, you can double major if you want to put in the extra work…and that payoff would be considerably higher in my opinion.
I think the next generation of historians/teachers/professors may bring us back to what history is supposed to be about. Teaching history, all of it. Not just one side. And as far as religion goes. You can't teach history without it. But that doesn't mean that teachers will be converting anyone thats silly. It is not a history teachers job to say what if any religion is the true one. Just to tell them what happened.
