Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2013, 11:17 PM
Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Anthropology of religion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion
Quote: every religion is a cultural product
created by the human community that practices it
and
Quote:(1) a system of symbols which acts to
(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic"
(Clifford Geertz 1966)

from his text "Religion as a Cultural System," in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion , ed. M. Banton (London: Tavistock, 1966): 1-46

Now I prefer hard science to soft science. I am skeptical to much of
soft science but this is what they say. And it has been like that since 1966
so they have consensus on it they agree on it. This is their take on it.

Now why care about Anthropology of religion when you have
the weak definition of atheism by philosophers?

What kind of research has philosophers actually done on religious traditions? Have they lived with tribes in the jungle and described
their beliefs? Not that I know of. Anthropologists do these thing
again and again for to know they retell reality as true as possible.

Sure Anthropology is still a soft science but philosophy
does not even do research on religious traditions do they?
Not that I know of.

So suppose Anthropology of religion gets it right?
suppose they are correct about that religions are created by humans
suppose Clifford Geertz gets it rather close to reality in his description

that means that gods are made by man. Gods are man made.
that Gods are make believe.

Do you understand what this means? Man made God.

When atheists ask. "Do you believe that god exists? "
"Then you are a theist"

Compare now with what Anthropology of religion say.

Quote:every religion is a cultural product
created by the human community that practices it

The believer make believe within their religious tradition that God exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Well, from where I sit philosophy has nothing to do with science, hard or soft. It merely rearranges concepts in order to attack them from different angles to better achieve perspective.

Anthropology at least does research to better understand motivations based on culture and attempts to use a scientific approach.

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
10-08-2013, 11:45 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
So why does the atheist definition lean so heavy on what philosophers think?

Would it not be more reliable to find hard science facts or like here at least soft science
and try to understand from that accumulated knowledge of actual human behavior?

soft science seems very shaky though. Take Political science or economic science
or futuristic science they seems to not have much agreement on what is best description?

but does philosophers know politics or economics or future better than the soft sciences?

Not that I know of. So if one want to understand how religious traditions makes belief
then one have to go to Social psychology or Anthropology of religion and both these
support that humans make up their religions. there is no evidence they came from God.

So philosophy does not seem to have much knowledge if any such at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 11:59 PM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(10-08-2013 11:45 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  So why does the atheist definition lean so heavy on what philosophers think?

What exactly is the "atheist definition" and does it lean so heavy on philosophy? I would counter that religion relies on philosophy a score more than "atheism" (we may run into trouble with your perceived notion that atheism holds more to it than it really does)

(10-08-2013 11:45 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  So philosophy does not seem to have much knowledge if any such at all?

I would tend to say that philosophy tries to focus more on wisdom than knowledge. Again, the definitions of these terms can be debatable in this context.

(10-08-2013 11:45 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  So if one want to understand how religious traditions makes belief
then one have to go to Social psychology or Anthropology of religion and both these
support that humans make up their religions. there is no evidence they came from God.

Yup. Drinking Beverage

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 05:29 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
What exactly is the "atheist definition" and does it lean so heavy on philosophy?

Atheists active on atheists boards usually give variants of this one.

atheist a person that lack belief in God or gods.

These atheists say it is philosophy. So?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 05:54 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 05:29 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  What exactly is the "atheist definition" and does it lean so heavy on philosophy?

Atheists active on atheists boards usually give variants of this one.

atheist a person that lack belief in God or gods.

These atheists say it is philosophy. So?

Yup Drinking Beverage

"It's a most distressing affliction to have a sentimental heart and a skeptical mind.”
― نجيب محفوظ, Sugar Street
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 06:00 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
I don't see what philosophical foundations that depends upon. It seems to be a fairly clear, standalone concept. It isn't reliant on an particular type of metaphysics. It's just a statement of disbelief. If you want to add more philosophical layers to it then you can do so, but it doesn't have to be hard.

As for philosophy - I have a nice little book reviewing metaphysical positions of various philosophers over time. I like the positivist claim that most philosophers are the "witch doctors of knowledge". They act as if they have something important to say, but if you dig right down into it there isn't much there beyond the obvious Wink Some exceptions exist of course, especially if you're willing to travel back several thousand years in your search.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 07:24 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 06:00 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I don't see what philosophical foundations that depends upon. It seems to be a fairly clear, standalone concept. It isn't reliant on an particular type of metaphysics. It's just a statement of disbelief. If you want to add more philosophical layers to it then you can do so, but it doesn't have to be hard.

As for philosophy - I have a nice little book reviewing metaphysical positions of various philosophers over time. I like the positivist claim that most philosophers are the "witch doctors of knowledge". They act as if they have something important to say, but if you dig right down into it there isn't much there beyond the obvious Wink Some exceptions exist of course, especially if you're willing to travel back several thousand years in your search.

There is a philosopher with important things to say who lives only a few miles from me. His name is Daniel Dennett.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 07:34 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Daniel Dennett and Patricia Churchland are among the few
that I trust to care about reality. Both are interested in how the brain works
and care about science research.

DD is interesting to me because he suggested that some believers
maybe have faith in faith or faith in others faith. such is interesting

Does George Smith or Michael Martin or Antony Flew or any of the other atheists philosophers
even think of such nuances from reality? This is why I am so skeptic to phil. Seems to miss out on reality

AFAIK the atheist philosophers seems to only care about the definitions
and not the people them are supposed to be about. Totally unrelated to the reality
of the disbeliever.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 07:50 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(10-08-2013 11:17 PM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  ...
So suppose Anthropology of religion gets it right?
suppose they are correct about that religions are created by humans
...
that means that gods are made by man. Gods are man made.
that Gods are make believe.
...

Suppose?

Is there any doubt?

Huh


FT2,
The format of your posts intrigues me?
Are you pasting from a blog?
Yours or another's?

Cheers

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  What Science Course(s) Should I Go Into? Cyvas 33 515 Yesterday 04:02 AM
Last Post: rampant.a.i.
  Use of the word "science" undergroundp 16 225 05-07-2014 10:53 AM
Last Post: Revenant77x
  Is science in the United States getting worst? Metazoa Zeke 7 149 04-07-2014 08:51 PM
Last Post: Rinpoche
  Youtube and Science vs. Creationism cre8ivmind 5 131 17-06-2014 01:59 PM
Last Post: dancefortwo
  Do we sometimes go too far in Science? JDog554 51 541 04-06-2014 07:26 PM
Last Post: Shadow Fox
  The elegant nature of science TheBeardedDude 569 32,784 31-05-2014 10:36 PM
Last Post: CindysRain
  Feline Science - by Full Circle Full Circle 23 1,035 14-05-2014 04:49 PM
Last Post: Bows and Arrows
Forum Jump: