Sophia 48 (1):35-42 (2009)
|Abstract||A philosophical theory of religion ought to meet four criteria: it should be extensionally accurate, neutral, phenomenological, and non-circular. I argue that none of the popular theories of religion meet all these criteria, and that, in particular, the extensional accuracy criterion and the non-circularity criterion can’t be met without sacrificing extensional accuracy. I conclude that, therefore, religions do not form a kind, and so, there is no such thing as religion.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Charles Lemert (1999). The Might Have Been and Could Be of Religion in Social Theory. Sociological Theory 17 (3):240-263.
Nir Fresco (2008). An Analysis of the Criteria for Evaluating Adequate Theories of Computation. Minds and Machines 18 (3):379-401.
Rodney Stark (1999). Micro Foundations of Religion: A Revised Theory. Sociological Theory 17 (3):264-289.
Arie L. Molendijk & Peter Pels (eds.) (1998). Religion in the Making: The Emergence of the Sciences of Religion. Brill.
John Herman Randall (1958/1986). The Role of Knowledge in Western Religion. University Press of America.
Amy Newman (1994). Feminist Social Criticism and Marx's Theory of Religion. Hypatia 9 (4):15 - 37.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,504 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,826 )
How can I increase my downloads?