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...
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Brill
2022
|
| En: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Año: 2022, Volumen: 34, Número: 5, Páginas: 453-464 |
| (Cadenas de) Palabra clave estándar: | B
Religión
/ Saber
/ Pedagogía de la religión
/ Ciencias de la religión
/ Teología
/ Filosofía de la educación
|
| Clasificaciones IxTheo: | AA Ciencias de la religión AH Pedagogía de la religión |
| Otras palabras clave: | B
Religious Education
B Educational Philosophy B ex-theology B Gert J.J. Biesta B Comentario B Religious Literacy |
| Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Sumario: | 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 |
| Reference: | Kommentar zu "‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations (2022)"
|
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-bja10079 |