Name: 到底有多少種宗教？宗教速成班 #2 (How Many Religions Are There?: Crash Course Religions #2)
Uploaded: 2024-10-10T20:21:03.000Z
Duration: 11 min 59 s

程度副詞

Hi, I'm John Green. Welcome to Crash Course Religions. Does this look familiar? You probably know it as the Coexist design, a smattering of symbols that come together to spell the word coexist. This is just one of thousands of car bumpers that uses its design to proclaim a desire for peace and religious tolerance to other drivers, I guess.

大家好，我是約翰-格林。歡迎收看《宗教速成班》這個看起來眼熟嗎？你可能知道這是 "共存 "設計，由一些符號拼成 "共存 "一詞。這只是成千上萬個汽車保險槓中的一個，我猜，它們用自己的設計向其他司機宣揚和平與宗教寬容的願望。

Now viewers might see the coexist symbol as a representation of the world's religions, right? You've got a crescent moon for Islam, the Jewish Star of David, a cross symbolizing

現在，觀眾可能會把 "共存 "符號看作是世界宗教的代表，對嗎？新月代表伊斯蘭教，大衛之星代表猶太教，十字架象徵

情態助動詞 B1

Christianity, even a little Wiccan pentagram to dot the I. But the thing is, that doesn't cover all the religions practiced in the world, not by a long shot. And what it leaves out tells you a lot more about the history of religion than you might think.

但問題是，這並不能涵蓋世界上所有的宗教，遠遠不夠。它所遺漏的內容告訴你的宗教歷史比你想象的要多得多。

So if you're going by what's typically covered in the news, which holidays are listed on your calendars, or how bright your neighbor's seasonal lights are, you'd think only a handful of religions are practiced in the world. Scholars of religion have used the framework of the big five major world religions for decades—Islam, Christianity, Judaism,

是以，如果你根據新聞中的典型報道、日曆上列出的節日或鄰居家的季節性彩燈的亮度來判斷，你會認為世界上只有少數幾種宗教。幾十年來，宗教學者們一直使用世界五大宗教的框架--伊斯蘭教、基督教、猶太教、基督教、猶太教和伊斯蘭教、

But those aren't even the most widely practiced religions. Like, there are more followers of Sikhism worldwide than there are followers of Judaism. And Shinto is practiced by millions of people, and yet zero representation on the Coexist bumper sticker.

但這些還不是信仰最廣泛的宗教。比如，全世界錫克教的信徒比猶太教的信徒還多。神道教有數百萬人信奉，但在 "共存 "保險槓貼紙上卻沒有任何代表。

So what's the point of having a category like the big five, and why do we hear about only a few religions while ignoring tons of others? Let's go back in time to figure that out.

那麼，像 "五大宗教 "這樣的分類有什麼意義呢？為什麼我們只聽說過少數幾個宗教，卻忽略了大量其他宗教呢？讓我們回到過去來弄清楚這個問題。

As we saw in episode one, what counts as a religion is actually quite complicated. The idea of religion as this special category set apart from other stuff people think, believe, and do—well, that's only a few hundred years old. It came about in 16th century Western

正如我們在第一集中所看到的，宗教的定義其實相當複雜。把宗教作為一個特殊的類別，與人們所想、所信、所做的其他事情區分開來的想法，其實只有幾百年的歷史。它產生於 16 世紀的西方

Europe during the Protestant Reformation.

Christians used the religion label for traditions that had a founder, sacred texts, clergy, and particular times and places for doing religious stuff. In short, to be a religion, it had to look kinda like Christianity, which Islam and Judaism kinda do, and Buddhism slightly does. And worshipping at the altar of a particular economic system doesn't, even if the invisible hand of the market works in mysterious ways.

