On declaring WAR: a critical comment

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In recent reviews of Marburg Revisited: Institutions and Strategies in Study of Religion, ed. Michael Pye, (Marburg: Diagonal-verlag, 1989), proceedings of special conference of International Association for History of Religions (IAHR), Ninian Smart and Ursula King (MTSR 2/2 [1990a]: 298-304 and 3/1 [1991]: 142-146) take us to task for giving attention once again to problem of interference of religious practice in academic study of religion. Smart, for example, seems distressed by Martin's historically based observation that apart from few quasi successful attempts, promise to realize new paradigm for religious study [in North America] remains largely unrealized because of theological inertia that continues to characterize study of religion in American cultural context (1990a: 28) and laments Wiebe's incapacity to resolve problem he raises regarding tension between theology and study of religion. And King, though without objection to Martin's claim regarding theological domination of superstructure which still shapes academic study of religion in North America, seems particularly disturbed by Wiebe's argument against perceived threat of religious studies being 'retheologized' as is evident in her suggestion that Wiebe here is simply once again riding favourite hobby-horse (1991:146). Although King admits that the strength and importance of this [i.e., Wiebe's] argument cannot be denied, and insists that all those interested in debate between theology and religious studies should take note of it, and admits, furthermore, that one can go long way with Wiebe's reasoning, she maintains that logic of his argument invites stringent critique (1991:146). According to King, Wiebe's argument is brand of adversarial thinking based on a rather narrow rationalistic intellectualism that draws cognitive boundaries too sharply (1991:146). In this regard she similarly attacks Michael Pye's argument in introductory position paper