Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I think the people that practice the religion are too biased and too vested in maintaining the status quo within their faiths. They may also not have an objective enough perspective to scrutinize their religions with the detachment a social scientist would. And are the changes they would want to make in the best interests of society in general, or would they be in the best interest of only those in the religion?
As fellow humans, we should want to know what these large (and small) organizations are doing, what they believe, and why they believe it. When those beliefs are going to have an influence on the outside world, Religious Studies departments need to have a mechanism of bringing it to the attention of those it affects (whether that's those external to a religion or those in the religion) with a view to mitigating or changing the force of that influence.
We expect psychologists to study psychology so they can ultimately apply their knowledge in the real world to help people. We expect the same of sociologists. Volcanologists apply what they learn to save lives. In almost every field of study in which the subject of the study has a tangible affect on the planet, animals or people, scholars in those vocations try to use their knowledge to affect positive change. I don't see that happening in Religious Studies and I think that's because we are holding the department to too low a standard. I want to see something practical come out of it.
|
How would an academic influence or challange the beliefs of a religion. For example on Gay Marriage we know that the church has a negative impact on giving rights to homosexuals. How would a religioous studies professor change this belief in the church. The separation of church and state is what is critical in defending society from the harmful parts of religion. Not religious studies professors.
To the bolded part above I think that is what religious studies departments do. What they don't do is pass judgement on it.