Intelligibility and Normativity in the Study of Religion
In his essay The Devil in Mr. Jones, J. Z. Smith issues a call. If religionists do not, he writes, persist in the quest for intelligibility, there can be no human sciences, let alone, any place for the study of religion within them. How should Smith's call be construed? In other words, what...
| Published in: | Religions |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
MDPI
[2017]
|
| In: |
Religions
|
| Further subjects: | B
Description
B Comparison B prescription B J. Z. Smith B John P. Reeder Jr B Normativity |
| Online Access: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Summary: | In his essay The Devil in Mr. Jones, J. Z. Smith issues a call. If religionists do not, he writes, persist in the quest for intelligibility, there can be no human sciences, let alone, any place for the study of religion within them. How should Smith's call be construed? In other words, what constitutes the quest for intelligibility? And what (if anything) differentiates the religionist's quest for intelligibility from that of other humanistic scholars? Taking as my starting point Smith's call, I will mount a constructive proposal. On my proposal, religionists should conceive their task as twofold. First, religionists should comparatively describe religious phenomena. Second, they should evaluate these phenomena. Only if the practices of description and prescription are tethered will religious studies succeed in its quest for intelligibility. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel8110234 |