![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
I reply to L. Philip Barnes’ assessment of the contributions of Ninian Smart and phenomenology to religious education. My argument is that Barnes first misconceives and then underestimates Smart’s legacy. I sketch Smart’s relevance to some current issues in religious education, suggesting that his thought helps us to avoid potentially damaging polarisations (of language and concepts to experience, and of learning about religion to learning from religion). I conclude that Smart may have little to say about classroom practice, but should still be a reference point for any practitioner.
Acknowledgement
The author thanks St Gabriel’s Trust for their continuing support of his research.
Notes
* High Storrs School, High Storrs Road, Sheffield S11 7LH, South Yorkshire, UK. Email: [email protected]
1. For example, see also Smart and Murthy (Citation1996).
2. For Waardenburg, phenomenology requires ‘an active self‐involvement on the part of the researcher in the facts and meanings studied…’ (Waardenburg, quoted in Jackson, Citation1997, p. 26).
3. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Fitzgerald (Citation2000), chapter 2.
4. Gavin Flood (Citation1999) calls for religious studies to embrace a similarly hermeneutical, dialogical approach. It is interesting that he is critical of phenomenology but at many points appreciative of Smart.