Bridging the Gap between Understanding and Explanation Approaches to the Study of Religion

Kepnes, Steven

doi:10.2307/1385914

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

'Understanding' In Re Discourse1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

1990

2016

Publication Types

Select...

Article4

Book2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent6

Authors

Journals

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, most would agree that one of the goals of RE is to provide for a 'fusion of horizons' (Gadamer in Kepnes 1986): a meeting between "the world horizon of the religious phenomenon being studied and the interpreter's own world-view" (Kepnes 1986, 512). This sophisticated hermeneutical understanding of 'understanding' was not evident in the responses of our student interviewees.…”

Section: 'Understanding' In Re Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

“Everything is in Parables”: An Exploration of Students' Difficulties in Understanding Christian Beliefs Concerning Jesus

Freathy

Aylward

2010

Religious Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: 'Understanding' In Re Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

“Everything is in Parables”: An Exploration of Students' Difficulties in Understanding Christian Beliefs Concerning Jesus

Freathy

Aylward

2010

Religious Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Please note that I am the one who is introducing the contested notion of Verstehen, not Clooney. For an attempt to bridge the gap be tween the two approaches of explanation and understanding by ap plying the hermeneutical theory of Paul Ricoeur seeKepnes 1986. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Entitled to Understand: A Critical Look at Comparative Theology

Nugteren¹

2011

Interreligious Hermeneutics in Pluralistic Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contributions from the Social Sciences

Segal

2009

The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has long been tension, not between social scientists and practitioners of religion, but between social scientists and scholars of religious studies, referred to here as ‘religionists’. Religionists have conventionally assumed that the social sciences are guilty of multiple sins, none of them forgivable: ignoring the proverbial believer's point of view; denying the irreducibly religious nature of religion; analysing religion exclusively functionally, reductively, and explanatorily; analysing religion exclusively materially and behaviourally; and denying the truth of religion. This article maintains that the social sciences – anthropology, sociology, psychology, and economics – are guilty of none of these charges, which rest on their misconstrual. Ironically, those religionists who contend that contemporary social scientists have come round to accepting the religionist approach likewise misconstrue the social sciences.

show abstract

Bridging the Gap between Understanding and Explanation Approaches to the Study of Religion

Cited by 10 publications

References 1 publication

“Everything is in Parables”: An Exploration of Students' Difficulties in Understanding Christian Beliefs Concerning Jesus

“Everything is in Parables”: An Exploration of Students' Difficulties in Understanding Christian Beliefs Concerning Jesus

Entitled to Understand: A Critical Look at Comparative Theology

Contributions from the Social Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About