基督徒將宗教標籤用於有創始人、聖典、神職人員以及特定時間和地點進行宗教活動的傳統。簡而言之，要成為一種宗教，它必須有點像基督教，伊斯蘭教和猶太教有點像，佛教稍微有點像。而在特定經濟體系的祭壇上頂禮膜拜就不像了，即使市場這隻看不見的手以神祕的方式在起作用。

During the colonial era, as Europeans encountered cultures in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, they looked for signs of religion with their own Christianity-shaped mold in mind. But it turns out people have a lot of ways of making sense of their lives, of organizing community and relating to otherworldly forces. And many of them don't look like what European colonizers understood as religion. Like, in 1553, Richard Eden wrote that indigenous people on what's now the Canary Islands went naked without shame, religion, or knowledge of God. Paintings of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas kept this narrative going, showing colonizers looming large with a priest along for the ride, heroically bringing religion to people assumed to have none.

在殖民時代，當歐洲人接觸到亞洲、非洲和美洲的文化時，他們帶著自己的基督教模式去尋找宗教的痕跡。但事實證明，人們有很多方式來理解自己的生活，組織社區，並與其他世界的力量建立聯繫。而其中許多並不像歐洲殖民者所理解的宗教。比如，1553 年，理查德-伊登寫道，在現在的加那利群島上，原住民赤身裸體，沒有羞恥感，沒有宗教信仰，也不認識上帝。克里斯托弗-哥倫布抵達美洲時的畫作延續了這一說法，畫中的殖民者高高在上，帶著一名牧師，英勇地將宗教帶給被認為沒有宗教信仰的人們。

At the time, many Europeans assumed religion was a natural category that could be recognized on sight. People either had religion or they didn't. And if they didn't, you know, they needed it. Specifically, to borrow a line from my grandmother, they needed Jesus.

當時，許多歐洲人認為宗教是一個自然範疇，一看就知道。人們要麼有宗教信仰，要麼沒有。如果沒有，他們就需要宗教。具體來說，借用我祖母的一句話，他們需要耶穌。

According to this logic, a lack of religion implied a lack of civilization. So like, Muslims might have the wrong religion, thereby necessitating crusades and whatnot, but at least they had a religion and were therefore civilized. People in the Americas and much of sub-Saharan

按照這種邏輯，缺乏宗教就意味著缺乏文明。是以，穆斯林可能信仰了錯誤的宗教，從而導致十字軍東征什麼的，但至少他們有宗教信仰，是以是文明的。美洲和撒哈拉以南大部分地區的人

Africa were seen as without religion, which meant they were without civilization, which was used to justify colonialism as necessary or even noble. Of course, Muslim and Buddhist and Jewish communities were also colonized because the logic of colonialism was never particularly logical.

非洲被視為沒有宗教，這意味著他們沒有文明，這被用來證明殖民主義是必要的，甚至是高尚的。當然，穆斯林、佛教和猶太教社區也被殖民化了，因為殖民主義的邏輯從來都不是特別合乎邏輯的。

By the 19th century, Christianity was everywhere on Earth. But it's not as simple as saying that Christianity came to the colonized world. The colonized world also came to Christianity, with indigenous beliefs and practices helping to shape the religion. Think of Dia de los

到了 19 世紀，基督教在地球上無處不在。但這並不是說基督教來到了殖民地世界那麼簡單。殖民地世界也出現了基督教，土著人的信仰和習俗幫助塑造了基督教。想一想

Muertos, which was integrated into Christianity during colonization. Or to take it further back, what's up with Christmas trees? Jesus never mentioned them.

Muertos，這是在殖民時期融入基督教的。再往前追溯，聖誕樹是怎麼回事？耶穌從未提到過它們。

By the 20th century, scholars started recognizing other traditions as religions, too. They lumped them into opposing categories like Western vs. Eastern, Great vs. Little, and Major vs.

到了 20 世紀，學者們開始承認其他傳統也是宗教。他們把這些傳統歸為對立的類別，如西方與東方、偉大與渺小、主要與次要。

Minor. I'll let you take a guess for which religions got the good labels.

未成年人。我讓你們猜猜哪些宗教得到了好的標籤。

Texts from Buddhism, Hinduism, and other Asian traditions were translated into English, which helped cement the idea that sacred written texts were a universal feature of a quote world religion. Meanwhile, those with oral traditions were seen as primitive or minor.

