Author:
Shults F LeRon,Wildman Wesley
Abstract
Scholars within and across fields such as the psychology of religion, sociology of religion, cognitive science of religion, religious studies, and theology often argue about the values and norms that ought to guide “academic” research in religion. Is it appropriate in the academy to explain religious phenomena by referring to supernatural forces (such as spirits or gods) as causal agents or to defend one’s scholarly arguments by appealing to the holy texts accepted as authoritative within one’s religious coalition? Debates surrounding such questions have remained intractable for decades in part because they have been based on anecdotal personal experiences rather than clear empirical data. This article presents the Methodological Naturalism-Methodological Secularism scale, a new survey instrument capable of moving forward debates about scholarly values in the academic study of religion. This initial deployment of the MNMS scale in a population of religion scholars (N=284) clarifies extant commitments, challenges common caricatures, and reveals unfamiliar configurations of academic values.
Reference4 articles.
1. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2.1. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
2. Shults, F. L., Wildman, W. J., Taves, A., and Paloutzian, R. F. (2020). What Do Religion Scholars Really Want? Scholarly Values in the Scientific Study of Religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 59.1: 18–38.
3. Taves, A., Wildman, W. J., Shults, F. L., and Paloutzian, R. F. (2022). Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study of Religion. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 1: 1–29.
4. Wildman, W. J. (2009). Science and Religious Anthropology: A Spiritually Evocative Naturalist Interpretation of Human Life. Ashgate.