宗教经验和宗教机构的作用:比较彼得·l·伯杰和汉斯·乔斯的宗教研究方法

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 RELIGION Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Pub Date : 2021-09-13 DOI:10.1163/15700682-12341514
I. Deman
{"title":"宗教经验和宗教机构的作用:比较彼得·l·伯杰和汉斯·乔斯的宗教研究方法","authors":"I. Deman","doi":"10.1163/15700682-12341514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nHans Joas (born 1948) has repeatedly criticized Peter L. Berger (1929–2017) for placing religious experiences in the cognitive realm, where it runs the risk of being “contaminated” by secularization and pluralism. Instead, Joas has proposed to locate religious experiences in the “deeper layers” of the human person, where it is protected against mere cognitive reductionism and against contamination by secularization and pluralism. Despite his critique, Joas follows a similar path of Berger, as he explains the phenomenon of religion from an inductive point of view that originates in the experiential realm. This article demonstrates how Joas’ approach operates on a similar methodology like the one of Berger and ultimately results in similar theoretical conclusions despite their differing theoretical foundations. Moreover, this article illuminates an implicit methodological similarity between Joas and Berger that, on the one hand, differs from one of the taken-for-granted methodologies in the discipline of sociology (of religion), and, on the other hand, strongly influences the disposition of religious institutions in their definition of religion.","PeriodicalId":44982,"journal":{"name":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Religious Experiences and Religious Institutions: Comparing Peter L. Berger’s and Hans Joas’ Approach to Religion\",\"authors\":\"I. Deman\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700682-12341514\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nHans Joas (born 1948) has repeatedly criticized Peter L. Berger (1929–2017) for placing religious experiences in the cognitive realm, where it runs the risk of being “contaminated” by secularization and pluralism. Instead, Joas has proposed to locate religious experiences in the “deeper layers” of the human person, where it is protected against mere cognitive reductionism and against contamination by secularization and pluralism. Despite his critique, Joas follows a similar path of Berger, as he explains the phenomenon of religion from an inductive point of view that originates in the experiential realm. This article demonstrates how Joas’ approach operates on a similar methodology like the one of Berger and ultimately results in similar theoretical conclusions despite their differing theoretical foundations. Moreover, this article illuminates an implicit methodological similarity between Joas and Berger that, on the one hand, differs from one of the taken-for-granted methodologies in the discipline of sociology (of religion), and, on the other hand, strongly influences the disposition of religious institutions in their definition of religion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44982,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341514\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Method & Theory in the Study of Religion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341514","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

汉斯·乔斯(Hans Joas, 1948年出生)多次批评彼得·l·伯杰(1929-2017)将宗教体验置于认知领域,有被世俗化和多元化“污染”的风险。相反,Joas建议将宗教体验定位于人的“更深层次”,在那里它受到保护,免受单纯的认知还原论和世俗化和多元主义的污染。尽管他进行了批判,但乔斯还是遵循了伯杰的类似路径,他从源自经验领域的归纳观点来解释宗教现象。这篇文章展示了Joas的方法是如何在类似于Berger的方法上运作的,并最终得出类似的理论结论,尽管他们的理论基础不同。此外,这篇文章阐明了Joas和Berger之间隐含的方法论相似性,一方面,它不同于社会学(宗教)学科中被认为理所当然的方法之一,另一方面,它强烈地影响了宗教机构对宗教定义的倾向。
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
The Role of Religious Experiences and Religious Institutions: Comparing Peter L. Berger’s and Hans Joas’ Approach to Religion
Hans Joas (born 1948) has repeatedly criticized Peter L. Berger (1929–2017) for placing religious experiences in the cognitive realm, where it runs the risk of being “contaminated” by secularization and pluralism. Instead, Joas has proposed to locate religious experiences in the “deeper layers” of the human person, where it is protected against mere cognitive reductionism and against contamination by secularization and pluralism. Despite his critique, Joas follows a similar path of Berger, as he explains the phenomenon of religion from an inductive point of view that originates in the experiential realm. This article demonstrates how Joas’ approach operates on a similar methodology like the one of Berger and ultimately results in similar theoretical conclusions despite their differing theoretical foundations. Moreover, this article illuminates an implicit methodological similarity between Joas and Berger that, on the one hand, differs from one of the taken-for-granted methodologies in the discipline of sociology (of religion), and, on the other hand, strongly influences the disposition of religious institutions in their definition of religion.
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Method & Theory in the Study of Religion publishes articles, notes, book reviews and letters which explicitly address the problems of methodology and theory in the academic study of religion. This includes such traditional points of departure as history, philosophy, anthropology and sociology, but also the natural sciences, and such newer disciplinary approaches as feminist theory and studies. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion also concentrates on the critical analysis of theoretical problems prominent in the study of religion.
期刊最新文献
Awkward History, Awkward Theory Front matter The Discursive Side of Sociological Institutionalism in the Study of Religion ‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations Scholarly Values, Methods, and Evidence in the Academic Study 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