Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mises]

...in common?

[Kuros]

I gotta say, mises, there's a kind of victim mentality that reminds me of the GOP right now embedded in some of these articles.

[mises]

Dunno.

I find the inability of "activists" posing at professors in humanities departments to behave critically and in an adult manner with muslims/islam to be a strong sign that they're neither brave or committed to any ideal. And they shape the political culture, policy and the society.

The "chaplain" (imam) himself. He's just being honest. This is what muslims believe all over the world.

[On the other hand]

[mises]

Harvard doesn't offer a single accounting class but you can do a PhD in "comparative religions". This "moderate muslim leader" states his specialization as:

[BS.Dos.]

Sort your avatar out mises ffs.

Dazzle us.

[Manner of Speaking]

[mises]

But not a single undergraduate accounting class.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510757

Not that it really matters. But to be specific, you can study comparative intolerant imaginary friends but not the most fundamental skill needed for the solvent functioning of a business.

[Kuros]

[On the other hand]

As someone who doesn't believe in any of the religions discussed in a typical Comparative Religion department, I don't have any problem with the existence of such a department. If anything, I think the people most offended by such a curriculum would not be the skeptics, but the devout. Because those curriculums treat all religions as objects of scientific inquiry, as opposed to objects of faith.

[mises]

[On the other hand]

[aquaponics08]

[Manner of Speaking]

Well, there are a couple of things going on here.

In the sciences, it makes sense from the point of view of building knowledge to compare results, theories, and methodologies to determine which ideas and which theories are "best", in the sense of their explanatory power. Competing theories can be measured, and ones which are of marginal utility can be discarded.

Academic research in the arts and humanities, however, carries with it a certain dilemma. In art, for example, theories like minimalism and postmodernism can be compared in order to show the similarities and contrasts between each school of thought, and comparisons can help to reach a deeper understanding of a particular theory. But when it comes to comparative religion, researchers - at least none that I know of - don't compare religions in order to determine which one is "best". They compare aspects of different religions on an academic level in order to better understand each religion, and in order to get a better understanding of religion itself and the commonalities to all religions.

It's pretty obvious that if, in an academic setting, comparing Catholic Theology to Evolutionary Theory, which theory has the most explanatory power when it comes to the natural world, and very quickly we would come to a conclusion as to which theory is "best". But we don't do that, at least not in an academic setting. And by the same token, academicians don't compare, say, Islam and Native American religions in order to determine which one is "best". That's not the purpose of the exercise at all. The purpose of the exercise is to understand (both) religions better...and sometimes this happens regardless of the personal religious beliefs of the researcher.

Hannah Arendt probably had an incredibly deep understanding of how antisemitism fit in with the Nazi worldview, and could probably explain the interrelationships between the two to the average student, even if on a personal level, she had no use for either. When I first learned about Islam, the first thing that struck me about it was how perfectly it fit the lifestyle of a desert nomadic people...how incredibly "portable" a religion it was. Just submit to God, pray five times a day, visit Mecca once, etc...no need for priests, temples, statues, all that physical infrastructure. I admired that aspect of Islam even though I, as an atheist, have no use for the religion itself.

[mises]