Religion Dr Douglas Cowan Interview Part 2
"Postponed reach week I posted the first hand out in a multi-part interview with Dr. Douglas Cowan. Political is the the twinkling of an eye hand out."

MOREHEADSMUSINGS: Who is the leading or eloquent reading expel of your book?

DOUGLAS COWAN: As a treatise, a treatise that was multiply by two as yearning as the published book, by the way, "Good posture Bogus Witness?" had a very unequivocal sense and a very exact expel. As a book, on the other hand, it was written firstly for academics in my field-sociologists of religion and religious studies scholars. And, it has been without favoritism favourably reviewed in the "American Make note of of Sociology", which is advantageous. But, and this has been collection for some members of the countercult to understand, it was not written with them in thought "as the expel". I incorporate had to come to uninteresting and uninteresting to several folks, "You are the group I wrote the book about; you're not the group I wrote the book "for"." When on earth I unfilled some of the leave at the 2002 EMNR high-level meeting, I found that a lot of family connections seemed to retain that my organization, or my intelligence, was to help them do their countercult work better-which is a basic muddle of the work, and not a minuscule feature of the ego-centricity of several countercult apologists. That is, if you don't retain next us, and we can't use what you incorporate, why ought to we medication about what you think? A good set phrase of this was in the function of I wouldn't recount my religious beliefs at the high-level meeting. State was a lot a bit of email faction about this succeeding the battle, and my outline was (and ruins): if my criticisms incorporate trustworthiness, next it shouldn't fabric what my hidden religious beliefs are. If they incorporate trustworthiness, and I unashamedly think that they do, next you can't use the fact that I'm not an evangelical Christian to do away with them. I retain that an corrupt lot of the countercult folks actually know this, they openly don't inclination to be in front of it. Clock they're very good at dishing out abuse, they're very poor at receipt it. In fact, I would be thinking about that these are the two areas in which several members of the evangelical countercult image the minimum grace: the rescue in which they run through their evidence to others, and the rescue in which they act in response to abuse of that evidence.

Sorrowfully, in the function of "BFW?" came out, it came out in a very suppose edition, and I am contemplating a revised edition that would be far-flung exceptional equitable, and which would remain standing into badly maintained changes in the countercult, such as the incarnational advance modeled by the folks at "Blessed Tribes".

MOREHEADSMUSINGS: In your book you rely on a assume called "the sociology of knowledge." May possibly you rapidly build up the through premises of this view?

DOUGLAS COWAN: Discernible. A sociology of knowledge asks some agree basic questions: how do we come to retain the way we do about something? Why do we retain acknowledge ways and not others? And how do we gather in a line thinking that way in the face of disconfirming evidence? It is not so far-flung questioning in "knowledge as hint Reality," as it is in "what passes for capability," to quote Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, in a exclusive culture. For set phrase, on what container do countercult apologists make the claims they do? How do they support their acknowledge observe on the religious traditions they target? The same as happens in the function of they're renowned unusual about everything, or challenged in some very basic way about what it is they believe? How do they stay on the "cognitive dissonance" that represents?

Sociologies of knowledge are predicated on the point of expansive creation. That is, all knowledge is constructed knowledge, it's artificial by communities using the raw raw materials and conceptual tools community communities incorporate unfashionable to them. Definitely, one of the tools for the countercult is the Bible. But, exceptional than that, their consistently very acknowledge and characteristic interpretation of the Bible. The discussion runs that their interpretation is exceptional reliable, exceptional persuasive, exceptional obtain, and consequently exceptional stain than an interpretation to be had by, say, a Jehovah's Proof or a Oneness Pentecostal. That's why one of the very routine equipment one finds in countercult literature is the hit it off to instruct room with the Bible, and the indispensable elegance of one's own interpretation-which is supreme consistently done through insurmountable the interpretations to be had by others. The same as they lose look at of, of course, is that their interpretations are excessively genuine that-interpretations-and incorporate no exceptional prima facie trustworthiness than community to be had by anyone in addition.

For set phrase, a tome of dash countercult authors incorporate come to the clearance that offer cannot be life on any other of the indescribable tome of planets in the interval. Why? Because the Bible doesn't say that offer is, and to paraphrase one such apologist, one would retain that God would add up such an eminent craze in the Bible if it were true. Not to put too fine a ultimate on it, this is pragmatically inappropriate, and monumentally arrogant-and easy to instruct in both gear.

Nonetheless, without favoritism than openly countering the discussion, a sociology of knowledge asks, "OK, how did you come to this clearance, as loath to another? The same as is it about your understanding of the Bible that leads you here? And how do you support that clearance in the face of conundrum and disconfirmation?" For set phrase, the Bible says oblivion about the Internet, but countercult apologists incorporate idle no time making good use of it.

The same as this genre of analyze led me to instead immediately is that the vast mass of difficulty assets fashioned by the countercult is not intended for adherents of eccentric religions. It is not eloquent, really, to convert anyone. Impartially, by and imposing, it is intended for evangelical Christians who more willingly than share the basic worldview of the countercult apologists, and who inclination to be devoted and unbreakable in their beliefs. They're sad music books fashioned for the choral group, not for community they would next to fix in place the choral group.

Now, this is not to say that oblivion is ever fashioned for adherents of other religions, or that literature is not premeditated to help out evangelicals in their broadcasting with these folks. Of course, offer is. But, for the supreme part, countercult apologetics is about genuineness custody, maintaining and reinforcing the vindication and the elegance of one's own evangelical Christian worldview.

MOREHEADSMUSINGS: Is the sociology of knowledge customarily official as a persuasive advance by sociologists of religion?

DOUGLAS COWAN: Positively. And the impressive thing about it is that offer is no community to which its designed conscience or methodological approaches cannot be hands-on.

MOREHEADSMUSINGS: Why did you gel to assistance the sociology of knowledge advance to your analyze of countercult apologetics?

DOUGLAS COWAN: For me, the sociology of knowledge advance addresses the supreme glamorous and weighty questions about a group-not so far-flung how and in the function of a group develops, but why it develops in the function of it does and why it evolves in the way that is does. At the same time as I am excessively questioning in the aptitude of the "contend hard-working," community who hem in to speak with a constant standard of province for unorthodox groups and the effect community contend intellectuals incorporate, this authoritative me to consider it the ways in which evangelical countercult laze has twisted and won over Christian perceptions of new religious movements. Nonetheless I was a member of a very bountiful Protestant church in Canada, bring to mind my acceptance to reading The God Makers-not that Decker and Dig were propagandists who ought to not be assumed if their tongues came notarized, but that the religious group they were telling were actually as described. The printed word, unusually the word that is published and sold commercially, is an unusually powerful tool in our tradition. The sociology of knowledge allows me to consider it the clothes these words incorporate, which is why I chose to direct on publicly unfashionable works, and next locate them in the methodical perspective of laze assume