The discovery of new knowledge and expansion of the existing body of knowledge is believed to involve robust activities and arguments, some of which are in consensus while others in disagreement. Many distinctive academic, political, philosophical, religious, and even social doctrines advance arguments and opinions some of which contradict or even have a consensus between or among the disciplines. Having that understanding, therefore, this essay seeks to outline some of the ways in history and religion relate. To achieve this objective, an elaborative discussion of how the two fields differ shall be presented, as well as some of the areas in which a consensus between the two is identifiable.
By definition, history refers to the knowledge about past events, mostly about human beings and their affairs. It involves doing research and analyzing past events to understand human nature, past sequence of events and with objectivity determine the cause and effect of those events. On the other hand, religion refers to the belief, practices, behavior, or views that relate or lead humanity to the supernatural (“History and Religion,” n.d.). With the two disciplines seeming to have a basis for supporting their perspectives about life, order of events, and the natural order of things, it is imperative to note that the two fields have distinctive features.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Ideological Comparison between History and Religion".
Firstly, the knowledge of history attaches much importance to the actual, historical origin and genesis of life, especially that of the human race. According to historians, humanity traces its origin from apes, which through evolution over a long period have transformed to the current human race (Harari, 2015). On the other hand, religion asserts that it is who God created human beings and all that rests on the earth. Further, on the aspect of life, religion argues that God created it and that by his word all living things came into being. To the contrary, historians rely on some theoretical explanation that life was as a result of a combination of some chemical elements.
The second difference between history and religion is that, in the latter, much knowledge is based on beliefs and faith which dismisses the opportunity to question its matters rationally (“History and Religion,” n.d.). For instance, on the issue of how the world, the universe, and its components came to be, religion, through belief and faith asserts that it is God who created them. Considering this argument, it is clear that religion does not tangibly support the assertion but instead relies on the faith and belief of its followers. On the other hand, history has some theoretical basis as to how the earth, universe, and their components came to be. On this account, therefore, religion and history are presented to have disagreeing perspective.
Another key differentiating aspect of religion and history is the source of information from which each discipline is based on. For religion, much of its information is derived from holy scriptures such as the Bible and Quran. The information contained in these books assert that the natural order of things and events has a direct correlation with the will of the supernatural (“History and Religion,” n.d.). History, on the other hand, disagrees with this observation. On its view, the sources of information where its arguments are based are real and have tangible evidence. Moreover, unlike religion whose central authority is pegged on one supernatural who controls the information, the creator, the information in history is a body of knowledge built by many individuals. To this end, therefore, the sources of information from whom each discipline gathers information remains a distinctive difference between the two faculties.
History and religion have another disagreement on the aspect acceptability and view in the eyes of people either as a group or as individuals. Here, arguments are made that history is more accepted due the peer review aspect, unlike religion where different groups and individuals have varying views on a particular issue, belief or cultural practice (“History and Religion,” n.d.). For instance, on the issue of worship, different religious factions have different ways of carrying out his duty. Some do so to idols like trees, stones, mountains, rivers or even sculptures, which according to them are their gods. Other categories like the pagans do not even acknowledge the presence of the God. History on its part has some common ground in as far as some matters of understanding and acceptability among people is concerned. This is made possible by the fact that scholars and academicians have been able to employ scientific approaches, which are evidence-based and provable in arguing their case. This knowledge is shared among people through education, an idea which has made much of the historical knowledge be commonly agreed upon by people regardless of their religion (“History and Religion,” n.d.). Therefore, the varying levels of acceptability of the knowledge and teachings of either religion or history pose a difference between the two.
Lastly, religion and history disagree in the sense that religion is relatively rigid to change than history. When talking about rigidity to change it means that over time, some beliefs and other practices defining someone’s spiritual life may remain unchanged. The reason behind this stiffness mostly is because the source of information upon which the faith, beliefs and the practices are based is not subject to criticism or change, especially from its faithful. For example, the Christian or Muslim fraternities believe that the bible or the Quran have the ultimate authority about what is rightful for them to practice or believe in and what is not rightful (“History and Religion,” n.d.).
