DOCSLIB.ORG

Taves, Ann 2018 80 Explanation W EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taves, Ann 2018 80 Explanation W EA 1 1 2 2 3 Chapter 13 3 4 4 5 5 6 Explanation and the Study of Religion 6 7 7 8 8 9 Egil Asprem and Ann Taves 9 10 10 11 11 12 Introduction 12 13 13 14 The rise of the evolutionary and cognitive science of religion in the last two dec- 14 15 ades has sparked a resurgence of interest in explaining religion. Predictably, these 15 16 eforts have prompted rehearsals of longstanding debates over whether religious 16 17 phenomena can or should be explained in nonreligious terms. Little attention 17 18 has been devoted to the nature of explanation, methods of explanation, or what 18 19 should count as an adequate explanation. 19 20 The lack of attention to explanation is further aggravated by a concomitant 20 21 lack of attention to what we mean by theory in the study of religion. As has been 21 22 the case in anthropology (Ellen 2010), we routinely discuss theories of religion 22 23 without discussing what counts as a theory. For some, theory is associated with 23 24 the range of classical and contemporary theories of religion included in intro- 24 25 ductory texts (see for example Pals 2014 or Stausberg 2009). For others, including 25 26 many in the humanities, theory is associated with “critical theory,” of either the 26 27 literary or social science variety. 27 28 As Stausberg (2009: 2–3) indicates, there are, however, many competing views 28 29 of and controversies over the meaning of theory in the diferent sciences and 29 30 disciplines. For our purposes, it is enough to note (1) the distinction between the 30 31 colloquial and scientifc defnitions of the term and (2) the intimate connection 31 32 between scientifc theories and explanation. The American Heritage Dictionary (as 32 33 cited by Reznick 2010: 220) makes the basic distinction we will presume here. 33 34 Colloquially, theory typically refers to abstract reasoning, speculation, hypothe- 34 35 sis or supposition. In the sciences, however, it refers to “systematically organized 35 36 knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially, a 36 37 system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure divided to 37 38 analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specifed set of 38 39 phenomena” (ibid.). Scientifc theories, in other words, seek to “explain the nature 39 40 or behavior of a specifed set of phenomena … [in light of] a system of assump- 40 41 tions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure” (ibid.). Whether the theories 41 42 have been viewed as scientifc or not, much of the debate regarding explanation 42 43 in religious studies has centered on two issues, one explicit and the other not: 43 44 (1) the debate over reductionism, i.e., whether theories of religion can or should 44 45 explain religion in nonreligious terms, and (2) a tacit debate over “scientism,” i.e., 45 134 • Egil Asprem and Ann Taves 1 over whether anything resembling scientifc methods and lines of theorizing is 1 2 desirable or possible in the humanities (see for example Stenmark 1997). 2 3 In what follows, we assume the legitimacy of attempts to explain religious phe- 3 4 nomena in nonreligious terms in light of the assumptions, principles and rules 4 5 of procedure in the social and natural sciences. Building on Proudfoot’s (1985) 5 6 distinction between descriptive and explanatory reduction, we presuppose the 6 7 legitimacy and importance of the latter. We will directly engage the issue of 7 8 “scientism,” which we view as a dismissive term typically directed at perceived 8 9 over-extensions of scientifc inquiry, through our discussion of historical and 9 10 contemporary explanation in the philosophy of science. In doing so, we want to 10 11 make the point that there are various views of explanation in the sciences, some 11 12 of which we consider more appropriate for explaining socioculturally-informed 12 13 human behavior than others. Specifcally, we argue that the new mechanistic-causal 13 14 approach commonly presupposed in the “special sciences” (biology, the neuro- 14 15 sciences, and psychology), referred to by philosophers of science as “the new mech- 15 16 anism,” can be extended to the study of religion following the lead of researchers 16 17 who are extending it to the social sciences. 17 18 Our aim in making this case is, frst, to move the discussion in religious stud- 18 19 ies beyond general worries about “reductionism” and “scientism” (or “positiv- 19 20 ism”) and, second, to ground theorizing about human experience in a broadly 20 21 evolutionary base. We do so recognizing that any discussion of mechanisms in 21 22 the social sciences and history must take account of complexities typically not 22 23 encountered (or dealt with) in the natural sciences. Our goal, in other words, is 23 24 not to subsume or subordinate the humanities to the natural and social sciences, 24 25 but to connect them in a spirit of consilience (Slingerland and Collard 2011). 