Critique vs. Evaluation in Post-colonial Philosophy of Religion
IN A Radical Pluralist Philosophy of Religion, Mikel Burley proposes a model of philosophy of religion that does not include the evaluation of religious truth claims as one of its tasks. On what he calls a “contemplative” model of philosophy of religion, philosophers, like most anthropologists and h...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2021
|
| In: |
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Year: 2021, Volume: 89, Issue: 2, Pages: 713-720 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | IN A Radical Pluralist Philosophy of Religion, Mikel Burley proposes a model of philosophy of religion that does not include the evaluation of religious truth claims as one of its tasks. On what he calls a “contemplative” model of philosophy of religion, philosophers, like most anthropologists and historians of religion, eschew arguing for or against their objects of study. Instead, they seek “simply” to elucidate the meaning of religious practices as possibilities for how human beings can intelligibly live their lives. Burley contrasts this descriptive approach with the two-task model of philosophy of religion that I have recommended (Schilbrack 2014), which includes both description and the evaluation of reasons that can be given for or against a religious practice, belief, experience, or institution. A non-evaluative model of philosophy such as Burley’s may be appealing to those who hold that the academic study of religions, in contrast to religious or theological approaches, should not be in the business of advocating for or against particular religious views. Comparing his approach and mine can therefore serve as a kind of bellwether for discussions about normativity in the academic study of religions. In this short essay, I clarify the differences between these two approaches and argue that the evaluative task also belongs in the academic study of religions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4585 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: American Academy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfab051 |