Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Hans Penner's Comments On Mtsr 9/2 (1997)

Hans Penner's Comments On Mtsr 9/2 (1997) RESPONSES TO HANS PENNER'S COMMENTS ON MTSR 9/2 (1997) The first thing that strikes me about Hans Penner's entire letter- not only his response to me but to the other writers also-is that it contains not one single reference to actual societies, people, rituals, institutions, or any ethnographic or empirical detail whatsoever. This may seem an unfair criticism of what was only a letter; but it is characteristic of a lot of the theorizing that goes on in religious studies. In my view, it would be useful if we tried to give concrete examples of what we mean. Otherwise, the study of the abstraction 'religion' is not that much different from theologizing. Tim Fitzgerald Aichigakuin University, Japan It is good to see, in his comments on my essay, that Hans Penner continues to be interested in the issues surrounding functionalism, despite his desire to interpret it as a theory of religion. After re- reading the relevant chapter (and footnote!) in his Impasse and Resolu- tion (1989), I find very little disagreement between us in assessing how functional explanations fare in light of Carl Hempel's model. Many of the issues Penner discusses in this chapter I have likewise ad- http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Brill

Hans Penner's Comments On Mtsr 9/2 (1997)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/hans-penner-s-comments-on-mtsr-9-2-1997-LlZdatn8ya

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1998 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0943-3058
eISSN
1570-0682
DOI
10.1163/157006898X00178
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

RESPONSES TO HANS PENNER'S COMMENTS ON MTSR 9/2 (1997) The first thing that strikes me about Hans Penner's entire letter- not only his response to me but to the other writers also-is that it contains not one single reference to actual societies, people, rituals, institutions, or any ethnographic or empirical detail whatsoever. This may seem an unfair criticism of what was only a letter; but it is characteristic of a lot of the theorizing that goes on in religious studies. In my view, it would be useful if we tried to give concrete examples of what we mean. Otherwise, the study of the abstraction 'religion' is not that much different from theologizing. Tim Fitzgerald Aichigakuin University, Japan It is good to see, in his comments on my essay, that Hans Penner continues to be interested in the issues surrounding functionalism, despite his desire to interpret it as a theory of religion. After re- reading the relevant chapter (and footnote!) in his Impasse and Resolu- tion (1989), I find very little disagreement between us in assessing how functional explanations fare in light of Carl Hempel's model. Many of the issues Penner discusses in this chapter I have likewise ad-

Journal

Method & Theory in the Study of ReligionBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.