佛教、印度教和其他亞洲傳統的文本被翻譯成英語，這有助於鞏固神聖的書面文本是引用世界宗教的普遍特徵這一觀念。與此同時，那些具有口頭傳統的宗教則被視為原始或次要的宗教。

Although, for the record, this Crash Course video is happening in the oral tradition, and I don't think that lessens the learning.

不過，我要聲明的是，這個速成班視頻是以口述傳統的方式進行的，我不認為這會降低學習效果。

By the mid-20th century, a vibes-based approach had emerged that really crystallized how Europeans defined religion. Scholars started thinking in terms of family resemblance. Like, okay, maybe world religions don't share a common feature, but they do have overlapping similarities.

到 20 世紀中葉，一種基於 "氣場 "的方法出現了，它使歐洲人對宗教的定義真正具體化。學者們開始從家族相似性的角度思考問題。比如，好吧，也許世界宗教沒有共同的特徵，但它們確實有重疊的相似之處。

Based on those similarities, you can tell what's a religion and what's not, sort of like how you know Pokemon and Call of Duty are both video games, even though they don't have a ton in common at first glance.

根據這些相似之處，你就能分辨出什麼是宗教，什麼不是宗教，就像你知道《口袋妖怪》和《使命召喚》都是電子遊戲一樣，儘管它們乍一看並無太多共同之處。

Anyway, that family resemblance method is still directly informed by the Christianity-shaped mold of what a religion should look like, right? It tends to leave out groups that don't match the vibe, like those that don't focus on sacred texts, such as the Yazidis of Iraq.

不管怎麼說，這種家族相似性的方法還是直接受基督教關於宗教應該是什麼樣子的模子的影響，對吧？這種方法往往會忽略那些不符合這種氛圍的群體，比如那些不注重聖典的群體，比如伊拉克的雅茲迪人。

So the idea of what counts as a major religion was decided mostly by people who thought that

是以，關於什麼是主要宗教的想法，主要是由那些認為

Christianity was the ultimate model of religion.

But these arbitrary choices about which religions matter have had significant consequences, ones that are way worse than being left off a bumper sticker.

但是，這些關於宗教重要性的武斷選擇造成了嚴重的後果，比在保險槓貼紙上被遺漏更糟糕。

For example, Sikhism is one of the most practiced religions in the world, but one that often gets left out of the conversation about major religions. It originated in 16th century India from the teachings of Guru Nanak, who preached about the oneness of God and the equality of all people.

例如，錫克教是世界上信徒最多的宗教之一，但卻常常被排除在主要宗教之外。錫克教起源於 16 世紀的印度，源自納納克大師的教義，他宣揚神的唯一性和人人平等。

But Sikhs are in the minority in India, where they faced harassment, persecution, and violence.

但錫克教徒在印度是少數，他們在印度面臨騷擾、迫害和暴力。

And in the United States, misunderstandings and prejudice have also led to attacks on members of the Sikh community.

在美國，誤解和偏見也導致錫克族成員受到攻擊。

For example, just days after the September 11th attacks, a Sikh man named Balbir Singh

例如，就在 "9-11 "襲擊發生幾天後，一位名叫巴爾比爾-辛格（Balbir Singh）的錫克教男子

Sodhi was murdered in an anti-Muslim hate crime. He was mistakenly targeted for his beard and turban, which Sikh men customarily wear as an expression of their faith.

索迪是在一起反穆斯林仇恨犯罪中被殺害的。他被誤認為是因留鬍子和戴頭巾而成為攻擊目標，而錫克教男子通常會戴上鬍子和頭巾來表達自己的信仰。

Being known and understood by the public is a matter of life and death for people of any religion. And the less you're understood, the more that's a risk.

