Instituting a Strictly Scientific Study of Religion with Donald Wiebe
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/bsor.23551Keywords:
iahr, higher education, academia, religious studies, aar, naasrAbstract
The Interview brings you in-depth exchanges with schol-ars who have impacted the way we carry out work in the academic study of religion. In this edition, Bulletin editor Richard Newton sat with Donald Wiebe (Trinity College in the University of Toronto, co-founder of the North American Association for the Study of Religion, and twice-former Executive Committee member of the International Association for the History of Religions). They discuss institutionbuilding in our field—from navigating the conflation of critical and confessional approaches at the university level, to association building, to defending its raison d’être. The latter concern most re-cently came to a head within the IAHR in an incident that Wiebe expounds upon in his latest book, An Argument in Defense of a Strictly Scientific Study of Religion: The Controversy at Delphi (Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion 2021).
References
Allen, Charlotte. 1996. “Is Nothing Sacred?: Casting Out the Gods from Religious Studies.” Lingua Franca (November) 6/7, 30–40.
Ambasciano, Leonardo. 2019. An Unnatural History of Religions: Academia, Post-Truth and the Quest for Scientific Knowledge. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Hughes, Aaron W. 2020. From Seminary to University: An Institutional History of the Study of Religion in Canada. University of Toronto Press.
Penner, Hans H. and Edward A. Yonan. 1972. “Is a Science of Religion Possible?” Journal of Religion 52.2: 107–133. https://doi.org/10.1086/486293
Richardson, Peter. 1997. “Correct, But Only Barely: Donald Wiebe on Religion at the University of Toronto.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 9.3: 233–247.
Robertson, David. 2021. Review of An Argument In Defence Of A Strictly Scientific Study Of Religion by Donald Wiebe. British Association for the Study of Religion Bulletin 139: 18–20. https://basrblog.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/bulletin-139b-min.pdf
Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi. (2016). “Marburg–and After?” in Numen, The Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present, and Prospects, eds. Tim Jensen and Armin Geertz. Leiden: Brill. 61–66.
Wiebe, Donald. 1994 [1973]. “Comprehensively Critical Rationalism and Commitment.” In Beyond Legitimation: Essays on the Problem of Religious Knowledge, 1–16. London: Palgrave MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-23668-8_1
———. 1995. “Alive, But Only Barely: Graduate Students in Religion at the University of Toronto.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 7: 351–381.
———. 1999. The Politics of Religious Studies. Palgrave.
———. 2013. “Change the Name! On the Importance of Reclaiming NAASR’s Original Objectives for the Twenty-First Century.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 25.4/5: 350–361.
———. 2020. “A Report on the Special Executive Committee Meeting of the International Association for the History of Religions in Delphi.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 32.2: 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341477
———. 2021. An Argument in Defence of a Strictly Scientific Study of Religion: The Controversy at Delphi. Toronto: Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion.
———. 2023. The Modern Western Epistemic Tradition and the Scientific Study of Religion. Sheffield: Equinox.
Wiebe, Donald, and Luther H. Martin. 1993. “On Declaring War: A Critical Comment.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 5: 47–52.
Wolfart, Johannes. 2021. “We Are All Institutionalized: Three Works to Challenge the Conceit of a Generically ‘Academic’ Study of Religion.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, (November), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/00084298211052933
