To Our Critics

Introduction: The rise of the evolutionary and cognitive science of religion in the last two decades has sparked a resurgence of interest in explaining religion. Predictably, these efforts have prompted rehearsals of longstanding debates over whether religious phenomena can or should be explained in nonreligious terms. Little attention has been devoted to the nature of explanation, methods of explanation, or what should count as an adequate explanation.

Ars Disputandi

Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie, 2015

SummaryRecent studies based on evolutionary approaches to human life, among them the so-called Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR), point to a variety of natural conditions for religion. These studies then re-open the whole discussion about natural religion from a non-theological angle. They thereby also allow for a new discussion about the conditions for understanding religion in general. The question about evolved natural conditions for, and concrete historical content of, religion is addressed from both the point of view of Schleiermacher’s philosophy of religion, and N. Barrett’s integrative scientific critique of CSR. The present argument suggests that more emphasis should be on the concrete experiences articulated in a religious context, and accordingly, also more openness for a perspective on religion that allows for a first- and second-person perspective.

Between Religion and Reason part I, 2019

This is the English translation of the introduction and chapter one of Between Religion and Reason part I which was published by Academic Studies Press, Brighton, Boston in 2020 .

Religion, 2018

Sofia Philosophical Review, 2016

Nova et Vetera, 2010

While faith seeks understanding, reason and science themselves rely on implicit assumptions about the intelligibility of the world. This article argues that these assumptions presuppose the existence and the attributes of the creator God of classical theism. Once this is acknowledged, faith and reason – while remaining methodologically separate – will cease to appear as enemies.

Religion, 1987

This two-volume reference work is presented as a `sequel' to J. Waardenburg's Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion published as volumes I and II in this same Mouton series (Reason and Religion). The work is meant to complement thè story' of the academic study of religion in its development up to 1945 implicit in the selections of representative scholars in the field gathered together by Waardenburg. The substance of these volumes does not, however, comprise select passages from key authors in `religious studies', that being virtually impossible given the extensive development of the field since 1945. Nor do these volumes present a unified historical narrative of that `further development' of religious studies. Rather, they contain the reflections of a `team' of scholars, each summarizing the character of the study of religion within the framework of various sub-disciplines, so to speak, that constitute that study. It is the aim of the editor (and most of the authors, it appears) not only to indicate the variety of legitimate research interests in religious studies, but also to show how that variety of approaches interrelate, or, at least, can be integrated so as to constitute a kind of unified theory of the nature of the study of religion. It soon becomes evident to the reader, however-and reluctantly admitted by the editorthat even with this two-volume assault on the problem there is no single paradigm for the study of religion even within sight let alone within our grasp. What unity does appear to exist derives more from the hopes expressed by the editor than from the substance of the essays. Volume I is focussed on `the humanities', i .e. on approaches to the study of religion that, as Whaling puts it in the introductions to the two volumes, transcend the positivism of the scientific approach to religious phenomena by means of the intuitive insight `that the study of religion has to do with man' (I : 25, 26 ; II : 12). In the introduction to the first volume, Whaling attempts to highlight, the contrasts between the classical and contemporary periods in the study of religion and enunciates some general methodological claims that seem to constitute a set of assumptions for all the authors. Five essays follow which cover the historical and phenomenological approaches to the study of religion (U. King), the comparative study of religion (F. Whaling), the study of religious texts and myth (K. Bolle), the scientific study of religion in its plurality (N. Smart), and the global context of the contemporary study of religions (F. Whaling). U. King's essay is more than merely descriptive. It is a polemical essay that argues for a historical and phenomenological study of religions that is more than a narrow, empirical approach to the phenomenon. Such an `empirical positivism', as she calls it, jeopardizes the autonomy of `religious studies' and is, moreover, inadequate to its subject matter. Her review of the methodological debates amongst historians and phenomenologists over the last 40 years, however, is thorough and stimulating .