In thinking about our discussion about how a person might interpret our nation if they found our country in ruins in the future, I realized that our country worships material things in a way that could almost be interpreted as religious. Assuming that the person could not get the computers or TV’s working and was simply assessing our nation based on materials they found I think they might interpret the royal looking Starbucks logo as a symbol of our God.
In the past, many nations have, as a group, shared a common faith which manifests itself in their culture, dress, and art. For example, almost all the renaissance art in has a religious focus on Catholicism and is used for religious purposes such as in prayer books and as altarpieces. America is such a hodgepodge of cultures that we have no one religion that represents the beliefs of our nation. For this reason, anyone looking through the ruins of our country would possibly identify popular culture as our religion. Since celebrities are all over our magazines and Britney Spears has become a household name, it would be easy for anyone studying our culture to assume that they were royalty.
If the archeologists of the future were studying us believing that America was like these other countries that share a common faith, they could identify Starbucks as the place where we meet to worship. It is now easier to find a Starbucks than a church or a mosque and many people make it a part of their daily routine. Also, after looking in a magazine, they would take note of the fact that our idols are often photographed holding a cup with the queenly Starbucks logo on it. Religion was once something that unified nations, but with America as diverse as it is, we find something new to unite us, Starbucks.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Blog Question for Week #2
The animals represented by the effigy mounds strike me as being very different from both the paintings we saw in the Lascaux Cave as well as the our own use of animals today. This is because I really did not see religion in either of these, whereas I believe that the Indian mounds are very religious symbols. The main reason that I believe the Indian mounds to be religious is because they seems to be an attempt to understand the unexplainable, which I believe to be the most important aspect of religion.
The reason that the mounds were built was to try to make a connection with, or understand the things that they could not explain. This fits in very well with Geertz’s definition which says that religion is “a set of symbols” (the animal-mounds) “which establish long-lasting moods and motivations in men.” These mounds obviously had long lasting effects because they were very intricate and would have taken a long time to build. The book makes many references to the idea that the Indians believed in god-like animal spirits as well as some sort of afterlife. It seemed like they tried to explain acts of nature, like lightning, by attributing it to higher beings. Similarly they could not understand why birds could fly, which is probably why birds became associated with the idea of the upper world. This lends to Geertz’s idea that religion seems to attempt to answer the questions about our “general order of existence.”
Although the cave paintings were also of animals, they seem to lack the same importance. The paintings were not often viewed whereas the mounds were not only frequently seen and used in ceremonies, but also needed a lot of man power to create which shows that it must have had a special meaning for the entire group. The symbols in society today cannot be compared to the mounds because we do not look to the Chicago cubs to explain the meaning of life.
The reason that the mounds were built was to try to make a connection with, or understand the things that they could not explain. This fits in very well with Geertz’s definition which says that religion is “a set of symbols” (the animal-mounds) “which establish long-lasting moods and motivations in men.” These mounds obviously had long lasting effects because they were very intricate and would have taken a long time to build. The book makes many references to the idea that the Indians believed in god-like animal spirits as well as some sort of afterlife. It seemed like they tried to explain acts of nature, like lightning, by attributing it to higher beings. Similarly they could not understand why birds could fly, which is probably why birds became associated with the idea of the upper world. This lends to Geertz’s idea that religion seems to attempt to answer the questions about our “general order of existence.”
Although the cave paintings were also of animals, they seem to lack the same importance. The paintings were not often viewed whereas the mounds were not only frequently seen and used in ceremonies, but also needed a lot of man power to create which shows that it must have had a special meaning for the entire group. The symbols in society today cannot be compared to the mounds because we do not look to the Chicago cubs to explain the meaning of life.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
grizzly man and cave paintings
I do not think that there was really any religion in what the grizzly man was doing. It seemed to me like he was just trying to connect with nature because he had so many problems in his life when he tried to live in the real world. In the wild things are so much more simple and I think if someone was as frustrated as Tim was with his failed career it makes sense that he would turn to something that would not make him feel like a failure.
As for the cave paintings, I do not believe that they are religious either, but I think that they are important in the study of religion. The act of representing oneself artistically shows a bit of understanding about the world one lives in and, as we mentioned in class, an understanding of ones self. I think that this would be the time that human became people and became more contemplative than simply doing what needed to be done to survive. Once they have reached that level of thinking, they can begin to ask why they exist and answer this question with religion. Thus, I believe that the cave paintings are not themselves religious, but instead, the point in time when religion may have first begun.
As for the cave paintings, I do not believe that they are religious either, but I think that they are important in the study of religion. The act of representing oneself artistically shows a bit of understanding about the world one lives in and, as we mentioned in class, an understanding of ones self. I think that this would be the time that human became people and became more contemplative than simply doing what needed to be done to survive. Once they have reached that level of thinking, they can begin to ask why they exist and answer this question with religion. Thus, I believe that the cave paintings are not themselves religious, but instead, the point in time when religion may have first begun.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Geertz
"A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
If I were to put Geertz’s definition into my own words, I would say that religion is a way of life that rose out of an attempt to satisfy our curiosity about the world we life in.
When we discussed this in class we said that religion had two major parts to it, the spiritual and the cultural. Although I believe that Geertz’s defination is a pretty good summary of the culture of religion and where it comes from, it lacks the more complicated spiritual aspect of religion. However, I think it is okay that he left it out because the book that this quote was taken from is entitled “Religion as a Cultural System” so if all Geertz was trying to do was define religion in that context, he did a good job.
I believe that he is very right in saying that we make conceptions and clothe them in an aura of factuality. One of the most difficult things about organized religion is that it is a leap of faith. Religious people are expected to believe in things that we cannot see or prove to be true. I think it makes us all uncomfortable to face the fact that our beliefs are unsupported and we cannot really prove that there is a God, which is why so many people were so upset with the way that Geertz stated that phrase. I think religion is very abstract and personal and therefore, impossible for one person to try to define. This is why I can only read Geertz’s definition as a definition of religion as a cultural system, but not of religion itself.
If I were to put Geertz’s definition into my own words, I would say that religion is a way of life that rose out of an attempt to satisfy our curiosity about the world we life in.
When we discussed this in class we said that religion had two major parts to it, the spiritual and the cultural. Although I believe that Geertz’s defination is a pretty good summary of the culture of religion and where it comes from, it lacks the more complicated spiritual aspect of religion. However, I think it is okay that he left it out because the book that this quote was taken from is entitled “Religion as a Cultural System” so if all Geertz was trying to do was define religion in that context, he did a good job.
I believe that he is very right in saying that we make conceptions and clothe them in an aura of factuality. One of the most difficult things about organized religion is that it is a leap of faith. Religious people are expected to believe in things that we cannot see or prove to be true. I think it makes us all uncomfortable to face the fact that our beliefs are unsupported and we cannot really prove that there is a God, which is why so many people were so upset with the way that Geertz stated that phrase. I think religion is very abstract and personal and therefore, impossible for one person to try to define. This is why I can only read Geertz’s definition as a definition of religion as a cultural system, but not of religion itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)