Learning Goal: I’m working on a religion writing question and need support to help me learn.
Learning Goal: I’m working on a religion writing question and need support to help me learn.
Answer TWO (2) questions in essay form. Each essay should be at least two (2) pages in length, double-
spaced, 12 pt. font. The total length of the exam should be 6-8 pages. To answer these questions it is
necessary that you have done the readings up to week 7, including Handout I. The essays should be
submitted as one submission (not two separate submissions) to Turnitin assignments in Blackboard, NO
LATER THAN MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1ST, BEFORE 11:30 P.M.
ONE OF YOUR ESSAYS HAS TO BE ON TOPICS 1, 2, OR 3.
1. E. B. Tylor (in 1871) and to some degree James Frazer (1890-1915) articulated what we can call the
first attempt to give an anthropological (in the modern sense of the term) account of religion. First,
how do their accounts differ, for example, from the Enlightenment’s naturalistic explanation of and
attitude toward religion? Secondly, do Tylor and Frazer agree that religion must in the end disappear
and yield to modern science as a better explanation of reality; and if so, was religion ever an explanation
of reality to them at all?)? And Thirdly, what was specifically Tylor’s way of understanding religion and
how does Frazer’s understanding of religion go beyond Tylor’s (i.e. does Frazer contribute anything
new)? (To answer this question you must carefully read the chapter on “Tylor and Frazer in Pals.)
2. The Radical Enlightenment (Spinoza, Reimarus, Hume, and Kant) had a very negative view of revealed
religion in general, and Christianity in particular. For example, Reimarus looked at Christianity as a
fraud, a fabrication of the power-hungry early disciples of Jesus. Kant had a complete disregard for
revealed religion (which he found full of superstitions and gross immoralities) and sought translate
Christianity into a moral system, which we can get on our own through Reason (not revelation). Hume
proposed a naturalistic explanation of religion and attacked all attempts to rationally prove the
existence of God. Assess the critique of religion offered by the Enlightenment. Is it persuasive? Is it fair
to religion?
3. Although Schleiermacher and Hegel were influenced by the Enlightenment in their critique of
revelation and dogma, and were both influenced by Kant and Spinoza, they had a different analysis and
interpretation of religion. 1. State the (radical) Enlightenment understanding of religion and compare it
and contrast it with that of Schleiermacher and Hegel. 2. In what ways the way Schleiermacher, and
Hegel see religion a more positive and sympathetic interpretation of religion and Christianity? 3. Are
the views of religion offered by Schleiermacher and Hegel in the end more harmful to Christianity in
particular, and religion in general (e.g. by making too many concessions to scientific naturalism and the
Enlightenment)? (For this essay Handout #1 is essential, and my lectures on the Enlightenment,
Schleiermacher, Hegel. As I said in class, the Strauss selection posted on Blackboard will give you a
pretty good idea of Hegel’s position.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. Emile Durkheim offered a major interpretation of religion that rivaled Tylor’s and Frazer’s in depth
and in many ways surpassed them in influence. 1. Explain Durkheim’s interpretation and analysis of
religion. 2. Explain how Durkheim’s analysis is similar to Marx’s (and Feuerbach’s), and ways in which it
is different. 3. Is Durkheim’s analysis of religion continuous (in sync) with the Enlightenment (Hume,
Reimarus), or does it significantly go beyond the Enlightenment? (For this question you must read
carefully the chapter on Durkheim in Pals, as well my lectures on Marx, Feuerbach, and Strauss.)
5. Discuss Marx’s thesis, building on the work of Feuerbach and Hegel (as Hegel was interpreted by
Feuerbach) that religion is a major obstacle to the emancipation of humanity from superstition and
oppression, that religion has been a major force in legitimizing and justifying the conquest of
subjugation of peoples in the name of their god and religion. Is Marx’s critique of religion for the most
part correct, partially correct, or too simplistic (black and white) to be right? (You must read the Marx
selection in Pals, and I strongly recommend that you read the Feuerbach selection posted on Canvas as
well.) Chapter 10: “Views of the Human Problem,” will be most helpful with this topic.
6. In Chapter 6 on Sacred Scripture, Livingston discusses the role of sacred scripture in different world
religions. For example, the Muslim Qur’an, the Sikh Granth Sahib (Adi Granth), and the Hebrew and
Christian Bible are considered not only authoritative (canonical) but also the inspired and infallible or
inerrant Word of God (without error not only in matters of faith and morals, but in scientific and
historical matters as well). 1. Is this view of scripture defensible in the light of the critique of inerrancy
and infallibility arising out of the Enlightenment and continued in the 19th century (read Handout #1)? 2.
