The concluding conference of Religion in the 21st Century is held in Copenhagen September 19th - 23rd 2007 (conference homepage
here). I will be presenting a paper entitled 'Defining Religion: A Fresh Philosophical Approach'. It concerns one of the preliminary issues in my PhD project, namely the view that the discussion about defining religion is one that should be avoided. My main point is that this view (although widespread) is misguided.
Defining religion has traditionally been seen as an unfortunate return to theological essentialism, and is often replaced with a constructivist approach. However, both the constructivism and the reasons for choosing it over a more realist approach are highly problematic. To show this, it is necessary first to untangle various discussions in the theory of religious studies regarding methods, subject field and the relation to religious (anti-)realism. My main point here is that the problematic aspect of theology is not the essentialism
per se (and this means that scholars of religion might be giving up on a realist attitude towards defining for wrong reasons). Furthermore, the common constructivism concerning 'religion' is not exactly unproblematic.
I hope my paper and presentation will provoke some interesting discussions about these fundamental questions in the philosophy of religion.
