A Response to Wolfart’s “Religious Literacy”: Some Considerations and Reservations
This text addresses three related aspects of Wolfart’s article on religious literacy: the critique of assumptions on the outcome of increased religious literacy, questions about the purpose of religious education, and the suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological. Although the predictabil...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Brill
2022
|
| In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Jahr: 2022, Band: 34, Heft: 5, Seiten: 453-464 |
| normierte Schlagwort(-folgen): | B
Religion
/ Wissen
/ Religionspädagogik
/ Religionswissenschaft
/ Theologie
/ Erziehungsphilosophie
|
| IxTheo Notationen: | AA Religionswissenschaft AH Religionspädagogik |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Kommentar
B Religious Education B Educational Philosophy B ex-theology B Gert J.J. Biesta B Religious Literacy |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Zusammenfassung: | This text addresses three related aspects of Wolfart’s article on religious literacy: the critique of assumptions on the outcome of increased religious literacy, questions about the purpose of religious education, and the suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological. Although the predictability of the results of certain classroom activities presents a fundamental problem, I argue that the tentative and generic abilities highlighted in the religious literacy discourse may function as a starting point to elaborate on a better definition of religious literacy in religious studies. Moreover, based on Biesta’s educational philosophy, I argue that the religious literacy discourse is about learnification in rhetorical disguise as value-based education. Instead, I suggest that the purpose of religious education should be (re)considered from Biesta’s three dimensions of qualification, socialization, and subjectification. Finally, I problematize Wolfart’s suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological and conclude that, although there are a theological dimension and a genealogy to be observed in the religious literacy discourse, other kinds of scholarly aspects are also worth exploring further. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Bezug: | Kommentar zu "‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations (2022)"
|
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-bja10079 |