Why the possible is not impossible but is unlikely: a response to our colleagues

Source document: Religio. 2012, vol. 20, iss. 1, pp. [63]-72
  • ISSN
    1210-3640 (print)
    2336-4475 (online)
Type: Article
License: Not specified license
This paper is a response to the responses to our paper "Religious Studies as a Scientific Discipline: The Persistence of a Delusion" by Hans Gerald Hödl, Hubert Seiwert, Radek Kundt, Tomáš Bubík, and Kocku von Stuckrad, published in this same issue of Religio: Revue pro religionistiku. Some of the respondents actually overstate our position. We have claimed, and still now claim, that a fully scientific program of "Religious Studies", even if possible, is highly unlikely to ever be achieved.