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>The aim of this article is to argue that the study of religion can be neutral and scientific, in appropriate senses of these terms. In order for the study of religion to be seen to achieve these ends, however, we need to set aside certain false ways of delimiting its aims and methods. In particular, I argue that it is false to suppose that we are faced with a straight choice between naturalistic and confessional paradigms for the conduct of the subject. We can reject this dichotomy and thereby gain the appropriate understanding of what "neutrality" and "scientific" mean in this context, if we focus on the alternative idea that religious studies has as its chief goal the delineation of an aspect of human meaning.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Method & Theory in the Study of Religion – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 1997
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.