2013
DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lft072
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The End of Philosophy of Religion?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While attention to what Knepper (2013Knepper ( , 2014, following John Clayton (2006, pp. 5-6), terms "religious reason-giving" is and should be of interest and importance to philosophers of religion, there is no clear rationale for delimiting the use of thick description to the exposition and analysis of this area of religious life.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…While attention to what Knepper (2013Knepper ( , 2014, following John Clayton (2006, pp. 5-6), terms "religious reason-giving" is and should be of interest and importance to philosophers of religion, there is no clear rationale for delimiting the use of thick description to the exposition and analysis of this area of religious life.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There has, in recent years, been considerable attention devoted in metaethics to "thick concepts," and it has occasionally been noted that this latter term, originated by Bernard Williams (1985), was probably influenced by Ryle's notion of thick description (Kirchin 2013, p. 60;Väyrynen 2013, p. 1); but discussions directly about thick description are few and far between in the philosophical literature. Among the exceptions to this is recent work by Knepper (2013Knepper ( , 2014, who has called for thick description to be undertaken specifically by philosophers of religion.…”
Section: Varieties Of Thick Descriptionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The cottage industry of envisioning some sort of future for the philosophy of religion has almost uniformly and arbitrarily constrained its imagination to the locus of disciplinary reconfiguration and stylistics (Goodchild, 2002;Trakakis, 2008Trakakis, , 2013Crisp and Rea, 2009;Smith and Whistler, 2010;Wildman, 2010;Hewitt, 2012;Rennie, 2012a, b;Schilbrack, 2012Schilbrack, , 2014aStrenski, 2012a, b;Knepper, 2013Knepper, , 2014Crockett, Putt and Robbins, 2014;Irvine, 2014;McLachlan, 2014;Simmons, 2014;Lewis, 2015;Onishi, 2017;Draper and Schellenberg, 2018;Kanaris, 2018). This imaginative constraint reflects these projects being caught in the ongoing tug of war among anti-disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and postdisciplinarity, which may have value in its own right for the humanities broadly (Menand, 2010, chaps 2.5-6), but could easily lead to ruin for philosophy of religion due to its departmental dislocation.…”
Section: Whither Philosophy Of Religion?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6). For discussion of this notion in relation to philosophy of religion, see Burley (forthcoming b) andKnepper (2014).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%