Is allegorical (or symbolical, spiritual) interpretation as used by the Catholic church since Origen and
Augustine, Buddhists, and Hindus a way to defend inerrancy or the authority of scripture at the spiritual
level, while admitting error at the literal, factual level (read article on “Origen and the Bible” on
Blackboard? 3. Or (a) do we believe in the literal truth of sacred scripture over any scientific and
historical evidence that challenges it, or (b) do we stop being a true Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu if we
reject the literal truthfulness of sacred scripture in all matters, or (c) do we wait for science to come
around in the future and confirm the literal interpretation of our sacred scripture?
7. In Chapter 9 of Anatomy of the Sacred, different understandings of origins (cosmogony), across
modern and ancient religions are discussed. Is there one conception that recommends itself to being
more literally true than the others? In other words, can we say that one of the narratives is more
literally true, corresponds to reality, and less “mythical” (more literally true) than the others? Make sure
you define what you mean by “mythical.” You may find Livingston’s treatment of myth and symbol in
Chapter 4 of Anatomy of the Sacred helpful. The section on “Myth” in Chapter 4: “Sacred Symbol, Myth,
and Doctrine” will be very helpful on this topic.
8. In Chapters 8 of Anatomy of the Sacred discusses different views of ultimate reality are discussed.
Explain the difference between these views: polytheism, pantheism, dualism, monism, and
monotheism. Do you find one of these views more “true,” or more compelling than the others? Are
they equally defensible and valid characterizations or approaches to ultimate reality? The section on
“Myth” in Chapter 4: “Sacred Symbol, Myth, and Doctrine” will be be very helpful on this topic.
—
Learning Objective: I’m working on a religious writing assignment and need assistance.
Learning Objective: I’m working on a religious writing assignment and need assistance.
In an essay format, respond to TWO (2) questions. Each essay should be at least two (2) double-spaced pages long.
12 pt font, spaced The exam should be 6-8 pages long in total. It is necessary to respond to these questions.
It is required that you have completed all of the readings through week 7, including Handout I. The essays should be well-written.
submitted to Turnitin assignments on Blackboard as a single submission (not two separate submissions), NO
ON OR BEFORE MONDAY, NOVEMBER 1ST, AT 11:30 P.M.
ONE OF YOUR ESSAYS MUST BE ON ONE OF THESE TOPICS.
1. In 1871, E. B. Tylor and, to a lesser extent, James Frazer (1890-1915) described what we can call the
This is the first attempt to present an anthropological (in the contemporary sense) description of religion. First,
What distinguishes these interpretations from, say, the Enlightenment’s naturalistic explanation of and
how do you feel about religion? Second, do Tylor and Frazer agree that religion will eventually vanish?
and accept current science as a more accurate explanation of reality; if so, was religion ever an adequate explanation?
Is there any sense of realism to them at all?)? Finally, what was Tylor’s unique perspective on religion and spirituality?
How does Frazer’s religious understanding differ from Tylor’s (i.e., does Frazer contribute anything)?
new)? (Read the chapter on “Tyler and Frazer in Pals” attentively to answer this question.)
2. The Radical Enlightenment (Spinoza, Reimarus, Hume, and Kant) were harsh critics of revealed knowledge.
Christianity in particular, and religion in general. Reimarus, for example, saw Christianity as a threat.
A ruse perpetrated by Jesus’ power-hungry early disciples. Kant was completely unconcerned about the environment.
revealed religion (which he thought to be replete of superstitions and immoralities) and attempted to translate it.
Christianity into a moral system that we can attain via reason on our own (not revelation). Hume
presented a naturalistic explanation for religion and slammed all attempts to prove it rationally.
God’s existence. Examine the Enlightenment’s anti-religious critique. Is it convincing? Is it reasonable?
religiosity?
3. In their critiques of the Enlightenment, Schleiermacher and Hegel were affected by the Enlightenment.
They were both influenced by Kant and Spinoza, but their analyses and conclusions were different.
religion’s interpretation 1. Describe and compare the (radical) Enlightenment understanding of religion.
and compare it to Schleiermacher’s and Hegel’s. 2. How did Schleiermacher think, and how did he think?
