Naturalism, Normativity, and the Study of Religion
AbstractThis article repudiates the common view that the study of religion, in order to qualify as academic, must be descriptively neutral and naturalistic rather than normative or prescriptive. Following philosophers like John McDowell, John Cottingham, and Tyler Roberts, I claim that such a methodological stance amounts to viewing humans as determined rather than free agents. On the basis of W.V.O. Quine and Donald Davidson’s analysis of translation, I argue that normativity is ineliminable from humanistic scholarship, which is itself inextricable from religious studies. Robert Pippin and Thomas A. Lewis’s readings of Hegel then provide resources to reconcile human freedom and constraint in religion. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Mundra, A. Naturalism, Normativity, and the Study of Religion. Religions 2017, 8, 220.
Mundra A. Naturalism, Normativity, and the Study of Religion. Religions. 2017; 8(10):220.Chicago/Turabian Style
Mundra, Anil. 2017. "Naturalism, Normativity, and the Study of Religion." Religions 8, no. 10: 220.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.