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

Learn More →

Methodological Atheism, Methodological Agnosticism and Religious Experience

Methodological Atheism, Methodological Agnosticism and Religious Experience Peter Berger has been the most seminal of contemporary sociologists of religion (see Woodhead et al. 2001 ), so much so that today the form of bracketing Berger labeled “methodological atheism” is virtually a taken for granted presupposition of the sociological study of religion. This paper argues that when it comes to the sociological study of religious experience, methodological atheism prescribes an inappropriate form of bracketing. More appropriate—and even more in keeping with Berger's own deeper convictions—would be a form of bracketing that might be termed “methodological agnosticism.” Adopting methodological agnosticism over methodological atheism results in a revised social constructionism that acknowledges that objects of our experience are not all entirely constructed socially. Without perhaps actually overturning it, applied to religious experience, such a revised social constructionism calls sociology's naturalism into serious question. Naturalism is the assumption that all scientific explanation must be this‐worldly, never referencing supernatural or transcendental realities. One way of preserving naturalism is the methodological atheism first articulated by Peter Berger (1967 ; 1979 ). Methodological atheism is the practice of bracketing—or refusing to consider—for the purpose of sociological study the ultimate reality of such religious objects as God, angels, or cosmic unity. As well http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour Wiley

Methodological Atheism, Methodological Agnosticism and Religious Experience

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/methodological-atheism-methodological-agnosticism-and-religious-E9optO4mFb

References (11)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0021-8308
eISSN
1468-5914
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-5914.2006.00296.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Peter Berger has been the most seminal of contemporary sociologists of religion (see Woodhead et al. 2001 ), so much so that today the form of bracketing Berger labeled “methodological atheism” is virtually a taken for granted presupposition of the sociological study of religion. This paper argues that when it comes to the sociological study of religious experience, methodological atheism prescribes an inappropriate form of bracketing. More appropriate—and even more in keeping with Berger's own deeper convictions—would be a form of bracketing that might be termed “methodological agnosticism.” Adopting methodological agnosticism over methodological atheism results in a revised social constructionism that acknowledges that objects of our experience are not all entirely constructed socially. Without perhaps actually overturning it, applied to religious experience, such a revised social constructionism calls sociology's naturalism into serious question. Naturalism is the assumption that all scientific explanation must be this‐worldly, never referencing supernatural or transcendental realities. One way of preserving naturalism is the methodological atheism first articulated by Peter Berger (1967 ; 1979 ). Methodological atheism is the practice of bracketing—or refusing to consider—for the purpose of sociological study the ultimate reality of such religious objects as God, angels, or cosmic unity. As well

Journal

Journal for the Theory of Social BehaviourWiley

Published: Mar 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.