I have argued in the past that there has been a massive failure of nerve in the study of religion in the context of the modern research university; that it failed to live up to the scientific objectives enunciated for the field in late nineteenth-century European academic communities. The "comments" here on the current state of the science (or sciences) of religion constitute, in part, a kind of informal critical history of the field known as "Religious Studies." I suggest here that the overall development of the field might actually indicate a positive trajectory since its inception in late nineteenth-century Europe. This essay, therefore, may mitigate somewhat my recent claim (with L. H. Martin) that it is highly unlikely that the scientific study of religion will actually some day come to dominance in religious studies departments in our modern universities.
a1_This paper considers the influence of Enlightenment thinking on the pedagogical works of Jan Valerián Jirsík (1798-1883), who earned a place in Czech history as a priest, theologian, active patriot, education campaigner, pedagogue, writer and not least as the fourth Bishop of České Budějovice (Budweis), an office he held from 1851 until his death. Primarily, it draws on and follows up ideas in the writings of the theologian Ctirad Václav Pospíšil and the church historian Kamila Veverková, who both trace the links between Jirsík the theologist and thinkers associated with Bernard Bolzano. Jirsík’s early writings, however, are as much concerned with pedagogy as they are with theology, and the aim of this study is to discover whether his ideas on education were similarly influenced by Enlightenment thinking. It analyses his views on the subject before 1851, i.e. until he became Bishop of Budweis - specifically in the period 1826-1843, when he was much occupied with questions of education and upbringing. In his years as bishop he devoted little time to literary pursuits. The study concludes that the legacy of the Enlightenment era most certainly played an important part in Jirsík’s deliberations on education. There is, however, a certain progression discernible in his thinking. In the early period, of which Sunday School (1826) is a representative text, we see the influence of contemporary Enlightenment clerical pedagogy as he advocates extending human knowledge through reason in order to improve living conditions. Faith and religion are also factors here, especially in his emphasis on the positive role of God the Creator. In the second period under consideration (1836-43), we find closer parallels between Jirsík’s pedagogical and theological thinking., a2_Within ten years of writing Sunday School, his position had shifted from that of a priest attempting to expand or improve education in the spirit of Enlightenment ecclesiastical pedagogy to that of a theologian (and so-called ‘true’ enlightener) who from theological considerations drew conclusions for the educational process. In Jirsík’s view, Christianity and Enlightenment go hand in hand, serving to elevate human life spiritually as well as materially. For him education means the enlightenment of both soul and reason. Nor does he see any contradiction between faith and rationality. It is evident from his thinking that he was convinced of the need to implement the pedagogical ideal of the Enlightenment: to educate virtuous citizens who were also rational., Rudolf Svoboda., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
This study aims to present the problems of the perspective of Catholic theology and Catholic historiography on the Enlightenment. In its first part it attempts to find an answer to the question: is the Church History rather theological or historical discipline? Then it shows some specifics of the Catholic perspective in the Church History discipline before and after the 2nd Vatican Council. In its second part it shows reflection of the problems of Enlightenment in the Catholic theology. In the next part this study dwells on discussion about understanding of Enlightenment in history since 1908 till now. In its last part shows reflection of theological and historical research in the Bohemian area before and after the 2nd Vatican Council., Rudolf Svoboda., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
This response deals with some aspects of Luther Martin and Donald Wiebe's paper "Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion". The authors think that the human mind in general constantly tends towards religiousness and thus comprehensive scientific inquiry into religion is actually impossible. They argue that "such study is not ever likely to occur in that or any other setting" (p. 9). They also stress that they were deluded in the past and argue that especially (or only) the cognitive approach can help us to elucidate the proclivity towards religiousness. I partly agree with them, particularly that the promotion of "extra-scientific" agendas in Academia is questionable, but I do not see it as such a serious problem. The reduction of the biases to only "religious" agendas is mistaken. The history of the field is a history of diverse "extra-scientific" agendas which change in accordance with social development and prevailing political interests. I present the situation from a central and eastern European point of view. At the same time, I argue that many scientific fields deal with the same issue, even if not to such an extent. This is because religious studies, more than other disciplines, attracts scholars with a special inclination toward religion. I also argue that scholarly results are much more important than "personal" agendas. Also, the aspiration of religious studies as presented by Martin and Wiebe seems to me too idealistic, perhaps utopist and thus unrealizable.