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...
| Autore principale: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo di documento: | Elettronico Articolo |
| Lingua: | Inglese |
| Verificare la disponibilità: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Caricamento...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Pubblicazione: |
Brill
2022
|
| In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Anno: 2022, Volume: 34, Fascicolo: 5, Pagine: 453-464 |
| (sequenze di) soggetti normati: | B
Religione
/ Sapere
/ Pedagogia della religione
/ Scienze religiose
/ Teologia
/ Filosofia dell'educazione
|
| Notazioni IxTheo: | AA Scienze religiose AH Pedagogia delle religioni |
| Altre parole chiave: | B
Commento
B Religious Education B Educational Philosophy B ex-theology B Gert J.J. Biesta B Religious Literacy |
| Accesso online: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Riepilogo: | 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 |
| Riferimento: | Kommentar zu "‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations (2022)"
|
| Comprende: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-bja10079 |