Beyond Methodological Axioms

Abstract

AbstractSince nearly the field’s birth, religious studies has been plagued by the question of how to deal with claims concerning the supernatural. Strategies for addressing the issue typically take the form of one or another methodological axiom, typically either methodological atheism or methodological agnosticism. Although each axiom answers legitimate concerns about how to address supernatural claims, each is also vulnerable to substantial objections. I therefore argue that these approaches to solving religious studies’ central methodological dilemma is flawed. Eschewing the search for methodological axioms, I advocate that we return to a basic standard of academic work: public evidence. When paired with a distinction between the analytical tasks of interpretation and explanation, this approach resolves the central problems that have vexed both methodological atheism and methodological agnosticism, avoiding the theoretical pitfalls generated by each while providing the necessary guidance and discipline for research on religion.