Must a Scholar of Religion Be Methodologically Atheistic or Agnostic?
Peter L. Berger famously argued that any scientific inquiry into religious matters must be “methodologically atheistic.” But methodological atheism performs no proper normative function in the academic study of religion; it fabricates, trivializes, and renders inexplicable religious experience; it i...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
[2016]
|
| In: |
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Year: 2016, Volume: 84, Issue: 2, Pages: 373-400 |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | Peter L. Berger famously argued that any scientific inquiry into religious matters must be “methodologically atheistic.” But methodological atheism performs no proper normative function in the academic study of religion; it fabricates, trivializes, and renders inexplicable religious experience; it is not neutral or objective; and the argument for its normativity improperly legitimates a secular worldview. Furthermore, the argument for the normativity of methodological agnosticism suffers some of the same flaws and has distinctive flaws of its own, including hindering scholars from articulating good reasons to believe that certain religious experiences are delusions and exhibiting self-referential incoherence. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1477-4585 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: American Academy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfv066 |