Disciplinary Perspectives on New Religious Movements: Views from the Humanities and Social Sciences

Bromley, David G.; Saliba, John A.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195177299.003.0003

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…New religious movements often come under scrutiny because of these concerns. It is claimed that these movements appeal to, or seek out, those who are vulnerable, alienated and psychologically unhealthy 116 and that their methods of recruitment are deceptive. 117 They are accused of 'brainwashing', a term used by way of analogy with the Chinese Communist programme of 'thought reform' used on prisoners of the Korean War.…”

Section: Manipulative Proselytismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Autonomy Rationale for Religious Freedom

Ahmed

2017

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Courts and scholars across jurisdictions increasingly identify personal autonomy as the primary rationale for the right to religious freedom. But there are tensions between autonomy on one hand, and religious belief, practice and proselytism on the other. This paper will focus on two tensions which have unappreciated implications for religious freedom jurisprudence, particularly that of the ECHR. The first tension stems from the resistance of some religious beliefs to revision. The second stems from the manipulative nature of some modes of religious proselytism. This paper argues that, given these tensions, the protection currently offered to religious beliefs, practices and proselytism by the right to religious freedom cannot be justified by reference to the value of autonomy. This finding has significant implications for the justification of the right to religious freedom.

show abstract

Section: Manipulative Proselytismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Autonomy Rationale for Religious Freedom

Ahmed

2017

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Driving the more inclusive narrative is a profound concern with religion’s role in promoting social cohesion and coordinating group behaviours. Among social scientists, religion has for many years been deemed ‘a force of integration, a unifying bond contributing to social stability and control’ (Saliba, 1995, p. 119). Religion is usually perceived as a solution to the problem of how human societies managed to balance the undisputed benefits of living in large groups with the equally well-known difficulties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional bonds: Bridging the gap between evolutionary and humanistic accounts of religious belief

Turner

2020

Archive for the Psychology of Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have seen a growing willingness in the evolutionary cognitive science of religion (ECSR) to embrace an inclusive, theoretically pluralistic approach and the emergence of a broad consensus around some key themes that collectively constitute a central theoretical core of the field. Nevertheless, ECSR still raises serious problems for some in the humanities. In exploring the reasons for the perception of conflict between humanistic and cognitive evolutionary approaches to religion, I suggest that both ECSR’s default account of the origins of religion and religion’s role in social bonding rely upon notions of culturally unmediated universal cognitive mechanisms that preclude alternative humanistic explanations. I subsequently suggest that the gap between humanistic approaches and the evolutionary study of religion more broadly conceived may be narrowed by further expanding ECSR to include recent research into the brain opioid theory of social attachment (BOTSA), which emphasises the emotional rather than cognitive basis of religion’s social bonding functions. Finally, I outline a possible evolutionary account of the earliest forms of religious ideas and practices, which decouples the origins of religion from the evolution of specialised cognitive machinery and which humanists are likely to find more amenable than mainstream ECSR.

show abstract

“…The field, after strong critique of this position, then transitioned. Rather than positioning these marginal religions outside the norm of the discipline, scholars began examining these groups as religious expressions whose marginal status has less to do with an abnormality on the part of the practitioner and more to do with deviation from ‘the faith practiced within the larger religious bodies of their host culture’ (Saliba , p. 32. See also Bromley ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Appalachian ‘Other’: Academic Approaches to the Study of Serpent‐handling Sects

Gray-Hildenbrand

2016

Religion Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serpent-handling sects are often portrayed in the media as bizarre Southern cults whose members engage in dangerous primitive rituals. The fact that a religious ritual identified as existing outside the normative boundaries of Christianity, and perhaps religion in general, defines this Christian tradition marks serpenthandling sects as abnormal or 'other'. Consequently, scholars investigating why these Christians handle poisonous snakes during religious services must address the boundary between 'abnormal' and 'normal' religion, the 'norm' and the 'other'. This essay surveys the multi-disciplinary literature on serpenthandling sects with a particular eye toward the ways scholars both negotiate and perpetuate this boundary.

show abstract

Disciplinary Perspectives on New Religious Movements: Views from the Humanities and Social Sciences

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

The Autonomy Rationale for Religious Freedom

The Autonomy Rationale for Religious Freedom

Emotional bonds: Bridging the gap between evolutionary and humanistic accounts of religious belief

The Appalachian ‘Other’: Academic Approaches to the Study of Serpent‐handling Sects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About