Why the possible is not impossible but is unlikely: a response to our colleagues
This paper is a response to the responses to our paper "Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion" by Hans Gerald Hödl, Hubert Seiwert, Radek Kundt, Tomáš Bubík, and Kocku von Stuckrad, published in this same issue of Religio: Revue pro religionistiku. Som...
| Published in: | Religio |
|---|---|
| Authors: | ; |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Společnost
[2012]
|
| In: |
Religio
|
| Further subjects: | B
Religious Studies
B history of the study of religion B cognitive science of religion B religious concerns |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | This paper is a response to the responses to our paper "Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion" by Hans Gerald Hödl, Hubert Seiwert, Radek Kundt, Tomáš Bubík, and Kocku von Stuckrad, published in this same issue of Religio: Revue pro religionistiku. Some of the respondents actually overstate our position. We have claimed, and still now claim, that a fully scientific program of "Religious Studies", even if possible, is highly unlikely to ever be achieved. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2336-4475 |
| Reference: | Kommentar zu "Is an unbiased science of religion impossible? (2012)"
Kommentar zu "The study of religion as a scientific discipline (2012)" Kommentar zu "A scientific discipline (2012)" Kommentar zu "Rethinking the relationship between the study of religions, theology and religious concerns (2012)" Kommentar zu "Straw men and scientific nostalgia (2012)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Religio
|
| Persistent identifiers: | HDL: 11222.digilib/125400 |