The Health/Salvation Nexus: Religion, New Forms of Spirituality, Medicine and the Problem of “Theodicy”

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Religions Pub Date : 2024-01-11 DOI:10.3390/rel15010097
Antonio Camorrino
{"title":"The Health/Salvation Nexus: Religion, New Forms of Spirituality, Medicine and the Problem of “Theodicy”","authors":"Antonio Camorrino","doi":"10.3390/rel15010097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The health/salvation nexus can be better understood if analyzed through the transformations that have affected the social relationship with the sacred in Western society. These changes have caused relevant implications concerning the sphere of “ultimate meaning”, in the words of Peter Berger. Today, we are witnessing a weakening of legitimized “theodicies” capable of promising—according to Max Weber—salvation and guaranteeing “just equalization”, that is, compensation or metaphysical condemnation for worldly conduct. However, this occurs to different extents depending on whether we are in the field of Western religions or new forms of spirituality. Medicine deserves a separate discussion. The hypothesis is that the health/salvation nexus leans towards salvation in the case of Western religions; towards health in the case of medicine; and, in the case of new forms of spirituality it leans neither exactly towards health nor exactly towards salvation: new forms of spirituality promise more than the achievement of health, but less than the achievement of salvation. Ultimately, the health/salvation nexus is structured differently depending on how much Western religions, new forms of spirituality and medicine are able to respond, more or less effectively, to the questions of “theodicy” and of “ultimate meaning”. I use the term of “theodicy” in the way Max Weber and Peter Berger conceived it: therefore, this concept can also be usefully applied to non-theistic and secular worldviews.","PeriodicalId":38169,"journal":{"name":"Religions","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The health/salvation nexus can be better understood if analyzed through the transformations that have affected the social relationship with the sacred in Western society. These changes have caused relevant implications concerning the sphere of “ultimate meaning”, in the words of Peter Berger. Today, we are witnessing a weakening of legitimized “theodicies” capable of promising—according to Max Weber—salvation and guaranteeing “just equalization”, that is, compensation or metaphysical condemnation for worldly conduct. However, this occurs to different extents depending on whether we are in the field of Western religions or new forms of spirituality. Medicine deserves a separate discussion. The hypothesis is that the health/salvation nexus leans towards salvation in the case of Western religions; towards health in the case of medicine; and, in the case of new forms of spirituality it leans neither exactly towards health nor exactly towards salvation: new forms of spirituality promise more than the achievement of health, but less than the achievement of salvation. Ultimately, the health/salvation nexus is structured differently depending on how much Western religions, new forms of spirituality and medicine are able to respond, more or less effectively, to the questions of “theodicy” and of “ultimate meaning”. I use the term of “theodicy” in the way Max Weber and Peter Berger conceived it: therefore, this concept can also be usefully applied to non-theistic and secular worldviews.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康与救赎的联系:宗教、新形式的精神生活、医学与 "神论 "问题
如果通过影响西方社会与神圣的社会关系的变革进行分析,就能更好地理解健康与救 济之间的关系。用彼得-伯杰(Peter Berger)的话说,这些变化对 "终极意义 "领域产生了相关影响。今天,我们正目睹着合法化的 "神学 "的削弱,这种神学能够承诺--按照马克斯-韦伯(Max Weber)的说法--救赎并保证 "公正的平等",即对世俗行为的补偿或形而上学的谴责。然而,根据我们所处的是西方宗教领域还是新形式的精神信仰领域,这种情况的程度有所不同。医学值得单独讨论。我们的假设是,就西方宗教而言,健康与救赎的关系倾向于救赎;就医学而言,健康与救赎的关系倾向于健康;而就新形式的灵修而言,健康与救赎的关系既不完全倾向于健康,也不完全倾向于救赎:新形式的灵修所承诺的比实现健康更多,但比实现救赎更少。归根结底,健康与救赎之间的关系因西方宗教、新形式灵修和医学对 "神论 "和 "终极意义 "问题的有效回应程度而有所不同。我按照马克斯-韦伯(Max Weber)和彼得-伯格(Peter Berger)的构想使用 "神论 "一词:因此,这一概念也可有效地适用于非神论和世俗世界观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Religions
Religions Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
37.50%
发文量
1020
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Religions (ISSN 2077-1444) is an international, open access scholarly journal, publishing peer reviewed studies of religious thought and practice. It is available online to promote critical, hermeneutical, historical, and constructive conversations. Religions publishes regular research papers, reviews, communications and reports on research projects. In addition, the journal accepts comprehensive book reviews by distinguished authors and discussions of important venues for the publication of scholarly work in the study of religion. Religions aims to serve the interests of a wide range of thoughtful readers and academic scholars of religion, as well as theologians, philosophers, social scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, neuroscientists and others interested in the multidisciplinary study of religions
期刊最新文献
“Since I’ve Been Ill, I Live Better”: The Emergence of Latent Spirituality in the Biographical Pathways of Illness The Health/Salvation Nexus: Religion, New Forms of Spirituality, Medicine and the Problem of “Theodicy” Religious Diversity, Minorities and Human Rights: Gaps and Overlaps in Legal Protection The Celestial Masters and the Origins of Daoist Monasticism Metamorphoses of Friendship: Jacques Derrida and Saint Augustine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1