Abstract
While strictly conceptual matters have dominated much of the discussion concerning religion as an object of scientific research, different understandings of the scientific character of the study of religion have also always had a significant role in the scholarly self-understanding. Here two significant conceptualizations of this scientific character—that of the so-called new scientificity (as advocated mostly by scholars from the cognitive science of religion) as well as that of the comparative history of religion—are described in detail and then thoroughly analyzed and criticized. It will be shown how both conceptualizations face problems, but those of the new scientificity are significantly more serious. Lastly, some more general reflections will be offered concerning the significance of these matters for the study of religion overall.
Reference91 articles.
1. Ambasciano, Leonardo. 2020. An Unnatural History of Religions: Academia, Post-truth and the Quest for Scientific Knowledge. London: Bloomsbury.
2. Anttonen, Veikko. 2016. “Theories as Borders: Sites of Entry and Exit in Comparative Religion.” In Contemporary Views on Comparative Religion: In Celebration of Tim Jensen’s 65th Birthday, edited by Peter Antes, Armin W. Geertz, and Mikael Rothstein, 165–178. Sheffield: Equinox.
3. Asad, Talal. 1983. “Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz.” Man 18(2): 237–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/2801433
4. Barrett, Justin L. 1999. “Theological Correctness: Cognitive Constraint and the Study of Religion.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 11(4): 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1163/157006899X00078
5. ———. 2011. “Cognitive Science of Religion: Looking Back, Looking Forward.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50(2): 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01564.