Support for the Systematic Study of Religion: A Response to Markus Davidsen
Reacting positively to Markus Davidsen’s call for a Dutch programme of systematic study of religion, this response highlights certain points of discussion that should be considered moving forward. First of all, we should consider letting students get familiar with theories about religion earlier in...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Amsterdam University Press
[2020]
|
| Dans: |
NTT
Année: 2020, Volume: 74, Numéro: 3, Pages: 267-269 |
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions FB Formation théologique KBD Benelux |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Postmodernism
B methodological supernaturalism B Philology B cognitive theory B Methodological Naturalism |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) |
| Résumé: | Reacting positively to Markus Davidsen’s call for a Dutch programme of systematic study of religion, this response highlights certain points of discussion that should be considered moving forward. First of all, we should consider letting students get familiar with theories about religion earlier in the curriculum. Secondly, philological competences should not be placed above other methodological competences. Thirdly, our comparative methods should be informed by postmodernist critiques. Fourthly, we should be careful when applying cognitive theory by understanding its limitations. Finally, it remains unclear why methodological naturalism is the only way to move forward. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2590-3268 |
| Référence: | Kritik von "Theo van Baaren’s Systematic Science of Religion Revisited (2020)"
Kritik in "Fundamental Problems and Methods in the Study of Religion (2020)" |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: NTT
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5117/NTT2020.3.006.STER |