Clinging to this fact, it, therefore, implies that the information from the holy books shall remain unchanged despite differing ideas about them. For history, the information contained in the source documents is subject to change since it is mostly about people’s thoughts. As new knowledge which overrides the existing knowledge is found, it follows that the old knowledge is discarded and the new one accommodated. For example, over a long period after the discovery of the solar system, history had it that the system contained nine planets, Pluto included. Many years later after this information had been documented as part of history, it was found that the earlier understanding that Pluto was a planet in the solar system was false. Following this new discovered, the earlier knowledge was discarded and a new common understanding adopted. Therefore, the flexibility of each doctrine to accommodate new information or discard outdated information sets a point of disagreement between history and religion.
The information contained in religion and history has many different aspects; however, the few similarities that exist between the two disciplines cannot be overlooked. One similarity is that both fields have a never-ending search for new and even greater knowledge (Otto & B.-C, 2015). Many religious fragments emphasize that scholars must seek wisdom, a better understanding of themselves, the earth, and the universe to better familiarize with the spirit and the creator. Similarly, history emphasizes that new information remains out of reach by human beings. In this regard, more research to identify this knowledge must be done. Furthermore, a more in-depth study is required to seal gaps that exist in the available knowledge. This is aimed at bringing people to a close understanding of nature and the reality.
Another similarity touches on the idea that both fields are mutually exclusive. Contrary to the common belief that history solely deals with the material world and that religion is entirely dependent on the supernatural, a new understanding exists that both fields have some overlapping aspects (Otto & B.-C, 2015). For instance, in the early days of religion, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and other denominations had some practices which are regarded as the basis of religion today. Slaughtering of animals as a way of worship formed the basis of today’s sacrificial practices. The mere slaughtering of the animals represents an aspect of history since it is more material than spiritual. Also, some knowledge of history has an invisible element in them which is only described as supernatural and religious (Otto & B.-C, 2015). For example, the historical understanding of gravitational force by Newton had some invisible aspect of it. Here, Newton lacked the material explanation as to why the force existed and why in some places the same force was different. As such, history and religion share similar knowledge in this sense.
Another point of consensus between history and religion is that both disciplines utilize analogies to explain the various complex systems existing in them (Otto & B.-C, 2015). For instance, in history, various models are used to explain the various phenomenon existing in the field. With the model acting as a representation of a complex system, historians have been able to utilize this approach to explain the various phenomenon advanced therein. For example, the historical phenomenon of evolution/natural selection developed by Charles Darwin utilizes various models, some scientific to put its facts forward. Some of these models include the biological as well as the physical characteristics of the organisms. Similarly, in religion, spiritual doctrines, as well as myths, are used to explain complicated abstract concepts. For example, in trying to comprehend why human beings work, experience pain while giving birth to the case of women, various spiritual myths such as the biblical creation story and the fall of man are utilized (Otto & B.-C, 2015). Therefore, the application of analogies by both disciplines in explaining complicated issues is a point of consensus between religion and history.
History and religion also express consensus about the restrictions and limitations existing in each field in as far as an explanation of the various phenomenon is concerned (Otto & B.-C, 2015). For example, taking the case of the historical theory that explains the origin of the earth, the universe, and the solar system it is clear that the theory has some time-bound in which such processes that led to the formation of these bodies are believed to have occurred. Moreover, the analogy is surrounded by assumptions which show limitations of how the processes are believed to have occurred. Similarly, the religious myths that explain salvation and the reason why Jesus died for man has restrictions. It is believed that Jesus died to save humankind. His death is argued to have been the price that was to be paid for the forgiveness of sin of humanity. With this being the argument, it is clear that salvation would only come on conditions that sin was there and Jesus had to die for the same. Acknowledging this fact, therefore, it shows that religion and history convey some consensus on this matter.
Lastly, history and religion are known to be similar in the sense that each claims to have the truth about how things are (Otto & B.-C, 2015). History derives this authority from its sources such as books and other scientific materialism. Similarly, religions through their teachings claim to have the truth about the universe and what is contained in it. The assertion claiming superiority by each discipline, therefore, shows that the two fields are similar.
