Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Religious Philosophy after ‘Religion’?

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. Richard Amesbury and William Wainwright, ‘Rethinking Philosophy of Religion: A Dialogue,’ American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 28:2 (May 2007): 235.

  2. Wesley Wildman, Religious Philosophy As Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry: Envisioning a Future for the Philosophy of Religion (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010). Subsequent references to this text are in parentheses.

  3. Though the analogy with religious studies, a methodologically secular project, is explicit, the use of the adjective ‘religious’ rather than the prepositional phrase ‘of religion’ may unfortunately contribute to the perception that religious philosophy employs distinctively religious methods. Indeed, there is reason to believe that, even within the academy, a similar confusion is not uncommon regarding religious studies.

  4. Timothy Fitzgerald, The Ideology of Religious Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). See esp. Chaps. 11 and 12.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Claremont School of Theology, 1325 N. College Avenue, Claremont, CA, 91711, USA

    Richard Amesbury

Authors
  1. Richard Amesbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Amesbury.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Amesbury, R. Religious Philosophy after ‘Religion’?. SOPHIA 51, 293–297 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-012-0318-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-012-0318-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation