Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Eliade vs. McCutcheon vs. Roberts, (words) - Coggle Diagram
Eliade vs. McCutcheon vs. Roberts
THE GHOST BUSTER
Eliade is deemed "a caretaker"; he believes spirituality and religious behavior are evidence of a sacred realm.
"phenomenologist"
ontological realm of the sacred- it is an assumption and the evidence he is citing doesn't hold up
personal opinion alert- i think that religious studies, or a specific branch of religious studies, should be devoted to studying the sacred in the way that Eliade is suggesting (kind of) but i think it should be largely biologically informed- with the experiences that people have being treated as evidence and analyzed through social constructions but also accepting that sacrality is something inherently biological. the concept of the paradox is important here because you can study the
**
out of something and crank ur microscope up to 5000x but it will still be sacred. those who fear for the integrity of the sacred when science tries to explain and deconstruct religion and religious behavior (obviously assuming the research methods are ethical and respectful etc) dont make much sense to me. and i get that sacred texts forbid that kind of thing but idk.
THE CRITIC
McCutcheon wants religion to be a strict social science: he sees nothing pure or sacred in religious experience. All experience is public, meaning it is framed in your societal lens.
he is so deeply insecure. it's ironic because he is pitching this completely objective and dogmatic perspective, void of emotional complication, yet he is basing all of this in a fear of being disrespected by the rest of academia, its own socially and historically complex society within itself, and letting those feelings motivate his work and reasoning. and this emotional turmoil is so visible! in his paper he is practically yelling. ugh
hates eliade: this caretaking approach to religion isn't scientific enough, he thinks religious studies should be approached with an etic perspective, but doesnt address or account for the inherent ethnocentrism in his logic.
"Religious phemonena is historical and socially formed"
like, yes, but it doesn't make sense that he responds to the overtones of sacrality in religious studies by trying to claim that he is (along with other scholars) the new "transcendent authority". he is no more qualified to make definitive and logical decisions about the nature of people and the world than the people he studies. like yes he is educated and all that but by his own logic he should admit that EDUCATION IS A CONSTRUCT and has its own flaws.
baseball players vs their spectators
"seems to be sure that the scholar of religion is clearly outside"
we are all insiders! what is up with this. we r all people
this attitude is not productive or conducive to meaningful research it is elitist and cruel
THE MEDIATOR
Agrees with McCutcheon in that Eliade is too ontological and takes the perspective of an insider, but does not agree with how authoritarian and annoying he is. McC claims to have authority of people's experiences and understandings of the world and it takes away the meaning-making process for the individual.
We can combine theology and phenomenology with a critical lens.
Points out the logical flaws in McCutcheon's argument- you cannot hold an objective standpoint when the ground you stand on is pre-established- there is no such thing as pure experience then there is no such thing as pure description. he contradicts himself
borrowing both from McCutcheon and Eliade: a descriptive element, and explanation element, informed by an insider perspective. Roberts is also adamant that being a scholar doesn't give you an authority to decide how the world works, and its important to remain humble in your analyses and conduct transformative and respectful research
i liked this guy- i am happy to be alive in the era where religious studies is being completely disassembled and redefined
descriptive reductionism
when the description of something reduces its significance and is counterproductive to a meaningful analysis
ontology
philosophy- nature of being
theology
study of God and religious belief
transcendent authority
a form of authority that is exempt from following the laws of nature
protectionism
the researcher wants utmost control over the "data" they are studying, when the data are people, this gets very problematic
(words)