25 26 In the sections that follow, we will discuss explanation in theories of reli- 26 27 gion (§1), the nature and limitations of the “old mechanism” and other older 27 28 approaches to explanation in the philosophy of science (§2), and how the “new 28 29 mechanism” overcomes these difculties (§3). Throughout this discussion we will 29 30 highlight the complexities that will need to be addressed in extending the new 30 31 mechanist approach to explanation to the humanistic social sciences. 31 32 32 33 1 Explanation in Theories of Religion 33 34 34 35 “Explanation” has several diferent meanings in ordinary English (Craver 2014: 35 36 30–35): 36 37 37 1 It can refer to a communicative act. The professor explained 38 38 (communicates) the material to her students. The text explains 39 39 (communicates) what you need to know. ( 40 40 41 2 It can refer to a cause or a factor that produces a phenomenon. ( 41 42 42 3 It can refer to a mental representation or model of the causes that 43 43 produce a phenomenon. The model explains (represents) the (causal) 44 44 explanation. 45 45 Explanation and the Study of Religion • 135 1 Explanations in the frst and third senses are known as epistemic explanations. They 1 2 involve humans or other intentional creatures trying to communicate (“explain”) 2 3 something to an audience. Explanations in the second sense are known as ontic 3 4 explanations. They presuppose a view of reality (an ontology) which assumes that 4 5 certain entities and processes exist in the world “whether or not anyone discov- 5 6 ers or describes them” (Salmon 1989: 133, quoted in Craver 2014: 31), and assumes 6 7 that there exist ontic structures (e.g. mechanisms and causes) that explain the 7 8 production and behavior of various phenomena. 8 9 9 10 1.1 Theories of Religion 10 11 11 12 Explanation in the second sense allows us to distinguish between phenomeno- 12 13 logical and explanatory models. Phenomenological models describe or redescribe 13 14 (i.e., interpret) a phenomenon “without revealing the ontic structures that pro- 14 15 duce it” (Craver 2014: 40). We can distinguish three broad types of theories: 15 16 16 1 Phenomenological theories of religion. 17 17 18 2 Supernaturalistic causal theories of religion. 18 19 19 20 3 Naturalistic causal theories of religion. 20 21 21 Phenomenological theories of religion, associated historically with fgures such as 22 22 Chantepie de la Saussaye, Otto, Kristensen, van der Leeuw and, more recently, 23 23 with Ninian Smart and Mircea Eliade, are only loosely connected with philosoph- 24 24 ical phenomenologists, such as Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleu-Ponty. All, 25 25 however, give priority to human experience from the frst person point of view 26 26 (Smith 2013). Some who hold to this approach bracket their own ontological views 27 27 and limit themselves to describing or interpreting the ontological claims of their 28 28 subjects. Such theories, typically characterized as phenomenological or interpretive 29 29 (hermeneutical), describe the causal explanations of those they study, but refrain 30 30 from ofering causal explanations (i.e., ontic claims) of their own. 31 31 Phenomenological bracketing has given rise to “methodological agnosticism” 32 32 (see for example Porpora 2006), which we, like others (Martin forthcoming), fnd 33 33 problematic. We do however endorse the idea of a frst step in which research- 34 34 ers temporarily hold back their own explanations in order to describe the phe- 35 35 nomenon one wants to explain and avoid descriptive reduction (see discussion of 36 36 Proudfoot below). 37 37 In so far as the phenomenological is construed as the only step, however, it is 38 38 tied to the notion of religion as a sui generis phenomenon. This view holds that 39 39 to the extent that religion can be explained, it must be explained “on its own 40 40 terms,” that is, it cannot be reduced to something that is not religion. The sim- 41 41 plest version of sui generis theorizing holds simply that, in Daniel Pals’s words, 42 42 “one ought to accord them [religious phenomena] a certain independence” from 43 43 other human activities and experiences (Pals 1987: 259). Thus one can explain 44 44 religious phenomena in terms presumed to be internal to the religious feld (e.g., 45 45 136 • Egil Asprem and Ann Taves 1 “the holy,” “the sacred,” “mana,” or “power”), but not in terms of “external” fac- 1 2 tors, such as social alienation, latent neuroses, or evolved cooperative strategies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Curriculum Vitae Stephen S. Bush Associate Professor of Religious
    Curriculum Vitae Stephen S. Bush Associate Professor of Religious Studies Director of Graduate Studies Department of Religious Studies Box 1927 / 59 George Street Brown University Providence, RI 02912 [email protected] Education Ph.D. in religion (religion, ethics, and politics), Princeton University, 2008 M.A. in religion, Princeton University, 2006 B.A. in philosophy, cum laude, Rice University, 1998 Professional appointments Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Brown University, 2016 to present Manning Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Brown University, 2014 to 2016 Assistant Professor of Religious Studies, Brown University, 2010 to 2016 Lecturer in Religion, Princeton University, 2008-2009 Publications Books William James on Democratic Individuality (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2017) Visions of Religion: Experience, Meaning, and Power (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) Winner of the Council of Graduate Schools’ Gustave O. Arlt Award in the Humanities (2015) Edited publications Guest editor, special issue on civil discourse and intellectual virtue, Political Theology 18.2 (March 2017) Essays “Making Lovers: Emmanuel Levinas and Iris Murdoch on Moral Formation,” forthcoming in David Eckel, ed., Love (Springer). 1 “Religion in William James,” forthcoming in Alexander Klein, ed., Oxford Handbook of William James (Oxford University Press) “The Sovereignty of the Living Individual: Emerson and James on Politics and Religion,” Religions 8.9 (2017), 1-16 “Ecstasy,” Political Concepts 3.5 (fall 2016),
    [Show full text]
  • ANN TAVES Department of Religious Studies University of California At
    ANN TAVES Department of Religious Studies University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93101 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. Awarded with Distinction, The Divinity School, The University of Chicago, December 1983. M.A. The Divinity School, The University of Chicago, June 1979. B.A. Awarded with Distinction in Religion, Pomona College, June 1974. ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Fellow, Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA, 2008-09. Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, July 2017-present. Virgil Cordano, OFM, Professor of Catholic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, July 2005-December 2017. Visiting Professor, Department of Religion, and Research Scholar, Center for the Study of American Religion, Princeton University, 1997-98. Acting Dean, Claremont School of Theology, Fall 1996. Professor of the History of Christianity and American Religion, Claremont School of Theology, and Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate University, July 1993-June 2005. Associate Professor of American Religious History, Claremont School of Theology and Associate Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate School, July 1986-June 1993. Assistant Professor of American Religious History, School of Theology at Claremont and Assistant Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate School, October 1983-June 1986. Instructor in American Religious History, Claremont School of Theology, July 1983-October 1983. ACADEMIC FELLOWSHIPS, GRANTS AND AWARDS Crossroads Grant from UCSB, 2014-15, with Tamsin German and Raymond Paloutzian. Guggenheim Fellowship (awarded 2013), on leave Jan. 2014-Dec. 2014 PI (with Tamsin German [co-PI], Michael Kinsella [lead researcher], Michael Barlev, and Raymond Paloutzian), “The Role of Near Death Experiences in the Emergence of a Movement: A Quasi- Experimental Field Study of IANDS.” $242,270 awarded by the John Templeton Foundation through theImmortality Project at UC Riverside.
    [Show full text]
  • “Redeeming the Time”: the Making of Early American Methodism
    “REDEEMING THE TIME”: THE MAKING OF EARLY AMERICAN METHODISM By Michael Kenneth Turner Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Religion May, 2009 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Dean James Hudnut-Beumler Professor M. Douglas Meeks Professor James P. Byrd Professor Dennis C. Dickerson Copyright ©2009 by Michael Kenneth Turner Al Rights Reserved To my ever-supportive and loving wife, Stephanie and To my father, Thomas, who helped every step of the way iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The idea for this dissertation took nascent form during my time as a participant in the 2006 Wesley Studies Seminar. I am very grateful for the fellowship from Duke Divinity School that enabled me to participate in the seminar and do early research on the dissertation. In particular, I would like to thank that group’s helpful leader and organizer, Dr. Richard Heitzenrater. I am also appreciative of the conversations, suggestions, and encouragement I received from Dean Laceye Warner (Duke Divinity School), Dr. Jason Vickers (United Theological Seminary), Dr. Sarah Lancaster (Methodist Theological School of Ohio), Dr. Rex Matthews (Candler School of Theology), and Dr. Steve McCormick (Nazarene Theological Seminary) both during and following the seminar. I am also thankful for all my colleagues and mentors at Vanderbilt University. First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee. Dean James Hudnut-Beumler, my chair, is among the most knowledgeable students of American Religious History that I know. I am very grateful for his guidance through the program.
    [Show full text]
  • And the Methodist Ethos Beyond John Wesley
    The Arbury Journal 63/1:5-31 © 2008 Asbury Theological Seminary TED A. CAMPBELL The {(Wqy if Salvation" and the Methodist Ethos Bryond John Weslry: A Stucfy in Formal Consensus and Popular Receptzon Abstract It has been well documented that the "way of salvation" was central to John Wesley's thought. But how did Methodists in the nineteenth century express a theology and spirituality of the way of salvation? This article examines formal doctrinal materials from Methodist churches (including catechisms, doctrinal statements, and hymnals) and the testimonies of l'vfethodist men and women to discern how teachings about the way of salvation were transmitted after the time of John and Charles Wesley. Based on these doctrinal works and personal testimonies, the article shows a consistent pattern in Methodist teaching and experience involving a) conviction of sin, b) conversion, c) struggles of the soul following conversion, and then d) entire sanctification. I<.EYWORDs: conversion, salvation, John Wesley, Methodist Ted A. Campbell is associate professor of church history at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University. 1. Introduction and Background We find ourselves now at a critical juncture in the fields of Wesleyan and Methodist studies. On the one hand, something that Methodist historians and interpreters have long desired is at last coming to pass, namely, widespread recognition of the prominent cultural influence of Methodism in the USA and its influence on the broader Evangelical movement. Beginning with Nathan Hatch's study of The Democratization of American Religion (1989), a series of historical studies have explored the cultural impact of the Methodist movement in the nineteenth century and beyond.l John H.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Institutionalized Individuality: Death Practices and Afterlife Beliefs in Unity Church, Unitarian Universalism, and Spiritualism in Santa Barbara Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5tb557c1 Author Applewhite, Courtney Publication Date 2019 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Institutionalized Individuality: Death Practices and Afterlife Beliefs in Unity Church, Unitarian Universalism, and Spiritualism in Santa Barbara A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Religious Studies by Courtney L. Applewhite Committee in charge: Professor Ann Taves, Chair Professor Joseph Blankholm Professor David Walker December 2019 The thesis of Courtney L. Applewhite is approved. _____________________________________________ Joseph Blankholm _____________________________________________ David Walker _____________________________________________ Ann Taves, Committee Chair December 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Investigating death has been my unique interest since beginning graduate school and, before that, my job. The ideas for this thesis came out of long shifts at the Medical Examiner’s Office in Houston, Texas, when I felt very far from graduate school and very concerned that the next call would be a decomp. But I remained engaged with the families that I spoke with each day. I worried about their funeral costs and their religious concerns. I wanted to go to graduate school to help people. I hope this thesis is the first step toward that goal. I have continued to expand on these thoughts, now in a much more sterile environment, and learned a lot about the field of death studies and what it means to be an academic.
    [Show full text]
  • Taves-Intellectual Portrait Editsc+AT
    PORTRAIT: ANN TAVES From Weird Experiences to Revelatory Events Ann Taves As the first invitee to this Portrait section trained as a scholar of religion and situated in a department of religious studies, I was interested to see how previous scholars trained in anthropology and sociology positioned themselves in relation to “religion” as an object of study. It seems we all do so gingerly. Although I was trained as a historian of Christianity with a specialization in American religious history, I have self-consciously positioned my historical research in an interdisciplinary space between psychiatry, anthropology, and religious studies since the early nineties in order to study the contestations surrounding unusual experiences. During the last decade, I have been identifying myself less as a historian and more as an interdisciplinary scholar attempting to bring both humanistic and cognitive social scientific methods to the study of historical experiences and events. From this vantage point, I would argue—like Bloch (Volume 1, 2010)—that “religion” is not a natural kind, but a complex cultural concept; that a theory of “religion” per se is impossible; and, in keeping with the way Bloch positions himself as studying ritual as a form of communication, I would position myself as studying how people appraise experiences and, more recently, events. Like Kapferer (Volume 4, 2013, I am interested in the light that religion can shed on more general processes, specifically the appraisal of events at various levels of analysis and the role of unusual experiences in the emergence of new social formations. Background I came to these views and questions over time from a non-religious upbringing in a culturally Protestant American family, which left me alternately fascinated and puzzled by intense forms of 1 religiosity.
