Talk:History of religion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Masonleighlaw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

What is usually now called "History of Religion" in English (German: Religionsgeschichte) is a recognised academic discipline with university departments devoted to it, and is quite distinct from "Religious Studies" (Religionswissenschaft). In my opinion, therefore, it should certainly have a separate article. The present article "History of religions", moreover, would in my view serve better under the German title of the (German) movement, by which it is generally known even in English-language scholarship. User:Shulgi December 14, 2006, 17:00.

I agree with this, having arrived here after being redirected from History of religion --Astrokey44 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Religionswissenschaft is normally translated as "The History of Religion" (for example, The IAHR, the Internation Association for the History of Religions's affiliate in Germany is the Deutsche Vereinigung für Religionswissenschaft, http://www.iahr.dk/associations.htm#de, but yes the intellectual strand that runs from Max Muller, to Joachim Wach, to Mircea Eliade, and through him to such scholars as Joseph Kitagawa, Ioan P. Culianu, Jonathan Z. Smith, Wendy Doeniger, and Bruce Lincoln should be represented in an article. It is a specific discipline with in the larger category of Religious Studies, which also include Anthropology/Sociology of Religion, the still-born Psychology of Religion (may God look after the soul of William James!), and depending on where you cut it, things like Theology and Church history (Harvard, for example, has a separate Divinity School and Department of Religion, whereas the University of Chicago combines them). The specific discipline of the History of Religions (the plural on religions is pretty standard I think, though it certainly wasn't always) has its roots in both early attempts at "comparative religion" and earlier than that in so-called "Missionswissenschaft" (the Missionary Science). Anyway, it certainly deserves its own article (which it once had). The difference between the History of Religions and Religious Studies can be seen from the fact that, in America at least, there are two separate (but overlapping) professional associations: The North American Association for the Study of Religion http://www.as.ua.edu/naasr/ and the American Academy of Religion http://www.aarweb.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.122.162 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For a history article, their sure isn't much of it here!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 02:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no history in this article. Headlessrider (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC) I would suggest incorporating a structure similar to the Timeline of religion

format

The current article is the result of a merger of two articles. However, it seems there are numerous problems with the merger. Firstly two leads follow each other. The topic is introduced twice. Secondly, there are 'see also' lists in the middle of the article when they should be at the bottom per WP:layout.Kobolola (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree. This is very confusing KalevTait (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

POV article

A lot of this article seems to be POV Faro0485 (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And this "(There are now claims "that religion evolved from polytheism to monotheism has now been discredited" p. 1763 Man, Myth & Magic 1995)" doesn't seem to be in the right place. Faro0485 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no rationale here for the NPOV tag. If nothing is forwarded it should be removed. Fig (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

history of religion

The history of religion refers to the written record of human religious experiences and ideas. This period of religious history typically begins with the invention of writing about 5,000 years ago (3,000 BCE) in the Near East. The prehistory of religion relates to the study of religious beliefs that existed prior to the advent of written records. The timeline of religion is a comparative chronology of religion.

OVERVIEW

The nineteenth century saw a dramatic increase in knowledge about other cultures and religions, and also the establishment of economic and social histories of progress. The "history of religions" school sought to account for this religious diversity by connecting it with the social and economic situation of a particular group.

Typically religions are divided into stages of progression from simple to complex societies, especially from polytheistic to monotheistic and from extempore to organised. (There are now claims "that religion evolved from polytheism to monotheism has now been discredited" p. 1763 Man, Myth & Magic 1995)

Thus, the starting point is the tribal band whose religion is animistic and involves shamans and totems. Since the group is tribal, there is no permanent sanctuary. Cultic rites centre on identification with wild animals and appeasing spirits, often of the hunted.

Nevertheless, it is still widely held that ethical monotheism (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism) was encouraged by the growth of city states. This was partly due to the role of a hierarchical society with a god-like absolute ruler. A more powerful social force was the isolation of the individual as he moved from the clan to a more cosmopolitan lifestyle. Questions of justice and value that had been previously answered by the family and small tribe were now to be pursued independently. The relative anonymity of the city afforded the opportunity for not only "sin" but also loneliness. Ethical monotheism answered society's need for a moral guide and motivation, whilst a unique personal God who was sovereign over all areas of life answered people's feelings of isolation and powerlessness. ’

Good examples of this are the prophetic literature of the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament), especially Isaiah, and the wisdom literature of the ancient near east dealing with apparently unjustified suffering. This includes Job, in the Judaeo-Christian Bible, and "The Dialogue of Pessimism", a Babylonian text.