被公眾認識和理解，對任何宗教的信徒來說都是生死攸關的大事。越是不被理解，風險就越大。

In response to discrimination, harassment, and violence in the U.S., Sikhs have advocated for basic knowledge of their religion to be taught in schools, just like the so-called

為了應對美國的歧視、騷擾和暴力，錫克教徒主張在學校中傳授有關其宗教的基本知識，就像所謂的 "宗教教育 "一樣。

Religions have often been misunderstood as fixed ideas that get passed down, perfectly preserved from one generation to the next. But that's absurd. The idea that religions are stable, unchanging systems can foster essentialism. We're thinking that groups of people share a core quality. And that can lead to false stereotypes, like all Buddhists are peaceful, or all Muslims are terrorists, or all Episcopalians marry an abundance of

宗教常常被誤解為世代相傳、完美保存的固定思想。但這是荒謬的。認為宗教是穩定不變的體系，這種想法會助長本質主義。我們認為一群人都有一個共同的核心品質。這會導致錯誤的刻板印象，比如所有的佛教徒都是和平的，或者所有的穆斯林都是恐怖分子，或者所有的聖公會教徒都有豐富的婚姻生活。

Catharines and execute two of their wives. That's only true of our founder.

並處死了他們的兩個妻子。只有我們的創始人是這樣。

Cultures are internally diverse and always changing, so we can't generalize about what all members of a religion think and do. And in most traditions, we can't draw a straight line from how early members did stuff to how people do it now.

文化具有內在的多樣性，而且總是在不斷變化，是以我們不能一概而論一個宗教的所有成員都在想什麼、做什麼。而且，在大多數傳統中，我們無法將早期成員的做法與現在的做法畫一條直線。

My way of being Christian isn't like how the Romans did it, which is good news for me as I lack the moral courage to face off against a lion in a Colosseum. But my way of being Christian is also different from the Southern Baptist or Ukrainian Orthodox way of being Christian. There's vast diversity within traditions as well as across them.

我做基督徒的方式與羅馬人不同，這對我來說是個好消息，因為我缺乏在鬥獸場與獅子對峙的道德勇氣。但我做基督徒的方式也不同於南方浸信會或烏克蘭東正教做基督徒的方式。傳統內部以及傳統之間都存在著巨大的多樣性。

Beyond stereotypes, this focus on continuity also allows certain groups within religions to claim authority by asserting their belief system is the true one, or even the only true one because it's the closest to the original. It's like only being a fan of Taylor Swift's country music because that's the original and true Taylor Swift. The Southern one, who grew up in, let me just check my notes here, Pennsylvania.

除了刻板印象之外，這種對連續性的關注也讓宗教中的某些團體宣稱自己的信仰體系是真正的，甚至是唯一真正的，因為它最接近原版，從而聲稱自己是權威。這就好比只喜歡泰勒-斯威夫特（Taylor Swift）的鄉村音樂，因為那才是原汁原味的泰勒-斯威夫特（Taylor Swift）。在南方長大的人，讓我檢查一下我的筆記，賓夕法尼亞州。

Linking a religion's current interpretation to the far-off past becomes a way of excluding and controlling other people's interpretations, which, in my opinion, just isn't cool. Taylor

將宗教的當前解釋與遙遠的過去聯繫起來，就成了一種排斥和控制他人解釋的方式，在我看來，這一點並不酷。泰勒

Swift is both country and pop, and also everything else, the one true guiding light of our time.

斯威夫特既是鄉村音樂的代表，也是流行音樂的代表，更是我們這個時代的真正指路明燈。

Wait, am I turning Taylorism into a religion? Actually, we're going to get into that in a later episode.

等等，我是在把泰勒主義變成一種宗教嗎？事實上，我們將在下一集討論這個問題。

Okay, so we often see this with religious nationalism, where governments or politicians claim their interpretation of a tradition is correct and use it to organize and control certain groups of people. Like in Saudi Arabia and Iran, for instance, conservative interpretations of Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, respectively, have been encoded as national laws, restricting what women can wear and do. In Myanmar, Buddhist nationalism has been invoked to persecute religious minorities, especially Muslims. And in the United States, some Christian groups have organized politically to restrict access to abortion and the rights of LGBTQ people for religious reasons.

