Naturalism as Metaphysics, Reduction without Fears

Author(s):  
William Wood

Part IV turns to an extended engagement with the academic study of religion, which is often constitutively hostile to any form of theology. Chapter 12 considers the place of “naturalism” and “reductionism” in the academic study of religion. While individual scholars of religion can—and often should—practice methodological naturalism, attempts to justify methodological naturalism as a global, field-defining norm inevitably presuppose controversial metaphysical claims, and thereby collapse into ontological naturalism—a position that I call “ontological naturalism on the cheap.” The chapter concludes that any barriers to including analytic theology in the wider field of religious studies are local and prudential, not global and methodological.

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-39
Author(s):  
Steven Ramey

The controversy over Penguin India withdrawing Wendy Doniger's book, announced in February 2014, provides an occasion to consider the problems and possibilities within the academic study of religion. As the controversy centered on representations of what both Doniger and her opponents termed Hinduism, the problems with adjudicating contested definitions of religions or the category religions becomes apparent. Rather than assuming that we can present a normative definition of any of these terms, I argue that scholars should avoid applying these contested labels themselves and recognize instead whose application of contested labels that they use. This approach facilitates a more robust analysis of the ways these terms enter the negotiation of various conflicts and the interests and assumptions behind them, making religious studies more relevant to contemporary society.


2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 38-39
Author(s):  
Philip Tite

A short essay, in responding to an online roundtable (the Religious Studies Project), explores the role of progressive ideology in the academic study of religion, specifically with a focus on debates over Russell McCutcheon's distinction between scholars functioning as cultural critics or caretakers of religious traditions. This short piece is part of the "Editor's Corner" (an occasional section of the Bulletin where the editors offer provocative musings on theoretical challenges facing the discipline).


Author(s):  
Thomas A Lewis

Abstract As a discipline, the academic study of religion is strikingly fragmented, with little engagement or shared criteria of excellence across subfields. Although important recent developments have expanded the traditions and peoples studied as well as the methods used, the current extent of fragmentation limits the impact of this diversification and pluralization. At a moment when the global pandemic is catalyzing profound pressures on our universities and disciplines, this fragmentation makes it difficult to articulate to the public, to non-religious studies colleagues, and to students why the study of religion matters. We therefore too often fall back on platitudes. I argue for a revitalized methods and theories conversation that connects us even as it bears our arguments and disagreements about what we do and how. Courses in methods and theories in the study of religion represent the most viable basis we have for bringing the academic study of religion into the common conversation or argument that constitutes a discipline without sacrificing our pluralism.


2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 479-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blair Alan Gadsby

AbstractTeaching religion in public education can benefit from the discourse in Religious Studies (rs) around the problem/problemof defining religion. This is nowhere truer than in community college (cc). However, the notion that the term ‘religion’ is of limited value (represented here asproblem) is of not-much-use inccdue to religion’s perceptible nature. It is evident to citizens that there is ‘religion’, and while not-much-clear about it by way ofrsdefinitions, it is anidentifiable and operative category. I cite the incident of Frank Roque the “9/11 Revenge Killer” to show that there is such a category in the minds of the public and utilize Stark and Bainbridge’sA Theory of Religionto focus the discourse beyond theproblemto the pedagogic and heuristic potentials of the problem for educators and ultimately citizens. The challenge forrsis to find ways for its analyses of religions to have a better effect in society. Otherwise, the categorywillbe shaped by other forces as revealed in the words of the murderer regarding his Sikh victim, “I just viewed them all as just hateful Muslims.”


2018 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Schilbrack

At the end of the twentieth century, scholars in the academic study of religion made what we might call “the reflexive turn,” in that they picked up the tools of genealogy, deconstruction, and post-colonial studies and they began in earnest to reflect critically on their own conceptual categories. Where did the very concept of “religion” come from? Whose interests are served by this apparently modern, European, and Christian way of categorizing practices? One way to think about the effect of the reflexive turn is to think of the conceptual vocabulary in religious studies as a window or lens through which scholars had previously been examining the world. What had been taken as natural and transparent now becomes itself the object of study. Richard King calls this “the Copernican turn,” that is, as he nicely puts it, a turn to focus on the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. The goal of this turn is to “denaturalize” the concept of religion (King, 1). The reflexive or Copernican turn, in my judgment, is a crucial aspect of social inquiry that scholars of religion should not ignore. But it clearly leads to the question: once one denaturalizes the concept of “religion,” what does the academic study of religion study?


