Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2007.00852.x Byline: Eduardo Rodrigues da Cruz (1) Author Affiliation: (1)Professor of Religious Studies at the Pontifical Catholic University of Sao Paulo, R. Monte Alegre, 984, Sao Paulo, 05014 SP, Brazil; e-mailerodcruz@pucsp.br.

The study of religion involves typologies used by scholars for theoretical understanding of the field. What is outlined here is a typology in terms of paradigms, the Newtonian and the Romantic ones. After reflection on the meaning of these words, we start form the rules of method by Newton himself. These helped to shape enlightenment, which eventually led to positivism. Names such as Hume, Tylor and Durkheim were cited as representatives of this paradigm. Then romantic reactions to enlightenmentrelated rationality is described, and names such as Schleiermacher, Dilthey and Otto are cited as examples. Even though the two paradigms coexisted throughout the XX century, it was only in its last quarter that a clear naturalistic reaction occurred. Today this uneasy coexistence is still visible in the many different schools for the study of religion. In the end, it is necessary to separate ideological skirmishes around religious allegiances of scholars, and their pragmatic practice of research. Jeppe Jensen's levels of explanations are proposed as a solution to any dichotomy, and the resulting methodological pluralism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bronislaw Szerszynski's Nature, Technology and the Sacred prompts a short reflection on the meaning of “the sacred. ” Although it is part of the main thread of the book, the description of traditional and modern sacred does not seem to take into account recent scholarship in the field. In this essay I summarize a few issues in religious studies today regarding “the sacred” and what possible contribution they might have to Szerszynski's argument and, conversely, how his detailed analysis of the sacred may help this discipline to avoid “philistinism. ” The consequences of a universal human nature (from a Darwinian viewpoint) for the concept of the sacred are briefly discussed. In the end, a few suggestions are provided for the ongoing dialogue of science, technology, and religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]