Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T01:39:00.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neutrality in Religious Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Peter Donovan
Peter Donovan
Affiliation:
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Open-minded’, ‘detached’, ‘objective’, ‘disinterested’, ‘impartial’, ‘non-partisan’ and ‘independent’ are terms typically used when Religious Studies seeks to present itself as an academic discipline. Phrases like ‘methodological agnosticism’, ‘suspension of judgement’, and ‘procedural neutrality’ are also found, in attempts to formulate an appropriate methodology. Seldom are those terms and phrases precisely defined, or the differences between them examined. Yet a moment's reflection reveals that they are far from clear or unambiguous, and that if they are to be used at all effectively in this context, more work must be done by way of preliminary analysis and clarification.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 103 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In formulating that definition I have taken note of the useful but inconclusive debate between Alan Montefiore and Kolakowski, Leszek in Neutrality and Impartiality, ed. by Montefiore, Alan (Cambridge University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

2 ‘The Theological Enemies of Religious Studies’ Religion, XVIII (1988), 31.Google Scholar

3 Comparative Religion (Newton Abbot, 1972), p. 30.Google Scholar

4 Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 1 (Macmillan, 1987), pp. ix–xx.Google Scholar

5 See King, Ursula, ‘Female Identity and the History of Religions’, in Identity Issues and World Religions, ed. by Hayes, Victor C., (Australian Association for the Study of Religions, 1986), pp. 83–92.Google Scholar

6 Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 1, p. xv.Google Scholar

7 Clarendon Press, 1968, p. 10.Google Scholar

8 Penguin, 1970, p. 16.Google Scholar

9 ‘The Theory of Religion and Method in the Study of Religion in the Encyclopedia of Religion’, Religious Studies, XXIV (1988), 9.Google Scholar

10 Ibid. p. 10.

11 ‘A Positive Episteme for the Study of Religion’, Scottish journal of Religious Studies, VI (1985), 78.Google Scholar

12 Ibid. p. 90.

13 Comparative Religion, 2nd ed. (Duckworth, 1986), p. 295.Google Scholar

14 ‘Postulations for Safeguarding Preconceptions: The Case of the Scientific Religionist’, Religion XVIII (1988), 18.Google Scholar

15 In On the Margins of Science, ed. by Wallis, Roy (University of Keele, 1979), p. 197.Google Scholar