>for years now I've loved reading about the transmission of ideas in parts of the world and how it plays into the modern day
>over time read more and more into religions
>realize that most religions are placed within their own metaphysical systems which could be rationally weeded through if placed up against one another
>see no reason why certain metaphysical systems should be examined in the bubble of "religion"
Is Interreligious Studies any good at all to pursue? Is the field filled with bullshit Unitarians?
Honestly, I love pursuing this stuff. Examining cultures, comparing fundamental worldviews so to understand and then discern truth between them, see the influence of modern thought on older ways of life.
If I were to pursue an education in this, what would be the proper name for this kind of field or major? What should I be looking for?
>>963022
what you really want is read book in pic related, and also read Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade
>>964125
>Campbell
>recommending muh monomyth to anyone
>ignoring all the teaching about the understanding of nature involved in them
>>963022
>Is Interreligious Studies any good at all to pursue? Is the field filled with bullshit Unitarians?
Interreligious studies will cure almost anyone of their religious beliefs. That's why there are so many unitarians and universalists, it's the only position that remains viable once you're familiar with enough of the worlds belief systems.
>If I were to pursue an education in this, what would be the proper name for this kind of field or major? What should I be looking for?
History of religion or anthropology.
>>964321
Thank you.
>it's the only position that remains viable once you're familiar with enough of the worlds belief systems.
But the systems obviously compete with one another. Universalists would have to find some unity in their foundational understanding of the world to even begin to rationally assert Universalism.
Honestly, it sounds like trying to apply modern western "lets all get along" ideas to different systems rather than something to default to when you experience a lot of religious beliefs.
>>964346
>But the systems obviously compete with one another.
Indeed. You are left with choosing between a god who damns most of the human race for the "sin" of being raised in the wrong tradition, or a god that doesn't mind what you believe and possibly doesn't even mind whether you try to be a good person or not. Most choose some variant of the latter, because no-one wants god to be evil.
>>964374
That's extremely varied though as many systems lack gods, "gods" itself are understood in various different ways rather than being a name for a single class of being, and their purpose and understanding of morality differs even within the same religion. In any case, at best it seems like you're saying that universalism involves intellectual weakness rather than trying to stick to facts.
>>964397
>In any case, at best it seems like you're saying that universalism involves intellectual weakness rather than trying to stick to facts.
No, whatI'm saying is that it's easy to hold a simplistic view that your religion is the "right" one and everyone else is mislead or ignorant when you only know your own religious tradition, but once you are exposed to others, you quickly come to realise that there is in fact nothing exceptional about your own tradition at all, and in fact some others have a greater and / or longer tradition of philosophy and exegesis than your own. Once you realise that there is effectively no way the majority of people could possibly come to your specific religion, and no way for outsiders to your religion to distinguish it from any other in its claims and it's supporting arguments, you have to either accept that God damns the majority of people to hell for no fault of their own, or that some or all of the things you thought you knew about god are wrong. Most people who maintain any religious faith at all in these circumstances prefer to assume that they were simply misinformed, that God is indeed good and just and that it follows from this that the specific religion you follow does not have a bearing on your salvation. The alternative, to assert that no, you had it right the first time, means you must accept that God does things that are manifestly unjust but that there is some reason for this that you are not and cannot be privvy to. This is also a coherent view, one William Lane Craig champions, but it's a much less attractive option for most.
>>964437
Most of not all world religions from even classical times make statements about the universality of certain traits so lack of complete exceptionalism is never a problem but rather benefits them by validating worldviews.
And even in the group's where it is my way or you're fucked they need not rely on claims of complete exceptionalism to assert their claims so I'm not seeing your dichotomy hold ground.
I love this subject too TS, let's talk about it.
Do you known Rene Guenon and the Traditionalist school?
>>965109
>6 hours later...
No, I really haven't. Looking him up, he sounds like a brilliant source to check up on though.
Since you're interested in the field you might know: Just what kind of career paths exist for this kind of field besides a professorship?
anthropologist nigga
>>966436
I'm not the best person to ask. STEM fag here.
>>965109
Guenon isn't a traditionalist though
>>966487
Depends on what you mean by traditionalist. Now there's this thing called traditionalist or perennialist school which Guenon is the founder and in this sense he's a traditionalist.
a dead field
Pretty interested in this myself.
How do you focus on the religion's side of cultural anthropology?
