Professor Roderick Ninian Smart (May 6, 1927 – January 29, 2001) was a Scottish writer and university educator. He was a pioneer in the field of secular religious studies. Smart is mainly noted for his contribution in the area of methodology, although he saw his contribution as conceptual as well as methodological, commenting that while expertise in languages was not to be dismissed, it should not be "rated above conceptual insight." Secular Religious Studies dates from the mid-1960s, when new departments were established, several in state Universities in the United States. At the time, it was only just beginning to earn academic recognition and Smart was a pivotal figure in this process, at which time "it is difficult not to recall that the emergence of Religious Studies as a higher education subject was then controversial."
Smart’s early work involved linguistic analysis, in which he had trained at Oxford. Later, he said that this came close to "cross-cultural study" but had stopped short, since he was still too captive to "our language" and "various assumptions of our culture."[1] However, when he came to publish this he included later conceptual ideas, expanding his dissertation. Interested in Rudolf Otto’s concept of the Holy as a key to understanding religion, he found this too restrictive, since Buddhism is non-theistic. Instead, he suggested that religious experience can be either numinous or mystical. He was also influenced by R.C. Zaehner’s interest in mysticism, having consulted him at Oxford. He then examined what he took as key religious concepts, such as revelation, faith, conversion and knowledge and analyzed what these meant in Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism without evaluating any belief in terms of truth or falsity. He was consciously attempting to break out of aptivity to Western modes of thought so that for example theism is not taken as an essential component of religion, thus such ideas as theophany or a single ultimate focus or sacrifice do not necessarily translate from the Christian into other religious contexts. "He who knows one religion knows none," said Smart.[1] Western concern for doctrine overlooked the importance of religious experience. Early in his career, he insisted that an ideology such as Marxism as well as nationalism and rationalism could be considered religious, because they resemble religious traditions in how they function, and therefore properly belong to Religious Studies, the subject matter of which was "non-finite."
He situated Religious Studies in contrast to theology as agnostic on the truth of religious claims but he was critical of Peter Burger for "assuming the non-existence of God."[1] Religious Studies is, however, interested in why people believe that their religious statements or experience is true, thus while description is vital is must also "transcend the informative" and engage in dialogue with "the para-historical claims of religions and anti-religious outlooks." It need not be hostile to the type of committed approach pursued in theology "provided it is open, and doe not artificially restrict understanding and choice." It is not concerned with evangelizing but with elucidating understanding, or meaning. Religious Studies, too, has a vital role to play in combating tribalism, that is, human captivity to its own cultures.
Religious Studies as a non-confessional, methodologically agnostic discipline takes its place in the secular academy, where it draw heavily on anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, archeology, and other disciplines. At bottom, it has a place in the public or state sector because, as an aspect of human experience, it is also the study of people—of what they believe, why they believe and act as they do, both individually and within society. It is a constantly changing field because religions change as religious people adapt to new circumstances. Religious Studies is never exclusively interested in what might be termed orthodoxy—however a religion itself might enforce or police conformity to an official version—but with religion as it is lived, with "religion on the ground," a term he first used in 1978.[2] Responses to modernity, to globalization, as well as trends towards religious eclecticism, properly concern Religious Studies. Smart did not anticipate a single, eclectic religion emerging but that religions would increasingly borrow from one another and that a global consensus on the value of religion in society would evolve. In interview with Scott London, he said:
I … believe we are moving toward a global ideology that has a place for religion and recognizes the contributions of the different traditions. Hopefully, it will have an overarching view as to how we can work together for the promotion of human values and spirituality.
Are you familiar with Prof. Smart´s reputation and work?
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/File:Ninian_Smart.JPG
Comments
Post a Comment