The secularisation thesis: Talking at cross purposes
This article does not seek to argue for or against any aspect of the secularisation thesis. It argues that careful attention to the definition of terms, together with a division of existing arguments relating to the thesis into a "Broad Approach"; and a "Narrow Approach"; would g...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Carfax Publ.
[1997]
|
| Dans: |
Journal of contemporary religion
Année: 1997, Volume: 12, Numéro: 2, Pages: 159-179 |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Résumé: | This article does not seek to argue for or against any aspect of the secularisation thesis. It argues that careful attention to the definition of terms, together with a division of existing arguments relating to the thesis into a "Broad Approach"; and a "Narrow Approach"; would greatly assist in the clarification and evaluation of arguments concerning the secularisation thesis. It argues further that it is vital for historical data to be correctly researched, handled and applied. The article concludes that there is a significant amount of confusion caused by the failure to define terms and apply historical data with care. This makes it difficult to make headway with the secularisation debate or to evaluate properly the alternative model of "Desacralisation"; (Stark & Iannaccone, 1994), so that theorists are often talking at cross purposes. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1469-9419 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of contemporary religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/13537909708580797 |