Browse results
In twenty-two chapters, the contributions to this volume revisit basic concepts, structures and institutional settings such as sovereignty; the dogma of the separation of state, church and/or religion; human and minority rights; gender and religion; varieties of fundamentalisms; interreligious dialogue and peacebuilding; and, not least, religious education.
In twenty-two chapters, the contributions to this volume revisit basic concepts, structures and institutional settings such as sovereignty; the dogma of the separation of state, church and/or religion; human and minority rights; gender and religion; varieties of fundamentalisms; interreligious dialogue and peacebuilding; and, not least, religious education.
Abstract
This essay examines the standing of three important and widely accepted criticisms of the use of the concept of belief within the anthropology of religion. It does so by examining whether these criticisms track the historical use of the concept within the discipline, that is, whether the problematic implications that they associate with the concept can reasonably be inferred from the historical use of the words ‘believe’ and ‘belief’ by anthropologists. It argues that the criticisms do not meet this standard, and that we therefore have reason to think that they are pseudo-problems, which have no legitimate claim on our attention. It concludes by suggesting some reasons why these apparently arbitrary concerns about the concept of belief should have arisen, looking first at some discussions of the meaning of the terms ‘believe’ and ‘belief,’ and second at the reception of Rodney Needham’s 1972 monograph Belief, Language, and Experience.