Is Hegel’s perspective of religion and Christianity more positive and sympathetic? 3. Are you
Schleiermacher’s and Hegel’s religious beliefs were ultimately more detrimental to Christianity.
In particular, and religion in general (for example, by making too many concessions to scientific naturalism and the scientific method),
Enlightenment)? (Handout #1 is required for this article, as are my Enlightenment courses.)
Hegel, Schleiermacher. As I mentioned in class, the Strauss selection on Blackboard will provide you with a good starting point.
Hegel’s position is reasonably well understood.)
4. Emile Durkheim provided an in-depth analysis of religion that equaled Tylor’s and Frazer’s.
In many ways, they surpassed them in terms of influence. 1. Describe Durkheim’s investigation and interpretation of
religion. 2. Compare and contrast Durkheim’s analysis to Marx’s (and Feuerbach’s) and the ways in which they differ.
is distinct. 3. Is Durkheim’s understanding of religion congruent (in time) with the Enlightenment (Hume, for example)?
Reimarus), or does it go beyond the Enlightenment in a major way? (You must read this question in order to answer it.)
Pals’ chapter on Durkheim, as well as my courses on Marx, Feuerbach, and Strauss, should be studied attentively.)
5. Discuss Marx’s thesis in light of Feuerbach’s and Hegel’s work (as Hegel was interpreted by Marx).
Religion, according to Feuerbach, is a primary impediment to humanity’s emancipation from superstition.
Traditionally, religion has had a significant role in legitimizing and justifying the conquest of other peoples.
People are being enslaved in the name of their god and faith. Is Marx’s criticism of religion for the most part accurate?
Is it correct to say that it’s partly correct, somewhat correct, or that it’s too basic (black and white) to be correct? (You should read Marx.)
I strongly advise you to read the Feuerbach selection on Canvas, which is also available in Pals.
This topic will benefit greatly from Chapter 10: “Views of the Human Problem.”
6. Livingston analyzes the role of sacred text in many worlds in Chapter 6 on Sacred Scripture.
faiths. The Muslim Qur’an, the Sikh Granth Sahib (Adi Granth), and the Hebrew and Greek Bibles, for example.
The Christian Bible is not only considered authoritative (canonical), but also inspired and infallible.
God’s inerrant Word (without mistake not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in subjects of science and technology)
historical context is also important). 1. Is this interpretation of scripture defendable in light of the inerrancy critique?
and infallibility, which arose from the Enlightenment and persisted until the nineteenth century (see Handout #1)?
Is the Catholic church’s use of allegorical (or symbolical, spiritual) interpretation, which dates back to Origen, still valid?
Augustine, Buddhists, and Hindus found a way to defend scripture’s inerrancy or authority at the spiritual level.
without admitting fault on a literal, factual level (see “Origen and the Bible” article).
Blackboard? 3. Or (a) do we place a higher value on the literal veracity of sacred scripture than any scientific or historical evidence?
historical proof to the contrary, or (b) do we cease to be authentic Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, or Hindus if we do?
deny sacred scripture’s literal truth in all respects, or (c) do we wait for science to arrive?
around in the future and corroborate our sacred scripture’s literal interpretation?
7. Different understandings of origins (cosmogony) are discussed in Chapter 9 of Anatomy of the Sacred.
There is a discussion of both modern and ancient faiths. Is there a certain conception that you think should be adopted?
is it more literal than the others? To put it another way, can we argue that one of the stories is more compelling than the other?
Is it less “mythical” (more literally true) than the others since it is literally true? Make certain
You explain what you mean when you say “mythical.” Livingston’s treatment of myth and symbol can be seen in
Anatomy of the Sacred, Chapter 4 is particularly useful. Chapter 4’s “Sacred Symbol, Myth, and Legend” section:
and Doctrine” will be extremely useful in this regard.
8. Different conceptions of ultimate reality are examined in Chapters 8 of Anatomy of the Sacred.
Explain the differences between polytheism, pantheism, dualism, monism, and agnosticism.
monotheism. Do you believe one of these points of view is more “real” or convincing than the others? Are
Are both characterizations or approaches to ultimate reality equally justifiable and valid? The section dedicated to
This is where the chapter “Myth” in Chapter 4: “Sacred Symbol, Myth, and Doctrine” can come in handy.
The post The Radical Enlightenment (Spinoza, Reimarus, Hume, and Kant) had a very negative view of revealed appeared first on Research Quora.