|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
The cognitive science of religion does not have its own
methodology, and yet from the very beginnings of the discipline,
methodology has defined it not only in relation to the general
study of religion in the humanities but also to the sciences
interested in the mind. Scholars of the cognitive science of
religion are using a range of methodologies, borrowing mostly from
the cognitive sciences and experimental psychology, but also from
biology, archaeology, history, philosophy, linguistics, the social
and statistical sciences, neurosciences, and anthropology. In fact,
this multi-disciplinarity defines the cognitive science of
religion. Such multi-disciplinarity requires hard work and truly
interdisciplinary teams, but also continual reflections on and
debates about the methodologies being used. In fact, no study of
the cognitive science of religion worth its name can rely on only
one methodology. Triangulation is standard, but often even more
approaches are used. This book consists of selected papers from the
Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion and the Journal of
Cognitive Historiography. Each chapter demonstrates a particular
method or group of methods and how those methods advance our
knowledge of the religious mind from the ancient past up to today.
This volume brings theoretical and methodological discussions from
religious studies, ancient history, and classics to the study of
ancient religions, thus attempting to bridge a disciplinary chasm
often apparent in the study of religions in antiquity. It examines
theoretical discourses on the specificity, origin, and function of
'religion' in antiquity, broadly defined here as the period from
the 6th century BCE to the 4th century CE. In addition, it explores
the crucial question of what is meant by the term 'religion' and
its applicability when employed to describe traditions that
antedate the historical periods known as the Enlightenment and the
Reformation. Theorizing about religion is often seen as an
accomplishment of modernity, neglecting the insights stemming from
the 'pre-modern' period. The contributors to this volume offer
detailed discussions and links between how the ancients theorized
about their religions and how modern scholars discuss about such
discourses in their academic environments.
The cognitive science of religion does not have its own
methodology, and yet from the very beginnings of the discipline,
methodology has defined it not only in relation to the general
study of religion in the humanities but also to the sciences
interested in the mind. Scholars of the cognitive science of
religion are using a range of methodologies, borrowing mostly from
the cognitive sciences and experimental psychology, but also from
biology, archaeology, history, philosophy, linguistics, the social
and statistical sciences, neurosciences, and anthropology. In fact,
this multi-disciplinarity defines the cognitive science of
religion. Such multi-disciplinarity requires hard work and truly
interdisciplinary teams, but also continual reflections on and
debates about the methodologies being used. In fact, no study of
the cognitive science of religion worth its name can rely on only
one methodology. Triangulation is standard, but often even more
approaches are used. This book consists of selected papers from the
Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion and the Journal of
Cognitive Historiography. Each chapter demonstrates a particular
method or group of methods and how those methods advance our
knowledge of the religious mind from the ancient past up to today.
How should ancient religious ideas be approached? Is "religion" an
applicable term to antiquity? Should classicists, ancient
historians, and religious studies scholars work more closely
together? Nickolas P. Roubekas argues that there is a disciplinary
gap between the study of Greek and Roman religions and the study of
“religion” as a category—a gap that has often resulted in
contradictory conclusions regarding Greek and Roman religion. This
book addresses this lack of interdisciplinarity by providing an
overview, criticism, and assessment of this chasm. It provides a
theoretical approach to this historical period, raising the issue
of the relationship between “theory of religion” and “history
of religion,” and explores how history influences theory and vice
versa. It also presents an in-depth critique of some crucial
problems that have been central to the discussions of scholars who
work on Graeco-Roman antiquity, encouraging us to re-examine how we
approach the study of ancient religions.
This volume brings theoretical and methodological discussions from
religious studies, ancient history, and classics to the study of
ancient religions, thus attempting to bridge a disciplinary chasm
often apparent in the study of religions in antiquity. It examines
theoretical discourses on the specificity, origin, and function of
'religion' in antiquity, broadly defined here as the period from
the 6th century BCE to the 4th century CE. In addition, it explores
the crucial question of what is meant by the term 'religion' and
its applicability when employed to describe traditions that
antedate the historical periods known as the Enlightenment and the
Reformation. Theorizing about religion is often seen as an
accomplishment of modernity, neglecting the insights stemming from
the 'pre-modern' period. The contributors to this volume offer
detailed discussions and links between how the ancients theorized
about their religions and how modern scholars discuss about such
discourses in their academic environments.
How should ancient religious ideas be approached? Is "religion" an
applicable term to antiquity? Should classicists, ancient
historians, and religious studies scholars work more closely
together? Nickolas P. Roubekas argues that there is a disciplinary
gap between the study of Greek and Roman religions and the study of
“religion” as a category—a gap that has often resulted in
contradictory conclusions regarding Greek and Roman religion. This
book addresses this lack of interdisciplinarity by providing an
overview, criticism, and assessment of this chasm. It provides a
theoretical approach to this historical period, raising the issue
of the relationship between “theory of religion” and “history
of religion,” and explores how history influences theory and vice
versa. It also presents an in-depth critique of some crucial
problems that have been central to the discussions of scholars who
work on Graeco-Roman antiquity, encouraging us to re-examine how we
approach the study of ancient religions.
|
|