How did ignorance become fact in American religious studies?: A reluctant reply to Ivan Strenski

Armin W. Geertz

How did ignorance become fact in American religious studies? A reluctant reply to Ivan Strenski

Institut for Kultur og Samfund - Afdeling for Religionsvidenskab

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avis › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

Abstract

Et svar til en kritik af den kognitive religionsvidenskab som Ivan Strenski udgav i "Much Ado about Quite a Lot" i tidsskriftet Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 85 (1) 2019: 365-388 (Dipartimento di Storia, Culture, Religioni: Sapienza - Università di Roma). Svaret rummer desuden en oversigt over de seneste 15 års forskningsresultater inden for den kognitive religionsvidenskab.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni
Vol/bind	86
Nummer	1
Sider (fra-til)	365-403
Antal sider	40
ISSN	0393-8417
Status	Udgivet - 2020

Emneord

religionsvidenskab
kognitiv religionsvidensakb
evolution og religion
teori og metode
videnskabsteori

Citationsformater

@article{420fbc8909e448b0960e23ed5c617019,

title = "How did ignorance become fact in American religious studies?: A reluctant reply to Ivan Strenski",

abstract = "In 2018, American religious studies scholar Ivan Strenski confidently proclaimed the failure of the cognitive science of religion as a fact (Strenski, 2018). In his reply to Alessandro Testa{\textquoteright}s review of Strenski{\textquoteright}s book Understanding Theories of Religion (Strenski, 2015, 2019; Testa, 2019), Strenski passionately repeats his stance against the cognitive science of religion. I am reluctant to reply to Strenski, but do so only because Strenski chose to end his reply to Testa with a broadside against the cognitive science of religion (CSR). Unfortunately, Strenski is obviously ignorant of CSR research. Thus, despite his abusive language, there are a few points in Strenski{\textquoteright}s reply that need addressing and, in the process, I will try to impart to the reader the kinds of exciting things that are currently happening in the cognitive science of religion and its promising future.",

keywords = "religionsvidenskab, kognitiv religionsvidensakb, evolution og religion, teori og metode, videnskabsteori, cognitive science of religion, comparative religion, method and theory in the study of religion, consilience",

author = "Geertz, {Armin W.}",

year = "2020",

language = "English",

volume = "86",

pages = "365--403",

journal = "Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni",

issn = "0393-8417",

publisher = "Sapienza Universit{\`a} di Roma",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How did ignorance become fact in American religious studies?

T2 - A reluctant reply to Ivan Strenski

AU - Geertz, Armin W.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - In 2018, American religious studies scholar Ivan Strenski confidently proclaimed the failure of the cognitive science of religion as a fact (Strenski, 2018). In his reply to Alessandro Testa’s review of Strenski’s book Understanding Theories of Religion (Strenski, 2015, 2019; Testa, 2019), Strenski passionately repeats his stance against the cognitive science of religion. I am reluctant to reply to Strenski, but do so only because Strenski chose to end his reply to Testa with a broadside against the cognitive science of religion (CSR). Unfortunately, Strenski is obviously ignorant of CSR research. Thus, despite his abusive language, there are a few points in Strenski’s reply that need addressing and, in the process, I will try to impart to the reader the kinds of exciting things that are currently happening in the cognitive science of religion and its promising future.

AB - In 2018, American religious studies scholar Ivan Strenski confidently proclaimed the failure of the cognitive science of religion as a fact (Strenski, 2018). In his reply to Alessandro Testa’s review of Strenski’s book Understanding Theories of Religion (Strenski, 2015, 2019; Testa, 2019), Strenski passionately repeats his stance against the cognitive science of religion. I am reluctant to reply to Strenski, but do so only because Strenski chose to end his reply to Testa with a broadside against the cognitive science of religion (CSR). Unfortunately, Strenski is obviously ignorant of CSR research. Thus, despite his abusive language, there are a few points in Strenski’s reply that need addressing and, in the process, I will try to impart to the reader the kinds of exciting things that are currently happening in the cognitive science of religion and its promising future.

KW - religionsvidenskab

KW - kognitiv religionsvidensakb

KW - evolution og religion

KW - teori og metode

KW - videnskabsteori

KW - cognitive science of religion

KW - comparative religion

KW - method and theory in the study of religion

KW - consilience

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0393-8417

VL - 86

SP - 365

EP - 403

JO - Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni

JF - Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni

IS - 1

ER -

How did ignorance become fact in American religious studies? A reluctant reply to Ivan Strenski

Abstract

Emneord

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater