Allies in the Fullness of Theory

Abstract

236), various reactions, both affirmative and critical. The following responses address some important aspects of that engagement with the article, and Seiwert discusses these points in the concluding response to his critics. Abstract: In a recent article, Hubert Seiwert (2020) presents an approach to the study of religion that we develop (Engler and Gardiner, 2010) as an example of “ empty theory ” , and recommends how it can be salvaged. We clarify three things about our position: Seiwert misunderstands it at crucial points; it already in-cludes his recommended rehabilitation; and it avoids postulating problematic and contentious ontological items, a potential problem that Seiwert ’ s own position has not addressed sufficiently. ’