方法论自然主义与方法论世俗主义量表

F. Shults, W. Wildman
{"title":"方法论自然主义与方法论世俗主义量表","authors":"F. Shults, W. Wildman","doi":"10.1558/bsor.23700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars within and across fields such as the psychology of religion, sociology of religion, cognitive science of religion, religious studies, and theology often argue about the values and norms that ought to guide “academic” research in religion. Is it appropriate in the academy to explain religious phenomena by referring to supernatural forces (such as spirits or gods) as causal agents or to defend one’s scholarly arguments by appealing to the holy texts accepted as authoritative within one’s religious coalition? Debates surrounding such questions have remained intractable for decades in part because they have been based on anecdotal personal experiences rather than clear empirical data. This article presents the Methodological Naturalism-Methodological Secularism scale, a new survey instrument capable of moving forward debates about scholarly values in the academic study of religion. This initial deployment of the MNMS scale in a population of religion scholars (N=284) clarifies extant commitments, challenges common caricatures, and reveals unfamiliar configurations of academic values.","PeriodicalId":354875,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin for The Study of Religion","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methodological Naturalism and Methodological Secularism Scale\",\"authors\":\"F. Shults, W. Wildman\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/bsor.23700\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars within and across fields such as the psychology of religion, sociology of religion, cognitive science of religion, religious studies, and theology often argue about the values and norms that ought to guide “academic” research in religion. Is it appropriate in the academy to explain religious phenomena by referring to supernatural forces (such as spirits or gods) as causal agents or to defend one’s scholarly arguments by appealing to the holy texts accepted as authoritative within one’s religious coalition? Debates surrounding such questions have remained intractable for decades in part because they have been based on anecdotal personal experiences rather than clear empirical data. This article presents the Methodological Naturalism-Methodological Secularism scale, a new survey instrument capable of moving forward debates about scholarly values in the academic study of religion. This initial deployment of the MNMS scale in a population of religion scholars (N=284) clarifies extant commitments, challenges common caricatures, and reveals unfamiliar configurations of academic values.\",\"PeriodicalId\":354875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin for The Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin for The Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.23700\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin for The Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.23700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

宗教心理学、宗教社会学、宗教认知科学、宗教研究和神学等领域的学者经常争论应该指导宗教“学术”研究的价值观和规范。在学术界,用超自然力量(如神灵或神灵)作为原因来解释宗教现象是否合适,或者用宗教联盟内公认的权威圣典来捍卫自己的学术论点是否合适?几十年来,围绕这些问题的争论一直难以解决,部分原因是它们基于轶事式的个人经历,而不是明确的实证数据。本文提出了方法论自然主义-方法论世俗主义量表,这是一种新的调查工具,能够推动关于宗教学术研究中学术价值的辩论。MNMS量表在宗教学者群体(N=284)中的初步部署澄清了现存的承诺,挑战了常见的漫画,并揭示了不熟悉的学术价值观配置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Methodological Naturalism and Methodological Secularism Scale
Scholars within and across fields such as the psychology of religion, sociology of religion, cognitive science of religion, religious studies, and theology often argue about the values and norms that ought to guide “academic” research in religion. Is it appropriate in the academy to explain religious phenomena by referring to supernatural forces (such as spirits or gods) as causal agents or to defend one’s scholarly arguments by appealing to the holy texts accepted as authoritative within one’s religious coalition? Debates surrounding such questions have remained intractable for decades in part because they have been based on anecdotal personal experiences rather than clear empirical data. This article presents the Methodological Naturalism-Methodological Secularism scale, a new survey instrument capable of moving forward debates about scholarly values in the academic study of religion. This initial deployment of the MNMS scale in a population of religion scholars (N=284) clarifies extant commitments, challenges common caricatures, and reveals unfamiliar configurations of academic values.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Talking Fieldwork with Rebekka King The Institute for Signifying Scriptures Presents A Scholarly Stakeout Ethnography as Heuristic Experience, Historical Research, and Multiple Method Ethnographic Journalism and the Public Understanding of Religion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1