    [Show full text]
  • ANN TAVES Department of Religious Studies University of California At
    ANN TAVES Department of Religious Studies University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93101 [email protected] 805-893-5844 (O) EDUCATION Ph.D. Awarded with Distinction, The Divinity School, The University of Chicago, December 1983. M.A. The Divinity School, The University of Chicago, June 1979. B.A. Awarded with Distinction in Religion, Pomona College, June 1974. ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Fellow, Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA, 2008-09. Virgil Cordano, OFM, Professor of Catholic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, July 2005-present. Visiting Professor, Department of Religion, and Research Scholar, Center for the Study of American Religion, Princeton University, 1997-98. Acting Dean, Claremont School of Theology, Fall 1996. Professor of the History of Christianity and American Religion, Claremont School of Theology, and Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate University, July 1993-June 2005. Associate Professor of American Religious History, Claremont School of Theology and Associate Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate School, July 1986-June 1993. Assistant Professor of American Religious History, School of Theology at Claremont and Assistant Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate School, October 1983-June 1986. Instructor in American Religious History, Claremont School of Theology, July 1983-October 1983. ACADEMIC FELLOWSHIPS, GRANTS AND AWARDS Alumna of the Year (2012), University of Chicago Divinity School Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Class of 2011) Society for the Scientific Study of Religion 2010 Book Award ($1000) for Religious Experience Reconsidered. Choice Book Award (2010) for Religious Experience Reconsidered Fellow, Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA, 2008-09.
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph Smith's First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Experience-Related Texts Ann Taves
    Mormon Studies Review Volume 3 | Number 1 Article 8 1-1-2016 Joseph Smith's First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Experience-Related Texts Ann Taves Steven C. Harper [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr2 Part of the Mormon Studies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Taves, Ann and Harper, Steven C. (2016) "Joseph Smith's First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Experience-Related Texts," Mormon Studies Review: Vol. 3 : No. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr2/vol3/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mormon Studies Review by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Taves and Harper: Joseph Smith's First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Expe Essays Joseph Smith’s First Vision: New Methods for the Analysis of Experience-Related Texts Ann Taves and Steven C. Harper Editors’ note: The following exchange between Ann Taves and Steven C. Harper took place at the 2014 American Academy of Religion conference in San Diego, California. It was years in the making. At the 2013 Mor- mon History Association conference in Layton, Utah, Harper commented on Taves’s paper, “Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates.” That fascinating panel interaction spurred a productive subse- quent personal correspondence related to their shared interest in religious experience and Joseph Smith’s first vision. They eventually opted for a formal dialogue script to recount what they had learned in their scholarly exchange.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Method Ll Spring 2016 REL6036 W 2-4/8:30-11:30 Office Hours: Monday 2-3; Wednesday 11:30-12:30, 3-4
    Theory and Method ll Spring 2016 REL6036 W 2-4/8:30-11:30 Office Hours: Monday 2-3; Wednesday 11:30-12:30, 3-4 Instructor: Dr. A. Whitney Sanford Office: 107 Anderson Hall Email: [email protected] Telephone: 392-1625 Course Description This course builds on Method and Theory I, offering a survey of the contemporary theoretical landscape in the study of religion. Following post-modernist and post-structuralist critiques of the essentialist, foundationalist, teleological, and totalizing pretensions of classical methods and theories, this landscape is characterized by a high degree of fragmentation, contestation, fluidity, and cross-fertilization. This craggy and polycentric topography both accompanies and is a response to post-colonialism, globalization, and the emergence of new transportation and communication media, which are decentering the taken-for-granted cartographies of religion, generating increasing religious hybridity, innovation, diversity, and conflicts over orthodoxy and heterodoxy. The course begins with an examination of the struggles around the legacy of the history of religions approach and the Geertzian phenomenological-hermeneutics synthesis which dominated the study of religion up until the mid-1980s. We will give particular attention to the debate around the viability of category of religion, as well as its implication in power dynamics ranging from colonialism and imperialism to nationalism and capitalism. The second part of the course focuses on emerging directions, themes, tropes, and methods that are likely to define the field of religious studies in the coming years. Throughout the course, we will discuss various practices associated with the métier of a religion scholar, such as constructing course syllabi and writing and submitting journal articles, grants, and thesis/dissertation proposals.
