Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>This article argues that, in order to understand religious studies's debate over reductionism, one should take the social-historical context of the debate and the fteld's subject matter into account. Martin Kusch's work on folk psychology and Ian Hacking's work on 'human kinds' provide an example of how this can take place. The article argues that the study of religion is part of the human sciences and that this area differs from the natural sciences precisely insomuch as the former's subject matter involves a learning reflexive human being. However, large parts of the study of religion exemplify a co-called 'inferior' science-or, as some would say, theology-insomuch as these areas have developed a myopia by looking through distorting Christian glasses. This form of the field seems based on 'knowledge ex nihilo', a shortcoming for a human science because it lacks any conscious reflection on its, and its subject matter's, involvement in society.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2001
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.