Just a Bunch of Bull and Bias

In my religious studies course Prof. Smith argued that religion and beliefs help to create a story that may sometimes be advantageous for one society and culture. I agree with this notion a hundred percent. Keeping this reasoning in mind while I read “Indian Mounds of Wisconsin” , I noticed that some scholars may propose certain theories that are advantageous for his own society and culture rather than that of the actual society one is studying. The theory by James Scherz, a professor of civil engineering, was the one that stood out to me as the most bias and repulsive.

                James Scherz, as noted in Indian Mounds of Wisconsin, brought together his interest in ancient engineering principles and his belief in pre-Columbian contacts between peoples of the Old and New World. This theory and house of thought is meant to shed more light on “sacred” geometric patterns and help to preserve mounds. Using his theory he has come to the conclusion that Old World societies must have come into contact with New world societies because the geometric patterns used in effigy mounds were to challenging for Ancient Native civilizations to even fathom. Schertz hypothesizes that either Hindu scholars or free masons made contact with these Ancient Natives about two thousand years before the actual arrival of Old World society. I believe that Schertz is arguing that Natives were not capable of building these effigy mounds. He then says that Old World societies are responsible for the engineering of the time. His bias seems to be against the Natives who must have been toooo unintelligent to conceive such mounds. I believe that Schertz used this theory to help his society of choice seem more advantageous than that of the Native societies that once roamed this land. Am I wrong in questioning this theory? 

WHAT THE EFFIGY!!!

Historians and archeologist have worked endlessly in the pursuit of understanding and explaining effigy earth mounds in the North American region of the western hemisphere. In trying to understand these mounds it has came to scholarly importance that these earthen mounds have a correlation to the Native Indians who were here before Europeans colonized the New World. These mounds have overtime become of great intrigue to scholars in the field of Native American studies due to their ability to interpret previous civilizations that roamed this magnificent world. Many of these mounds have been destroyed beginning with the emergence of an American society. Social development and the increasing numbers in population led to supplementary agricultural areas and urban development. This as well as ordinary people have unintentionally destroyed many of these mounds. In order to preserve the mounds that are still throughout, congress passed the burial sites preservation law of 1985.

Scholars now more intrigued by the notion of old civilizations have tried to recount historical Native tribes, their traditions, and practices by examining the remains in the effigy mounds.  Clifford Geertz, a symbolic archeologist uses his theory of a “system of symbols” in defining religion. Geertz argues and defines his system of symbols as stated, “A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”  Using the concept described above one can study the effigy mounds and their contents in terms of symbols and how these symbols could relate to the existence of earlier societies. This concept works great in trying to figure out some sort of aspect of their society, however it should not be used a theory or hypothesis in trying to figure out the religion of these past regions and civilizations.

In the process of excavating certain mounds scholars and archeologist have found many different artifacts. These artifacts help in understanding previous civilizations by means of symbols that appear more often than not. These symbols help us to understand the cosmology of these civilizations and in doing so help scholars in translating ancient traditions and social structures. These symbols help scholars deciphers old world beliefs, which only reinforce our understanding of these civilizations further. Effigy mounds have been considered burial grounds for old world populations which shed light on beliefs held by these people. Although scholars have used these symbols to help perpetuate the beliefs that have already been held in depicting Old World cultures one should not speculate on only theoretical assumption what old world civilization life was like. Yes speculation happens in scholarly fields, however should these beliefs that are now held by scholars not be scrutinized more heavily due to the lack of source material we have on that era?

Scientology: Just a Big Bluff

After writing my first blog on whether or not religion should be ditched I came across the video of Tom Cruise talking about scientology. While I was watching the video I realized that he never described what scientology was. After doing a little bit of research I came to the conclusion that Scientology as a religion suggests that humans in nature are perpetual in being. It suggests that humans have lost contact with nature and their true self. In trying to find one’s self it believes that one should turn to spiritual rehabilitation or in other words, auditing, which tries to find certain aspects of a followers previous accounts in life and finds the moments that have traumatized that person. In doing so the believer can be set free from his/her restraints on life. I mean there’s probably more but I really can’t stand to read any more on it. Putting both what I found out about scientology and watching the Tom Cruise video clip I came to the conclusion that scientologist have ditched religion, by religion I mean the pure form of believing in a god or deity and the duties he has bestowed upon mankind. Yes they have turned to a set of beliefs that help the believers understand their life and purpose on this earth more effectively but it has no major backing of what I would like to think of as original religions. Scientology is merely a cover up religion that is really the study of science in form of psychology to treat its patients or in this case follower. So simply put scientology as a religion has actually ditched religion and its farfetched beliefs for a concrete science. 

Religious Dictation

In the article “Why Do We Believe” the theoretical problem and question that arises throughout is whether or not science and religion can play hand in hand with each other. In the CNN clip featuring Sam Harris the main argument being made is to have secularism play a more dominant role in society. These arguments both play a task in realizing whether religion as sets of beliefs and moral codes should be ditched when presented next to problems that exist in a reality that is far from these once held customs. When it comes to religion and science it seems that one cannot survive without the other. The creation of the world has been “approved” by both parties. One suggests Adam and Eve while the other suggests evolutionary components. I cannot consider myself an atheist but consider it farfetched to believe in Adam and Eve as the original inhabitants of the planet. I do believe that evolution has played an integral role in the shaping of our world and human beings. However, this does not mean that I would ditch the very beliefs and morals that were instilled in me with the justification that they were handed down from a divine being. These beliefs are not just beliefs rather they become culture and tradition through the cementing of ideas through time. 

        When dealing with Harris’s argument, yes, I believe that secularism should be adopted or at least practiced in governments. This is how our government should work but I believe that our politicians aren’t trying to keep secularism out of politics rather its media and social popularity of religion that drives many of our politicians to fall back on their religion, which as I mentioned before can be seen more as a culture and tradition than a religion today. I believe that religion should be a school of thought and not a way of life. It should be studied and broken down but it should not dictate the life of any one human being.