Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2012, 09:11 PM   #11
ULFGARD
 
ULFGARD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Seattle
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
Really? My pet peeve is that the process often tends to be mishandled by people who laudibly eager to bring about coexistence, but flout the law of non-contradiction in doing so and are unwilling to see that if their means of bringing about said coexistence succeeds they will not have reconciled religions but just created a new one. And that the best "coexistence" is just living with each other.

However I think it is possible that an actual religious person might do comparative theology better then an agnostic simply because of an easier emotional understanding.
Yeah, I've never liked the "coexist" thing. I often hear people of that mindset say things like "it's the 21st century, they have to learn to set aside superstitions and get along." That's the most obtuse and/or condescending sort of statement about religious people I can think of, as it reflects a profound lack of respect lying just below a veneer of understanding and tolerance. Not suggesting that people cannot simply live among one another -- at least where the religions aren't diametrically opposed or do not heavily compete for resources as a group. Clearly people of many faiths can and do live side by side, have friendships, work as colleagues, support the same political parties, etc. But it doesn't always work.

I'm not sure about a religious person being better at comparative theology than a nonbeliever, in part because I think that such a person, while understanding faith, would have the same depths of disdain for other belief systems that the nonbeliever has for all religions -- that is, an abiding belief that those faiths are false.
__________________
Seven Kingdoms, MH (as yet unnamed), and my "pick-up" DF game war stories, characters, and other ruminations can be found here.
ULFGARD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012, 09:25 PM   #12
Kromm
GURPS Line Editor
 
Kromm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Montréal, Québec
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

The issue has little to do with coexistence and much to do with depth vs. breadth. Given finite time to study, if you look at N faiths equally, you will go 1/N as deep into any one of them as somebody who devotes the same time to just one faith. Granted, there will be similarities and duplicated theory, so perhaps you'll attain 2/N or 3/N, but as N >> 2-3, you're still going to be a novice next to a single-faith expert.

And the fact that single-faith experts tend to belong to said faith is self-evident. The faithful have the greatest investment in understanding.
__________________
Sean "Dr. Kromm" Punch <kromm@sjgames.com>
GURPS Line Editor, Steve Jackson Games
My DreamWidth [Just GURPS News]
Kromm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012, 11:30 PM   #13
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULFGARD View Post
Yeah, I've never liked the "coexist" thing. I often hear people of that mindset say things like "it's the 21st century, they have to learn to set aside superstitions and get along." That's the most obtuse and/or condescending sort of statement about religious people I can think of, as it reflects a profound lack of respect lying just below a veneer of understanding and tolerance. Not suggesting that people cannot simply live among one another -- at least where the religions aren't diametrically opposed or do not heavily compete for resources as a group. Clearly people of many faiths can and do live side by side, have friendships, work as colleagues, support the same political parties, etc. But it doesn't always work.

I'm not sure about a religious person being better at comparative theology than a nonbeliever, in part because I think that such a person, while understanding faith, would have the same depths of disdain for other belief systems that the nonbeliever has for all religions -- that is, an abiding belief that those faiths are false.
In my experience that is not always true, at least not of religious people of an intellectual bent. Especially if they find themselves on the same political side as is often the case.

But the understanding I think is emotional. When all your Welshmen are down in Rorke's Drift singing Men of Harlech you can sort of understand why the Zulus want to sing whatever it is they were singing.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012, 11:36 PM   #14
lexington
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ULFGARD View Post
I'm not sure about a religious person being better at comparative theology than a nonbeliever, in part because I think that such a person, while understanding faith, would have the same depths of disdain for other belief systems that the nonbeliever has for all religions -- that is, an abiding belief that those faiths are false.
Believing that something is wrong does not require disdain. For example: I think Jung's psychology is completely absurd but I love the beauty of the metaphysics he build to support it.
lexington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2012, 11:54 PM   #15
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexington View Post
Believing that something is wrong does not require disdain. For example: I think Jung's psychology is completely absurd but I love the beauty of the metaphysics he build to support it.
I long thought that Jung sounded more like a mythmaker then a scientist and he should have written his own version of Joseph Campbell rather then try to build a psychological theory. Or better yet a psychological allegory rather then a psychological theory(actually that is what it seems to be but it would be nice to say it) Archetypes and all that are great and even illuminating to the study of the human mind perhaps, but calling them science really doesn't fly.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 01:39 AM   #16
Irenaeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
Really? My pet peeve is that the process often tends to be mishandled by people who laudibly eager to bring about coexistence, but flout the law of non-contradiction in doing so and are unwilling to see that if their means of bringing about said coexistence succeeds they will not have reconciled religions but just created a new one. And that the best "coexistence" is just living with each other.
Is this a complaint based on your perception of the academic field of comparative religions, or just on people you know with a general interest in the field? I just don't recognize this non-contradiction/coexistence agenda within the field at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kromm View Post
The issue has little to do with coexistence and much to do with depth vs. breadth. Given finite time to study, if you look at N faiths equally, you will go 1/N as deep into any one of them as somebody who devotes the same time to just one faith. Granted, there will be similarities and duplicated theory, so perhaps you'll attain 2/N or 3/N, but as N >> 2-3, you're still going to be a novice next to a single-faith expert.

