The historical-religious narrative between science and theology

A distinction has always been made between the history of religions as a branch of the science of history and its relation to the science of religions, and the religious historical narrative as a domain of theology and mythology mentioned in the scriptures of religions and is preserved with the preservation of their books. The first is an advanced and fluctuating science, dependent on archaeological discoveries of all kinds. As for the second, it is constant and is not subject to revision and amendment, after it has also become, in the science of religion, one of the human sciences since the second half of the 19th century, as is the case of sociology and others, which in turn studies religions in a systematic scientific study as a neutral and impartial science. However, intentional confusion at times and unintended at other times still exists, and attempts to normalize the religious-historical narrative with the reality of archeology and the general history of religions are vigorous, to test the credibility of these religions. and thus increase confidence in what the group that believes in them has believed, or to prove events and existence. They actually group into kingdoms at specific times on the ground. However, the great paradox between the history of religions and the religious historical narrative makes impossible the possibility of achieving it so far, to reach the conclusion that the attempt to normalize religious historical narratives and their myths with the reality of archeology not only will it reduce the credibility of what is expressed in them and thus deceive the believers of the idea until they prove otherwise. .

The reality of living groups today is not free from attempts to exploit myths and historical religious narratives to prove their historical presence in certain areas, such as the case of the Israeli occupation state and its tireless work in this regard, but rather its dependence of races related to the determinants of religious narratives that prove their real historical presence in a specific geography of the region, to become this Ethnic groups are more like “facts”, and become historical facts by virtue of the historical process such as Semitism and hostility towards them, hitting science in general and archeology in particular against the wall, which has not yet been able to prove their existence. (And it should be noted that insistence on the idea “so far”, our faith in science, whatever the subsequent results). A matter that reached the point that a head of state like Emmanuel Macron used the parts of this religious historical narrative, in a speech he delivered before the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) on February 20, 2019, when he linked the naivety between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. In another speech he gave, he addressed the French community in Jerusalem in 2020, comforting them that the anti-Semitism suffered by Jews in France is also present in Palestine! A statement stemming from the ignorance or willful omission that the Biblical historical account, despite its complete lack of clarity and contradiction regarding the lineage of the Semitic race, may simply include the Palestinian as well! (Genesis 9-10)
The gravity of the event can only be understood after analyzing how to respond and how to deal with religious narratives like these, since some of them use other religious narratives that refute them, deny their existence or do not recognize them, instead of returning them to their place. original and legitimate, like a religious novel that has nothing to do with science, and therefore don’t Discuss them as facts and focus on science instead. Ftlaiha won’t help anything. They are religious historical narratives found in that holy book, as there are other similar narratives in the rest of the holy books to which the judgment itself is subject. Therefore, it must be framed within the template of the religious historical narrative until it becomes a reality based on archaeological scientific evidence.

Macron naively linked anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism

It should be noted that seeking to separate these two poles does not pose any threat to the beliefs of some of them and their belief in their holy books, on the contrary, the chapter preserves this faith instead of inserting it in a field that is not within its competence and unable to compete with it, and thus destabilize it. Consequently, there is a need for religion to stop attempts to interpret the knowledge of what is not in it, to test the sincerity and rationality of religion to increase its credibility, because once scientific research refutes ideas Of which religion depends on science, this will constitute a threat to religion and religion, as an attempt to link fasting with the health of the body, that is, to link the religious assumption with scientific research. . Here the whole context of the hypothesis will be related to scientific reason. And when scientific research shows this hypothesis to be wrong (meaning that fasting is unhealthy), religious obligation will naturally suffer. We can also see a completely opposite case, which is an attempt to interpret the religion that is not in it, such as diligence in their interpretations to test their previous prediction of the results of science, despite the fact that scientific research shows the error of many of them. Therefore, it must be recognized that these laws, statutes and prohibitions have no scientific basis and exist as canons with clear historical contexts and a large part of them are interpreted and have nothing to do with science, and were practiced many years ago out of conviction. and faith and without trying to rationalize with scientific evidence for them. There is also a difference between the science of religion, which tries to deal with the religious phenomenon in order to understand and explain it, and the attempt of religion to seek a scientific explanation of its obligations to rationalize it.
Finally, it should be noted that the science of the history of religions, archeology and the science of religion, that is, scientific research, does not concern itself with people’s personal beliefs, opinions, beliefs, feelings and thoughts, so the conflict of religion with the results of scientific research is not a matter of science, just as the results of scientific research conflict with the beliefs of people are a matter of people. It is not the scientific question. This is due to the neutral state that science and the researcher must live insulated from any trends that transform research. As a result, scientific research will not force people to practice beliefs they do not believe in and, on the other hand, people cannot force scientific research to say what it does not contain.
It may seem complicated or sensitive to some, that is, the issue of separating religion from scientific research. However, the importance of this chapter is that it guarantees the development of science on the one hand and preserves the “sacredness” and spirituality of these religions among their owners on the other hand.

Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here