ORIGIN      

The earliest evidence of religious ideas dates back several hundred thousand years to the Middle and Lower Paleolithic periods. Archeologists refer to apparent intentional burials of early homo sapiens from as early as 300,000 years ago as evidence of religious ideas. Other evidence of religious ideas include symbolic artifacts from Middle Stone Age sites in Africa. However, the interpretation of early paleolithic artifacts, with regards to how they relate to religious ideas, remains controversial. Archeological evidence from more recent periods is less controversial. A number of artifacts from the Upper Paleolithic (50,000-13,000) are generally interpreted by scientists as representing religious ideas. Examples of Upper Paleolithic remains associated with religious beliefs include the lion man, the Venus figurines, cave paintings from Chauvet Cave and the elaborate ritual burial from Sungir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.197.33 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind of weak

is it because there were too many Edit wars that this page was left with very little information? ceezmad I could not sign the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceezmad (talk • contribs) 16:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edits for pov

i made some minor changes to the overview and Origins sections due to poor grammar (misuse of articles) and strong editorializing POV. For example, there is no reason to call circumcising religions "primitive" and non-circumcising religions "advanced", without evidence to back your claim. In point of fact circumcising religions, like Judaism and some forms of Islam, tend to be more recent than non-circumcising religions like Buddhism. If one believes that circumcision is barbaric, that is of course a legitimate point of view. It is nevertheless a point of view and is uneccessary here.

In a similar vein I changed the sentence under "Origins" which made the claim that "the study of religions is important because of the religious wars and conflicts caused by intolerant monotheistic religions.". This is obvious editorializing, and inappropriate. The study of religion is important because religion has been a major force in human life throughout history, in the formation and preservation of culture, the formation of law and moral codes, the organization of highly structured societies, the fostering or art, music, and science, and, not least, in the exploration and evolution of human spirituality.

To limit the significance of religion to the wars that it has created is small-minded. To claim that these wars stem solely from the "intolerant monotheistic religions" is nothing short of bigotry.

This is also why I changed the descriptions of "proselytizing religions" and "the more peaceful, tolerant, non-proselytizing religions" to something less clearly biased and more in keeping with encyclopediec standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vickithesmith (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Trying again

I am re-instating my edits. I apologize if anyone was offended by my changes, but I stand by my assertion. To say that the *only* reason to study religion is to gain insight into conflicts caused by "primitive intolerant monotheistic religions" is shallow and strongly POV. It is also POV to call circumcising religions "primitive."

If you are going to revert my changes, please explain why. I am perfectly willing to reconsider or withdraw my edits if they are inaccurate or inappropriate, but I would appreciate an explanation why they are so.

66.25.9.19 (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're User:Vickithesmith. Your edit looks perfectly sensible and shouldn't have been reverted. The "History of study" section is embarassingly poor - if you know more about it, do expand it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Better map needed

I've made a request at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Map_for_history_.28spread.29_of_religion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of religions

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of religions's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Smithsonian":

• From Göbekli Tepe: Curry, Andrew (November 2008). "Göbekli Tepe: The World's First Temple?". Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
• From Americas: Fitzhugh, Drs. William; Goddard, Ives; Ousley, Steve; Owsley, Doug; Stanford, Dennis. "Paleoamerican". Smithsonian Institution Anthropology Outreach Office. Archived from the original on January 5, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasuよ! 18:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

---

History of religions → History of religion – Per WP:SINGULAR, the singular form should be used in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support the article itself uses the singular in the intro. Vpab15 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re: Recent edits around the Bible

@183.83.141.79: I am afraid that I cannot see any reference in the Britannica article you link to any part of it being written ca. 1500-1200. The "Surviving early copies of religious texts" list is for manuscripts (i.e. physical copies). As such dates for the original text's authorship (such as the 700s date for the Book of Horsea) do not belong there. Your edit for the Song of Deborah lacks citations. (cc: Joshua Jonathan). ~ El D. (talk to me) 19:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Check the math

5200 years ago would be 3000 BC not 3200 2601:940:C000:EA0:B100:CA7C:B909:6DE8 (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Origins of religion

Origins of religion explain with Tagalog topic of origins of religion 103.62.153.108 (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)