Signifikansi Analisis Elenktik Bagi Metode Studi Agama di Perguruan Tinggi Agama Islam (PTAI)

Main Article Content

Ustadi Hamsah

Abstract

In the context of modern science, Religious Studies is a branch of science that has been emerged in the “structure of plausibility” of Western traditions. As a scientific knowledge, Religious Studies differs from Theology and Philosophy in which scholars, like Friedrich Max Müller, applied the scientific and empirical method in their research. In this regard, Religious Studies would be a part of “positivistic sciences”. In applying those scientific approaches and methods at the Islamic Studies which has been held in Islamic universities like UIN, IAIN, and STAIN, and other high educations in Indonesia will cause epistemological and axiological problem. Inter-relationship between subject and object is a main obstacle of this discipline. The method of Western sciences is constructed by empirical approach an sich while Islamic scientific tradition reflected by conviction which proved by empirical approach known as sui generis cum doctriner method. According to that problem, by applying Karl Manheim’s ‘structure of plausibility’ and Foucault’s ‘archaeology of knowledge’, this article attempts to explore the roots of epistemology of Religious Studies in Islamic higher education institution. Furthermore, this article also attempts to introduce the analysis model of Religious Studies in the Islamic institution namely elenctic method. This method assumes that religious phenomena can be analyzed by two phases, firstly by describing all of religious phenomena as what is understood by its adherents, and secondly by analyzing those religious phenomena with theoretical approaches.

[Studi Agama, dalam konteks keilmuan modern, merupakan cabang ilmu yang lahir dalam structure of plausibility budaya dan tradisi Eropa. Epistemologi yang dibangun berlandaskan millieu tradisi Eropa meskipun Studi Agama merupakan ilmu pengetahuan yang berasaskan metode ilmiah yang berbeda dengan Teologi dan Filsafat. Pendekatan ilmiah modern yang dijadikan standar keilmuan Studi Agama dipandang akan membawa ilmu ini pada ilmu yang positive. Hal yang paling mendasar yang menjadi persoalan adalah hubungan subjek dan objek dalam ilmu pengetahuan. Persoalan ini akan sangat terasa ketika Studi Agama diaplikasikan dalam konteks Islamic Studies di Perguruan Tinggi Agama Islam (PTAI), seperti UIN, IAIN, PTAIN, dan perguruan tinggi Islam lainnya. Ilmu di Barat dibangun atas dasar ilmiah murni, sedangkan di dunia Islam ilmu merupakan refleksi keyakinan dengan pembuktian secara empirik (sui generis cum doctriner). Berdasarkan pembacaan seperti ini, dengan mengaplikasikan teori structure of plausibility dari Karl Manheim dan archaeology of knowledge dari Michel Foucault, artikel berikut akan menggali akar epistemologi Studi Agama. Kemudian di dalam artikel ini juga akan diperkenalkan sebuah cara pandang untuk menganalisis unit-unit pada disiplin Studi Agama khususnya di PTAI, yakni metode elenktik. Metode ini diaplikasikan dalam dua tahap, pertama dengan mendeskribsikan seluruh fenomena keagamaan sebagaimana diyakini oleh pemeluknya, dan yang kedua dengan menganalisisnya dengan berbagai pendekatan keilmuan secara ilmiah.]

Article Details

How to Cite
Hamsah, Ustadi. “Signifikansi Analisis Elenktik Bagi Metode Studi Agama Di Perguruan Tinggi Agama Islam (PTAI)”. ESENSIA: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Ushuluddin 17, no. 2 (October 1, 2016): 175–192. Accessed May 22, 2024. https://ejournal.uin-suka.ac.id/ushuluddin/esensia/article/view/172-03.
Section
Articles

References

A. G. Honig Jr., Ilmu Agama, terj. M. D Koesoemosoesastro dan Soegiarto, Cet. VII. Jakarta: PT BPK Gunung Mulia, 1994.

Andre Furlani, “Brisk Socratic Dialogues”: Elenctic Rhetoric in Joseph Heller’s “Something Happened”, Narrative, Vol. 3, No. 3, Oct., 1995.

Anis Malik Toha, “Objectivity and the Scientific Study of Religion”, Intellectual Discourse, Vol. XVII, No. 1, 2009.

Archie J. Bahm, Axiology: The Science of Values. Amsterdam: Rodopi B.V., 1993.

Arie L. Molendijk, The Emergence of the Science of Religion in the Netherlands. Leiden, The Netherland: Brill, 2005.

Dipesh Chakrabar ty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Donald L. Dougherty, “Is Religious Studies Possible?”, Religious Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, Sep., 1981.

Gary B. Ferngren (general editor), The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000.

Gavin da Costa,“Whose Objectivity Which Neutrality: the Doomed Quest for a Neutral Vantage Point from which to Judge Religions”, Religious Studies, No. 29, 1993.

Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research (New York: Pantheon Books, 1969); edisi bahasa Indonesia berjudul Objektivitas dalam Penelitian Sosial. Jakarta: LP3ES, 1981.

Hauke Brunkhorst, “The Enlightenment of Rationality: Remarks on Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment”, Constellations, Vol. 7, No.1, 2000.

Hilary M. Carey (ed.), Empires of Religion. Hamsphire: Palgrave Mcmillan Publisher, 2008.

Ibn Khaldûn, Muqaddimah, terj. Ahmadie Thoha. Jakarta: Pustaka Firdaus, 1986.

James Robinson, “Religious Studies As Humanizing Studies”, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 71, No. 2/3, The Santa Barbara Colloquy: Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (Summer/Fall 1988).

Jon R. Stone (ed.), The Essential Max Müller: On Language, Mythology, and Religion. New York: Palgrave, 2002.

Joseph E. Davis, “Social Science, Objectivity, and Moral Life”, Sociology, 50, 2013.

Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, “Autonomy and Objectivity of Science”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, September 2012.

Lothrop Stoddard, Pasang Naik Kulit Berwarna, terj. dari buku Rising Tide of Colour, oleh Tim Penerjemah yang diketuai oleh H.M Muljadi Djojomartono. Jakarta: t.p., 1966.

Micahel Hardt dan Antonio Negri, Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000.

Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge: Select ed Interviews and Other Writtings 1972-1977, terj. Inggris oleh Colin Gordon, Leo Marshal, John Mepham dan Kate Soper. New York: Panteon Books, 1980.

Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistook Publication, 1972.

Milton Yinger, The Scientific Study of Religion. N.Y.: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1970.

Muhammad Arkoun, Tārikhiyyah al-Fikr al-‘Arabī al-Islāmī, terj. dari bahasa Perancis oleh Hāsyim Ṣālih. Beirut: Markaz al-Inmā` al-Qaumī, 1986.

Olga Alieva, “Elenchus and Diairesis in Plato’s Sophist”, Hermathena, No. 189, Winter 2010. Peter Donovan, “Neutrality in Religious Studies”, Religious Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, Mar., 1990.

Slavica Javelić and Jessica Starling, “Religious Studies: A Bibliographic Essay”, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 74, No. 1, Mar., 2006.

Stanley L. Jaki, “God, Nature, and Science”, dalam Gary B. Ferngren (general editor), The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000.

Ugo Bianchi, The History of Religion. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “Comparative Religion: Wither –and Why?”, dalam Mircea Eliade dan Joseph M. Kitagawa, The History of Religion Essays in Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959.