Comparative Methods in Spatial Approaches to Religion

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-322
Author(s):  
Whitney A. Bauman

Recently, a number of methods for re-thinking ideas as part of the rest of the natural world (including religious ideas and values) have appeared on the religious studies landscape. Notions of emergence theory, new materialisms, and object-oriented ontologies are geared toward thinking about religion and science, ideas and nature, values and matter from within what Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari call a “single plane” of existence. Others within the field of “religion and ecology/nature” are skeptical of these “postmodern” methods and theories. These skeptics claim that ideas from various religious traditions such as pantheism, panentheism, animism, and even co-dependent arising already do the intellectual work of re-thinking “religion and nature” together onto an immanent plane of existence. This article will begin to explore some of the links and differences between older traditions of thinking immanence with more recent post-modern moves toward spatially-oriented ways of thinking. Rather than being a final reflection on these connections and differences, this article calls for a more sustained comparative study of these different spatial approaches.

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-39
Author(s):  
Philip Tite

A short essay, in responding to an online roundtable (the Religious Studies Project), explores the role of progressive ideology in the academic study of religion, specifically with a focus on debates over Russell McCutcheon's distinction between scholars functioning as cultural critics or caretakers of religious traditions. This short piece is part of the "Editor's Corner" (an occasional section of the Bulletin where the editors offer provocative musings on theoretical challenges facing the discipline).


Author(s):  
Amanda J. Baugh

The conclusion reiterates the book’s main argument, that that environmental innovations in American religions have developed for reasons that expand far beyond direct expressions of religious teachings and faith. Then it discusses implications of these findings for the study of religion and ecology and religious studies more broadly.


Author(s):  
Jonathan Benthall

This review of Mona Siddiqui’s Christians, Muslims, and Jesus (Yale University Press) was published in the Times Literary Supplement on 29 January 2014, under the heading “Abraham’s children”. As well as being a senior academic in religious studies, Siddiqui is well known to the British public as a frequent contributor to the “Thought for the Day” religious slot in the early morning “Today” programme broadcast by the BBC’s Radio Four. SIddiqui makes an important contribution to comparative theological debate by comparing and contrasting the roles of Jesus (Isa) and Mary (Maryam) in the New Testament and the Qur’an, and more broadly in the two religious traditions as they evolved. She also reflects on the specifically Christian semiotics of the Cross. The Chapter ventures some further reflections on how the two traditions may be compared along broader lines.


Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 286
Author(s):  
Elsa Lau ◽  
Clayton McClintock ◽  
Marianna Graziosi ◽  
Ashritha Nakkana ◽  
Albert Garcia ◽  
...  

This study investigates the lived-experience of spiritual life in contemporary USA, India, and China. A qualitative coding frame was constructed based on participant responses to open-ended questions regarding spirituality. Qualitative analysis was facilitated by the use of Dedoose, a mixed methods software. The exploratory approach of this study takes on a cross-culturally comparative lens, and has two primary questions: (1) What are the universal aspects of lived spirituality across cultures, and (2) How does culture shape spiritual experience (e.g., typology and prevalence)? A total of 6112 participants (41% women, mean age of 29 years, range 18–75 years) were recruited, and analysis was conducted on a subset of 900 participants. The primary thematic categories derived by content analysis included religion (religious traditions, religious conversion, religious professionals, religious figures “theophany,” and religious forces “heirophany”), contemplative practice (meditation, mindful movement, prayer, and rituals), ancestors (ancestral worship, dreams about ancestors, and general mention of ancestors), natural world (animals, and nature), and metaphysical phenomena. Metaphysical categories were further parsed apart to include extrasensory perception (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, realistic dreams, and intuitive impressions), psychokinesis, survival hypothesis (near death experiences, out of body experiences, and apparitional experiences), and faith and energy healing (recovery/remission of illness, and spiritual practitioners). Explanatory factors for similarities and differences across groups, and the origins of spirituality, are discussed.


Numen ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 114-138
Author(s):  
Masaru Ikezawa

AbstractThis article deals with the religiosity of thanatology in Japan, which was introduced under the name shiseigaku (death and life studies) in the 1980s. Although many religious believers and scholars of religious studies have been connected with this field in Japan, religions are not necessarily highlighted by studies of Japanese thanatology. The Japanese pioneers of thanatology did not have clear ideas on the positioning of religion in this field, but they unconsciously merged their own faith into their discipline. Later, other scholars tried to re-construct this field by weakening its religious orientation. The Japanese case is in contrast to Taiwanese thanatology, in which the pioneers tried to position religious beliefs as the essential element of the field. Indeed, this difference was partially influenced by the religious traditions of both societies, but other factors such as the historical processes of this academic field and the private beliefs of researchers were important causes of that difference.


2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-86
Author(s):  
Josh A. Reeves ◽  
Richard A. Peters

AbstractIn a previous issue of this journal, Fabio Gironi criticizes the field of science and religion from his perspective as a religious studies scholar. Our reaction to his paper is mixed. Though we share many of Gironi’s concerns, we do not believe that his criticisms count for much against religion-and-science scholarshipper se, and we therefore attempt to nuance and redirect those criticisms in what follows.


1995 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 592
Author(s):  
John Daly ◽  
Walter H. Conser Jr. ◽  
Curtis D. Johnson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document