Detailed Information on Publication Record
2014
Has the Cognitive Science of Religion (Re)defined “Religion”?
FRANEK, JurajBasic information
Original name
Has the Cognitive Science of Religion (Re)defined “Religion”?
Authors
FRANEK, Juraj (703 Slovakia, guarantor, belonging to the institution)
Edition
Religio : revue pro religionistiku, Brno, Česká společnost pro religionistiku, 2014, 1210-3640
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Článek v odborném periodiku
Field of Study
60300 6.3 Philosophy, Ethics and Religion
Country of publisher
Czech Republic
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
RIV identification code
RIV/00216224:14210/14:00076596
Organization unit
Faculty of Arts
Keywords in English
cognitive science of religion; definition of religion; cognitive revolution; essentialism; nominalism; realism; language games; family resemblances; social constructionism
Tags
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 18/2/2015 10:16, Mgr. Vendula Hromádková
Abstract
V originále
The purpose of this article is to evaluate the stance of the cognitive science of religion (CSR) with respect to the problem of the definition of religion. Firstly, I defend the necessity of an approximate definition of religion due to the fact that (a) definitions are microtheories and (b) there is considerable social demand for a comprehensive definition of religion because of the inclusion of the concept in the majority of contemporary legal systems. Secondly, I present a representative sample of statements about the nature of religion put forward by scholars working within the cognitive tradition, which reveals considerable convergence on what the CSR thinks religion is about and justifies the concept of a "cognitive definition of religion". Thirdly, in a brief historical sketch, I try to identify two opposite tendencies in historical attempts at defining religion and their respective philosophical backgrounds: Essentialist definitions perpetuate the venerable Western tradition harking back to Plato's Euthyphro, while recent non-essentialist definitions draw on the work of late Wittgenstein (in what I term "power-innocent" social constructionism) and Nietzsche, Foucault and Bourdieu (in what I term "power-based" social constructionism), respectively. Lastly, against the background of an essentialist vs. non-essentialist dialectic, I consider the definition of religion provided by the CSR, which, while prima facie almost indistinguishable from Tylor's doctrine of animism, is based philosophically on Kant and Chomsky (and therefore at odds with the prevalent practice of social constructionism) and capable of providing much more cogent justification for a universalistic approach to religion than any of its essentialist predecessors.
Links
| MUNI/A/0860/2013, interní kód MU |
|