The title of our paper might well be taken as a gloss on that of Freud’s The Future of an Illusion or, perhaps, on that of Dawkins’ The God Delusion. However, our paper is not focused on the theoretical object of the study of religion; rather it is a reflective comment on our own aspirations for the field to which we have committed our careers. The historical record, we maintain, shows that no undergraduate departments of Religious Studies have fully implemented a scientific program of study and research since such an approach was first advocated in the late nineteenth century – much less has there been any broad establishment of such a disciplinary field of study. And we argue – on scientific grounds – that such study is not ever likely to occur in that or any other setting. In our judgment, therefore, to entertain a hope that such a development is, pragmatically speaking, possible, is to be in the grip of a false and unshakeable delusion. And we “confess” that we ourselves have been so deluded.
[1]
D. Wiebe.
Is a Science of Religion Possible?
,
1978,
Science of Religion.
[2]
J. Harrison,et al.
The Influence of Darwinism on the Study of Religions
,
2009
.
[3]
Bayta L. Maring,et al.
The characteristics and correlates of fantasy in school-age children: imaginary companions, impersonation, and social understanding.
,
2004,
Developmental psychology.
[4]
D. Kelemen.
Are Children “Intuitive Theists”?
,
2004,
Psychological science.
[5]
L. Martin.
"Disenchanting" the Comparative Study of Religion
,
2004
.
[6]
D. Wiebe.
The Failure of Nerve in the Academic Study of Religion*
,
1984
.
[7]
D. Wiebe.
Theory in the study of religion
,
1983
.
[8]
S. Bjerke.
Ecology of Religion, Evolutionism and Comparative Religion
,
1979
.