And the fact that single-faith experts tend to belong to said faith is self-evident. The faithful have the greatest investment in understanding.
Most published academics in the field will either either be empirical types, working with a single religion, or theoretical framework-types. The first would probably have a lower skill in Theology (Comparative), and a much higher skill in their particular specialization. The theoretical types should not have much in ther specializations, but a higher Theology (Comparative), and possibly a little in Anthropology, Psychology or Philosophy, depending on their particular religious bent.

Actual single-specialization theologians will often be even more lacking in analytical framework than a single-specialty secular academic. It's like how a native speaker of a language will often lack a linguistic knowledge of how their languange actually works.
Irenaeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 02:05 AM   #17
Phil Masters
 
Phil Masters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: U.K.
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenaeus View Post
Most published academics in the field will either either be empirical types, working with a single religion, or theoretical framework-types. The first would probably have a lower skill in Theology (Comparative), and a much higher skill in their particular specialization. The theoretical types should not have much in ther specializations, but a higher Theology (Comparative), and possibly a little in Anthropology, Psychology or Philosophy, depending on their particular religious bent.
Of course, one could always take Theology with its required specialisation put into "Comparative" and an optional specialisation in religion Foo. That is to say, you could be a comparative theologian who happens to have paid particular attention to the relationship between Foo-ism and other faiths.

Yes, it'll look hideous on the character sheet and need some explaining. But it's rules-legal and makes some sense.

Hmm. Theology gets an IQ-6 default. Makes sense, it that someone like, say, me has picked up a bit about various religions from school, casual reading, talking to believers, and so on. But I know nothing, zilch, zero, about the beliefs of random tribe X in Papua New Guinea (I might be able to extrapolate a bit about what they might believe from knowledge of religion in general, but I don't know the names of their gods) - and if devout space aliens landed on Earth tomorrow, there's no way that anyone on Earth could know anything about their beliefs.

So that default should logically be subject to the "if it's plausible that you could have heard about this stuff" rule that applies to, say, Area Knowledge. However, one of the benefits of Theology (Comparative) would, I think, be that you'd have a much better excuse for knowing a bit about the beliefs of obscure tribes and peoples, so its -5 defaults would apply significantly more broadly than the normal IQ-6 default.
__________________
--
Phil Masters
My Home Page.
My Self-Publications: On Warehouse 23 and On DriveThruRPG.
Phil Masters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 02:39 AM   #18
Irenaeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

For Kromms x/N model, the difference between a Theologian and a student of comparative religions is one of methodical approach, but not neccesarily one of focus or lack of focus. You need to learn enough to have a basis for comparison, not become a jack-of-all-trades.

My own issue with believing theologians is that they are often too eager to reconcile the material with itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Masters View Post
Of course, one could always take Theology with its required specialisation put into "Comparative" and an optional specialisation in religion Foo. That is to say, you could be a comparative theologian who happens to have paid particular attention to the relationship between Foo-ism and other faiths.

Yes, it'll look hideous on the character sheet and need some explaining. But it's rules-legal and makes some sense.
Yup, that's what I'd do. It's also the most common type of secular comparative religious study. People devoted purely to the study of models of religions is much rarer, and most researchers rarely have more than one or two specialities.

If I did my own character sheet, I'd have to have a much higher Theology (3rd century Christianity) than Theology (Comparative), but the second one completely dictates my approach to the first one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Masters View Post
and if devout space aliens landed on Earth tomorrow, there's no way that anyone on Earth could know anything about their beliefs.
Unless the old timers were right and there is some Eliade-esque truly universal phenomenological model of religion :P

In that case, we could extrapolate quite a bit.
Irenaeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 03:48 PM   #19
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lexington View Post
Believing that something is wrong does not require disdain. For example: I think Jung's psychology is completely absurd but I love the beauty of the metaphysics he build to support it.
Who started a systematic genocide or war based on Jung? Who loudly proclaims all non-Jung believers to deserve eternal torture? Who says that only Jung believers understand morality and can be truly good people?

I have a right to despise religion as mankind's greatest flaw. I know and love religious people, but only when they don't really follow the hateful edicts of their religions, but instead pick and choose only the nice parts.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check.
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2012, 03:54 PM   #20
Flyndaran
Untagged
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Forest Grove, Beaverton, Oregon
Default Re: Theology Specialization: Comparative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenaeus View Post
...Unless the old timers were right and there is some Eliade-esque truly universal phenomenological model of religion :P

In that case, we could extrapolate quite a bit.
Religion is so nigh universal it had to have some useful reason for evolving. I think it evolved to make groups of people more cohesive and less likely to scatter as small fragile family units when times got tough. As well as more likely to obey rules they don't understand but need to be followed.

So alien religions are likely to have at least a few similarites with humanity's. Pro-society laws like don't kill, steal, lie, mess with important social contracts. In humans this part is all about sex and marriage. In aliens it could be whatever takes its place as a mover and shaker of culture.
__________________
Beware, poor communication skills. No offense intended. If offended, it just means that I failed my writing skill check.
Flyndaran is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
skills

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.