Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/10182
Title: Towards a "Redescription" of "Spirituality": A Response
subject: genealogy;conceptual/semantic history;sbnr;insider/outsider;theology;spirituality;religion/spirituality distinction;methodology;VDP::Humaniora: 000::Teologi og religionsvitenskap: 150;VDP::Humanities: 000::Theology and religious studies: 150;Spiritualitet / Spirituality
Publisher: Brill
Description: In “The Spiritual Illusion” (2014), Jonathan R. Herman wishes to initiate a discussion of the feasibility of the category “spirituality” within the study of religions. This response addresses several methodological problems with his effort, and questions the feasibility of this ironic approach. My critique is five-folded: Firstly, Herman draws a crude picture of the relationship between theology and the study of religion. Secondly, he does not explain why his sample of authors constitutes a hegemony for the understanding of “spirituality” in the study of religions. Thirdly, he ignores those who have been influential for how the category is used today. Fourthly, religion is assumed to be a “rectified” category not worthy of discussion. Fifthly, it remains unclear where an “ironic” and “imaginative” comparison of spiritual\religion and penis\vagina will take us.
publishedVersion
Journal Article
URI: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/10182
More Information: 0943-3058
http://hdl.handle.net/1956/10182
1229133
1229133
10.1163/15700682-12341350
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Humanities

Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.
Title: Towards a "Redescription" of "Spirituality": A Response
subject: genealogy;conceptual/semantic history;sbnr;insider/outsider;theology;spirituality;religion/spirituality distinction;methodology;VDP::Humaniora: 000::Teologi og religionsvitenskap: 150;VDP::Humanities: 000::Theology and religious studies: 150;Spiritualitet / Spirituality
Publisher: Brill
Description: In “The Spiritual Illusion” (2014), Jonathan R. Herman wishes to initiate a discussion of the feasibility of the category “spirituality” within the study of religions. This response addresses several methodological problems with his effort, and questions the feasibility of this ironic approach. My critique is five-folded: Firstly, Herman draws a crude picture of the relationship between theology and the study of religion. Secondly, he does not explain why his sample of authors constitutes a hegemony for the understanding of “spirituality” in the study of religions. Thirdly, he ignores those who have been influential for how the category is used today. Fourthly, religion is assumed to be a “rectified” category not worthy of discussion. Fifthly, it remains unclear where an “ironic” and “imaginative” comparison of spiritual\religion and penis\vagina will take us.
publishedVersion
Journal Article
URI: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/10182
More Information: 0943-3058
http://hdl.handle.net/1956/10182
1229133
1229133
10.1163/15700682-12341350
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Humanities

Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.
Title: Towards a "Redescription" of "Spirituality": A Response
subject: genealogy;conceptual/semantic history;sbnr;insider/outsider;theology;spirituality;religion/spirituality distinction;methodology;VDP::Humaniora: 000::Teologi og religionsvitenskap: 150;VDP::Humanities: 000::Theology and religious studies: 150;Spiritualitet / Spirituality
Publisher: Brill
Description: In “The Spiritual Illusion” (2014), Jonathan R. Herman wishes to initiate a discussion of the feasibility of the category “spirituality” within the study of religions. This response addresses several methodological problems with his effort, and questions the feasibility of this ironic approach. My critique is five-folded: Firstly, Herman draws a crude picture of the relationship between theology and the study of religion. Secondly, he does not explain why his sample of authors constitutes a hegemony for the understanding of “spirituality” in the study of religions. Thirdly, he ignores those who have been influential for how the category is used today. Fourthly, religion is assumed to be a “rectified” category not worthy of discussion. Fifthly, it remains unclear where an “ironic” and “imaginative” comparison of spiritual\religion and penis\vagina will take us.
publishedVersion
Journal Article
URI: http://localhost:80/handle/1956/10182
More Information: 0943-3058
http://hdl.handle.net/1956/10182
1229133
1229133
10.1163/15700682-12341350
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Humanities

Files in This Item:
Click on the URI links for accessing contents.