宗教研究與人文精神的理解

宗教研究與人文精神的理解問(wèn)題擴(kuò)展——自說(shuō)自話的樂(lè)趣與困境Humanism&ReligiousStudiesIrrational&Modernity,Belief&Ration,Scientific&TestableMysterious&Miraculous,Weird&DailyAcademy&Believer,Induction&ReductionofConversionTheology,Belief&KnowledgecalledReligiousStudiesSacredness&Church,Sacredness&Hierophany宗教學(xué)與神學(xué)(Theology)不是一回事。宗教學(xué)是一門“世俗學(xué)問(wèn)”，跟神學(xué)不相干。神學(xué)是在某個(gè)特定的宗教體系內(nèi)研究神的本質(zhì)，神與人的關(guān)系，信仰的本質(zhì)等等。宗教學(xué)研究的是宗教信仰的本質(zhì)，宗教的來(lái)源(心理的，社會(huì)的，歷史的等等)，其社會(huì)功能，心理功能等等，宗教史也可以算在宗教學(xué)內(nèi)。宗教學(xué)的研究目的不是為了證明某種宗教優(yōu)于別種宗教，也不是站在無(wú)神論的立場(chǎng)上反宗教。從宗教學(xué)的角度來(lái)看，任何一種宗教都是人類文化現(xiàn)像，是人類共同的文化創(chuàng)造，都有研究?jī)r(jià)值。研究宗教是為了盡可能全面地了解它，跟人類學(xué)，社會(huì)學(xué)等人文學(xué)科一樣。宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)在人類眾多經(jīng)驗(yàn)之中的確具有其獨(dú)特、自主及自足存在的性質(zhì)；宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)的核心乃是在于人與超越者之間的一種感通關(guān)系宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)分別存在于其他日常世俗或理性的活動(dòng)范圍；宗教理解的工作首先不能將宗教信仰者的經(jīng)驗(yàn)約化，必須是要從宗教信仰者本身的觀點(diǎn)出發(fā)，同情地理解他們的宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)（與超越者相遇的經(jīng)驗(yàn)），以及由他們的宗教經(jīng)驗(yàn)而產(chǎn)生的各種存在于他們生活之中的意義宗教研究的合法性問(wèn)題CollectiveConcept,DefinitioncreatedbyDefiningDefinitionwithinAcademicandCulturalContext,Cross-cultureUtilityoftheConceptrootedinWesternChurch,tobeexact,ChristianChurchandTrendofModernizationReligion,Religions,ReligiousReligion,teaching,moral,doctrine,Church,Monk,Temple,Sect,Heresy,School,HeterodoxyReligiousStudies,StudiesofReligion,HistoryofReligions,TheoriesofReligiousStudiesScientificStudiesonReligion,ReligionasaModelandParadigmSoulandHeart,EmotionalandphysicalWeshouldfirstlymakeitclearthattowardswhatwedeliverourstudiesofreligion?LegitimacyofReligiousStudies:Subject,Approaches,Neutralstand,endstowardsApproaches:Borrowinginnameofself-containJonathanZ.SmithwritesinImaginingReligion:“...whilethereisastaggeringamountofdata,phenomena,ofhumanexperiencesandexpressionsthatmightbecharacterizedinonecultureoranother,byonecriterionoranother,asreligion—thereisnodataforreligion.Religionissolelythecreationofthescholar’sstudy.Itiscreatedforthescholar’sanalyticpurposesbyhisimaginativeactsofcomparisonandgeneralization.Religionhasnoexistenceapartfromtheacademy.”Definitionsofreligiontendtosufferfromoneoftwoproblems:theyareeithertoonarrowandexcludemanybeliefsystemswhichmostagreearereligious,ortheyaretoovagueandambiguous,suggestingthatjustaboutanyandeverythingisareligioItisapparentthatreligioncanbeseenasatheological,philosophical,anthropological,sociological,andpsychologicalphenomenonofhumankind.Tolimitreligiontoonlyoneofthesecategoriesistomissitsmultifacetednatureandloseoutonthecompletedefinition.Definitionsofreligionnecessarilyinvolveassumptionsaboutitsunderlyingnature.“[E]achandeverydefinitionofreligionimpliesatleastsometheoreticalconclusions....”O(jiān)neofthemanydifficultiesencounteredinreachingaconsensusonalegaldefinitionofthetermisthat,atroot,“noconvincinggeneraltheoryofreligionexists.”Threeoftheprincipaltheoriesaboutreligionare:first,religioninitsmetaphysicalortheologicalsense(e.g.,theunderlyingtruthoftheexistenceofGod,thedharma,etc.);second,religionasitispsychologicallyexperiencedbypeople(e.g.,thefeelingsofthereligiousbelieveraboutdivinityorultimateconcerns,theholy,etc.);andthird,religionasaculturalorsocialforce(e.g.,symbolismthatbindsa