Is Incommensurability Insurmountable? A Modest Response to Some Interpretations of George Lindbeck

This article is meant to respond to certain ways of construing the theoretical insights of George Lindbeck. In his famous The Nature of Doctrine, Lindbeck sketched what he dubbed the "cultural-linguistic" approach to religions. In this framework, religious doctrines are seen neither as des...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kildoo, Jacob M. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: University of Chicago Press 2022
In: The journal of religion
Year: 2022, Volume: 102, Issue: 3, Pages: 332-353
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1832298531
003 DE-627
005 20230125121854.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 230125s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1086/719733  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1832298531 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1832298531 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 0  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |e VerfasserIn  |0 (DE-588)1279115513  |0 (DE-627)1832384292  |4 aut  |a Kildoo, Jacob M. 
109 |a Kildoo, Jacob M.  |a Kildoo, Jacob 
245 1 0 |a Is Incommensurability Insurmountable? A Modest Response to Some Interpretations of George Lindbeck 
264 1 |c 2022 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article is meant to respond to certain ways of construing the theoretical insights of George Lindbeck. In his famous The Nature of Doctrine, Lindbeck sketched what he dubbed the "cultural-linguistic" approach to religions. In this framework, religious doctrines are seen neither as descriptive propositions about the world nor as expressions of nondiscursive, internal reactions to one’s experience of the Divine but rather as interpretive schemas through which believers learn how to understand and interact with their world. This theory (which we call theological particularism) poses problems for proponents of interreligious dialogue and comparative theology, for it seems to allow no common criteria by which different religions can be compared. Several recent thinkers have construed particularism as unamenable to projects of interreligious dialogue or comparison. In response, I argue that such interpretations rely on imputing to particularists a disputable understanding of what comprises a "religious tradition." In short, one must presume that the structure of a religion’s theological grammar itself represents the essence of that religion in order to construe incommensurability as such a problem. This presumption, however, ignores the important fact that religions are historically constituted and ever changing. To remedy this issue, I propose that particularists retrieve an important aspect of the thought of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who argued that religious traditions are the product of ongoing hermeneutical negotiations. I illustrate the utility of incorporating Smith’s proposal by considering the conflicting approaches of two contemporary scholars of the Qur’an. 
601 |a Interpretation 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t The journal of religion  |d Chicago, Ill. : Univ. of Chicago Press, 1921  |g 102(2022), 3, Seite 332-353  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)329085689  |w (DE-600)2047675-9  |w (DE-576)113710593  |x 1549-6538  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:102  |g year:2022  |g number:3  |g pages:332-353 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1086/719733  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 102  |j 2022  |e 3  |h 332-353 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4251333888 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1832298531 
LOK |0 005 20230125114725 
LOK |0 008 230125||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw 
REL |a 1 
SUB |a REL