    [Show full text]
  • ANN TAVES Department of Religious Studies University of California At
    ANN TAVES Department of Religious Studies University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93101 [email protected] EDUCATION Ph.D. Awarded with Distinction, The Divinity School, The University of Chicago, December 1983. M.A. The Divinity School, The University of Chicago, June 1979. B.A. Awarded with Distinction in Religion, Pomona College, June 1974. ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL APPOINTMENTS Fellow, Center for the Advanced Study of the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, CA, 2008-09. Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, July 2017-present. Virgil Cordano, OFM, Professor of Catholic Studies and Professor of Religious Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara, July 2005-December 2017. Visiting Professor, Department of Religion, and Research Scholar, Center for the Study of American Religion, Princeton University, 1997-98. Acting Dean, Claremont School of Theology, Fall 1996. Professor of the History of Christianity and American Religion, Claremont School of Theology, and Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate University, July 1993-June 2005. Associate Professor of American Religious History, Claremont School of Theology and Associate Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate School, July 1986-June 1993. Assistant Professor of American Religious History, School of Theology at Claremont and Assistant Professor of Religion, Claremont Graduate School, October 1983-June 1986. Instructor in American Religious History, Claremont School of Theology, July 1983-October 1983. ACADEMIC FELLOWSHIPS, GRANTS AND AWARDS PI, “What counts as Religious Experience? Validating and Testing the Inventory of Nonordinary Experiences.” $234, 000 awarded by the John Templeton Foundation, 1/1/2019-12/31/2021. Crossroads Grant from UCSB, 2014-15, with Tamsin German and Raymond Paloutzian.
    [Show full text]
  • Taves-Intellectual Portrait Editsc+AT
    UC Santa Barbara UC Santa Barbara Previously Published Works Title Portrait: Ann Taves Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0k00x970 Journal Religion and Society, 6(1) ISSN 2150-9298 Authors Benavides, Gustavo Coleman III, Thomas J Hood Jr., Ralph W et al. Publication Date 2015 DOI 10.3167/arrs.2015.060102 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California PORTRAIT: ANN TAVES From Weird Experiences to Revelatory Events Ann Taves As the first invitee to this Portrait section trained as a scholar of religion and situated in a department of religious studies, I was interested to see how previous scholars trained in anthropology and sociology positioned themselves in relation to “religion” as an object of study. It seems we all do so gingerly. Although I was trained as a historian of Christianity with a specialization in American religious history, I have self-consciously positioned my historical research in an interdisciplinary space between psychiatry, anthropology, and religious studies since the early nineties in order to study the contestations surrounding unusual experiences. During the last decade, I have been identifying myself less as a historian and more as an interdisciplinary scholar attempting to bring both humanistic and cognitive social scientific methods to the study of historical experiences and events. From this vantage point, I would argue—like Bloch (Volume 1, 2010)—that “religion” is not a natural kind, but a complex cultural concept; that a theory of “religion” per se is impossible; and, in keeping with the way Bloch positions himself as studying ritual as a form of communication, I would position myself as studying how people appraise experiences and, more recently, events.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Methodism on Early Mormon Religiosity
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Theses and Dissertations 2009-07-07 We Latter-day Saints are Methodists: The Influence of Methodism on Early Mormon Religiosity Christopher C. Jones Brigham Young University - Provo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Jones, Christopher C., "We Latter-day Saints are Methodists: The Influence of Methodism on Early Mormon Religiosity" (2009). Theses and Dissertations. 1747. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/1747 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. “WE LATTER-DAY SAINTS ARE METHODISTS”: THE INFLUENCE OF METHODISM ON EARLY MORMON RELIGIOSITY by Christopher C. Jones A thesis submitted to the faculty of Brigham Young University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History Brigham Young University August 2009 Copyright © 2009 Christopher C. Jones All Rights Reserved BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Christopher C. Jones This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by majority vote has been found to be satisfactory. Date Grant Underwood, Chair Date Susan Sessions Rugh Date J. Spencer Fluhman BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Christopher C. Jones in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style require- ments; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the university library.
    [Show full text]