Author(s):  
Stuart Sarbacker

The contemporary academic study of religion has its roots in conceptual and theoretical structures developed in the early to mid-20th century. A particularly important example of such a structure is the concept of the “numinous” developed by the theologian and comparativist Rudolf Otto (1869–1397) in his work, The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational (1923). Building on the work of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), Friedrich Schleiermacher (1772–1834), and Jakob Fries (1773–1843), Otto developed the concept of the numinous—a “category of value” and a “state of mind”—as a way to express what he viewed as the “non-rational” aspects of the holy or sacred that are foundational to religious experience in particular and the lived religious life in general. For Otto, the numinous can be understood to be the experience of a mysterious terror and awe (Mysterium tremendum et fascinans) and majesty (Majestas) in the presence of that which is “entirely other” (das ganz Andere) and thus incapable of being expressed directly through human language and other media. Otto conceives of the concept of the numinous as a derivative of the Latin numen, meaning “spirit,” etymologically derived from the concept of divine will and represented by a “nodding” of the head. Otto argues that understanding the numinous in a satisfactory way requires a scholar to draw upon their own experience of religious sentiments, given its non-discursive and direct nature; this becomes a point of contention among later secular scholars of religion. In later works, such as Mysticism East and West: A Comparative Analysis of the Nature of Mysticism (1932), Otto gives numerous examples of the ways in which the concept of the numinous can be applied cross-culturally to traditions beyond Christianity, such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Otto’s theories regarding the numinous have been extremely influential in the development of the academic study of religion in the 20th and 21st centuries, as evidenced by the impact they had upon scholars such as Carl Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Ninian Smart, whose works were instrumental in the formation of religious studies as a discipline. Jung cites the concept of the numinous extensively with regard to his theories on the breakthrough of unconscious material into conscious awareness. Eliade’s work The Sacred and Profane: The Nature of Religion (1959) takes Otto’s concept of the numinous as a starting point in the development of its own theory; Eliade’s use of the category of the “sacred” might be considered derivative of Otto’s larger conception of the “holy” (das Heilige). Eliade’s work, like Otto’s, has been extensively criticized for postulating a sui generis nature of both the numinous and the sacred, which are viewed by Eliade as irreducible to other phenomena (historical, political, psychological, and so forth). Smart’s influential “dimensional analysis” theory and his scholarship on the topic of world religions is highly informed by his utilization of Otto’s theory of the numinous within the contexts of his cross-cultural reflections on religion and the development of his “two-pole” theory of religious experience. The concept of the numinous continues to be theorized about and applied in contemporary academic research in religious studies and utilized as part of a framework for understanding religion in university courses on world religions and other topics in the academic study of religion. In part through the work of Eliade, Smart, and other scholars—Otto included—who have found a popular readership, the term has been disseminated to such a degree as to find common usage in the English language and popular discourse.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 464-474
Author(s):  
Seth Schermerhorn

Abstract The recent publication of two excellent volumes—Bruce Lincoln’s Apples and Oranges and Oliver Freiberger’s Considering Comparison—provides an auspicious moment to reflect on and interrogate the nature of comparison within religious studies generally, as well as a variety of subfields, including the academic study of indigenous religious traditions. This article carefully examines both books, analyzes Lincoln’s interpretations of Native American religious traditions within broader comparative frameworks, and discusses several recent developments regarding comparison in the academic study of indigenous religious traditions.


2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sîan Melvill Hawthorne

In this paper I examine the uneasy intersection between ‘religion’, ‘gender’ and ‘postcoloniality’ as it is staged in the sub-field of religion and gender within religious studies and theology. Noting the lack of sustained attention in this field to those postcolonial challenges that might question the prioritization of gender as the site from which critique should be originated, and suggesting that this neglect might compromise the assumption that, because of its alignment with the politics of the marginal, it is comparatively less implicated in colonial knowledge formations, I argue that scholars of religion and gender risk perpetuating imperialist figurations found elsewhere in the academic study of religions. I propose the figure of the catachresis, as theorized by Gayatri Spivak, as a potential step towards displacing those European concept-metaphors and value-codings that both derive from imperialist ideologies and sustain the fiction operational within much, though not all, religion and gender scholarship of a generalizable or normative epistemic subjectivity. I suggest these ideologies ultimately prevent an encounter with the women and men who exist beyond this mode of production and whose priorities may be configured entirely differently to those that seem currently to inform and produce the intellectual itineraries of the field.


Religions ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 238
Author(s):  
Carl Raschke

This article makes the case, citing the work of David Chidester, Achille Mbembe, Tomoko Masuzawa, and Walter Mignolo, that the academic study of religion (often known as “religious studies” in the Anglophone world, Religionswissenschften or sciences religieuses in Continental Europe) remains both historically, and to a large extent contemporaneously, a “colonial” discipline derived from what Michel Foucault termed the structures of “power/knowledge,” imposed on the cognitive and philosophical traditions of non-Western and indigenous peoples. It argues that the “archetype” of rationality taken for granted in much Western scholarship about “religion” amounts to what Chidester terms a “triple mediation” between the imperial domination and colonial classification and administration of subjugated peoples and their symbolical practices and cultural memory—one which, in fact, has been re-inscribed in present day “neoliberal” fantasies of one world “without religion.” Finally, the article proposes a new “deconstructive” reading of theories of religion using post-structuralist instead of Enlightenment methodologies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document