好吧，我們經常在宗教民族主義中看到這種情況，政府或政客聲稱他們對某一傳統的解釋是正確的，並以此來組織和控制某些人群。比如在沙特阿拉伯和伊朗，對遜尼派伊斯蘭教和什葉派伊斯蘭教的保守解釋分別被編入國家法律，限制婦女的穿著和行為。在緬甸，佛教民族主義被用來迫害宗教少數群體，尤其是穆斯林。在美國，一些基督教團體出於宗教原因組織政治活動，限制墮胎和LGBTQ人群的權利。

And it's not just that religions are always changing, but there are also no firm boundaries walling them off from each other. In the United States, many people of Jewish background embrace

不僅是宗教總是在不斷變化，而且也沒有牢固的界限將它們彼此隔開。在美國，許多有猶太背景的人接受

Buddhist practices. At the Odara Law Temple in Pakistan, both Hindus and Muslims have long worshipped in the same space. And in Brazil, adherents of Candomblé have been blending

佛教習俗。在巴基斯坦的奧達拉法寺，印度教徒和穆斯林長期以來一直在同一個地方做禮拜。在巴西，坎東佈雷教的信徒一直在融合

African and Catholic traditions for centuries, but doing so in secret to protect themselves from persecution.

幾個世紀以來，非洲和天主教傳統一直在祕密進行，以保護自己免受迫害。

Another thing to consider is the way the major religion label presents some traditions with more nuance than others. Like, even though Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share many of the same stories and central figures, they're treated with more complexity and viewed as distinct, separate traditions. Meanwhile, diverse communities get uniformly labeled as Buddhist, even though groups vary in their interpretations, texts, and central figures.

另一個需要考慮的問題是，主要宗教標籤對某些傳統的描述比其他傳統更細緻入微。比如，儘管猶太教、基督教和伊斯蘭教有許多相同的故事和中心人物，但它們被視為不同的、獨立的傳統，具有更多的複雜性。與此同時，不同的社區被統一貼上佛教的標籤，儘管各群體在解釋、文本和中心人物上各不相同。

So where do we go from here? I mean, humans make up categories to understand the world.

那麼，我們該何去何從呢？我的意思是，人類為了理解這個世界，會建立一些分類。

That's what we do. But part of being human is also interrogating those categories, questioning how they can serve us better and more equitably.

這就是我們的工作。但作為人類的一部分，我們也要質疑這些分類，質疑它們如何能更好、更公平地為我們服務。

To really understand all the ways people do religion, we have to unpack the boxes we've they came from, what they do in society, and whose interests they're serving. And that unpacking shows us that a list of major religions isn't a map of a pre-existing system. It's an idea that creates a system, one that reflects and reinforces power while obscuring the criteria for what counts.

要想真正瞭解人們信奉宗教的所有方式，我們就必須拆開我們對宗教來源、宗教在社會中的作用以及宗教為誰的利益服務等問題的條條框框。這種解讀告訴我們，主要宗教的清單並不是一個預先存在的體系的地圖。它是一種創造體系的理念，一種反映並強化權力的理念，同時也模糊了衡量標準。

But the cool thing is, the more we expand our understanding of religion, the more we begin to recognize these systems and their flaws as they operate in the world all around us. And if we're lucky, we can also catch a glimpse of commonalities across these divisive, constructed categories, and find shared values that can serve to bind us together more closely.

但有趣的是，我們對宗教的理解越深入，就越能認識到這些系統及其在我們周圍世界中的缺陷。如果幸運的話，我們還能在這些分裂的、建構的類別中窺見共性，找到共同的價值觀，從而將我們更緊密地聯繫在一起。

We'll keep exploring that theme in our next episode as we ask not just what is a cult, but who gets to decide what a cult is. I'll see you then.

下一集我們將繼續探討這一主題，我們不僅要問什麼是邪教，還要問誰能決定什麼是邪教。屆時再見。

Thanks for watching this episode of Crash Course Religions, which was filmed here in

感謝您收看本期《宗教速成班》。

 Indianapolis, Indiana, and made with the help of all of these nice people. If you want to help keep Crash Course free for everyone, forever, you can join our community on Patreon.

在印第安納州印第安納波利斯，在所有這些好心人的幫助下製作完成。如果你想幫助《速成課程》永遠免費，可以加入我們的 Patreon 社區。