Pub Date : 2022-07-05DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2070254
C. V. van Lissa
The Many-Analysts Religion Project illustrates how researcher degrees of freedom cause one research question to be analyzed in many di ff erent ways (Hoogeveen et al., 2022). Each submission showcases a di ff erent perspective on “ best practices. ” My submission (Team #067, https://osf.io/ n4jcf/) illustrates two practices I consider important: First, how the Work fl ow for Open Reproducible Code in Science can be used to create a fully reproducible paper and an unambiguous prere-gistration (WORCS, Van Lissa et al., 2021). Second, how rigorous exploration can complement con fi rmatory (hypothesis-testing) research, even in a preregistered study. WORCS is a conceptual work fl ow based on three principles: (1) writing papers as dynamic documents that combine prose and analysis code and can be reproduced with a single click; (2) using version control to track every change to the project since its inception; and (3) managing dependencies, which means documenting all software required to reproduce the project. These principles
多分析师宗教项目说明了研究人员的自由度如何导致一个研究问题以许多不同的方式进行分析(hoogevenen et al.， 2022)。每个提交都展示了对“最佳实践”的不同看法。我的提交(团队#067,https://osf.io/ n4jcf/)说明了我认为重要的两个实践:首先，如何使用科学开放可重复代码的工作流程来创建完全可重复的论文和明确的预注册(WORCS, Van Lissa等人，2021)。第二，严谨的探索如何补充确证性(假设检验)研究，即使是在预先注册的研究中。WORCS是一种基于三个原则的概念性工作流程:(1)将论文写成结合散文和分析代码的动态文档，只需单击即可复制;(2)使用版本控制跟踪项目自启动以来的每一次变更;(3)管理依赖关系，这意味着记录重现项目所需的所有软件。这些原则
{"title":"Complementing preregistered confirmatory analyses with rigorous, reproducible exploration using machine learning","authors":"C. V. van Lissa","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2070254","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2070254","url":null,"abstract":"The Many-Analysts Religion Project illustrates how researcher degrees of freedom cause one research question to be analyzed in many di ff erent ways (Hoogeveen et al., 2022). Each submission showcases a di ff erent perspective on “ best practices. ” My submission (Team #067, https://osf.io/ n4jcf/) illustrates two practices I consider important: First, how the Work fl ow for Open Reproducible Code in Science can be used to create a fully reproducible paper and an unambiguous prere-gistration (WORCS, Van Lissa et al., 2021). Second, how rigorous exploration can complement con fi rmatory (hypothesis-testing) research, even in a preregistered study. WORCS is a conceptual work fl ow based on three principles: (1) writing papers as dynamic documents that combine prose and analysis code and can be reproduced with a single click; (2) using version control to track every change to the project since its inception; and (3) managing dependencies, which means documenting all software required to reproduce the project. These principles","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85726999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-05DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2070262
Vera Vogel, J. Prenoveau, Stijn Kelchtermans, G. Magyar-Russell, Camilla McMahon, Moritz Ingendahl, Catherine Schaumans
re-analyses using the same statistical models (i
使用相同的统计模型(i
{"title":"Different facets, different results: the importance of considering the multidimensionality of constructs","authors":"Vera Vogel, J. Prenoveau, Stijn Kelchtermans, G. Magyar-Russell, Camilla McMahon, Moritz Ingendahl, Catherine Schaumans","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2070262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2070262","url":null,"abstract":"re-analyses using the same statistical models (i","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77610162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-29DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354
P. Turchin, H. Whitehouse, Jennifer Larson, Enrico Cioni, J. Reddish, D. Hoyer, Patrick E. Savage, R. Covey, J. Baines, M. Altaweel, Eugene Anderson, Pieter Bol, Eva Brandl, D. Carballo, G. Feinman, Andrey Korotayev, N. Kradin, Jill Levine, S. Nugent, A. Squitieri, V. Wallace, Pieter François
Our target article empirically tested the Big Gods Hypothesis which proposes that beliefs in moralizing supernatural punishment (MSP) contributed to the evolution of socio-political complexity (SPC) in world history. We tested this hypothesis using a suite of measures of MSP, SPC, and other potential evolutionary drivers coded in Seshat: Global History Databank. Our analyses indi-cate that intensity of warfare and productivity of agriculture were major drivers in the evolution of both SPC and MSP. The correlation between social complexity and moralizing religion resulted from shared evolutionary drivers, rather than from direct causal relationships between these two variables. Most commentaries on the target article broadly accept our conclusions, but some argue that alternative measures might be used in future studies before the Big Gods Hypothesis can be conclusively rejected. In this response, we argue that while some of these alternative measures should be developed, they are closely related to the ones we have already adopted. Thus, it seems unlikely that further research will give rise to substantially di ff erent outcomes. A particularly fruitful aspect of the discussion is that it illustrates both the pitfalls and productive a ff or-dances of transdisciplinary research that seeks to bridge the “ two cultures ” of the humanities and sciences. Our target article has
我们的目标文章对大神假说进行了实证检验，该假说认为，对超自然惩罚的道德化(MSP)的信仰促进了世界历史上社会政治复杂性(SPC)的演变。我们使用一套MSP、SPC和其他潜在进化驱动因素的测量方法来测试这一假设，这些因素编码在Seshat: Global History Databank中。我们的分析表明，战争强度和农业生产力是SPC和MSP演变的主要驱动因素。社会复杂性和宗教道德化之间的相关性源于共同的进化驱动力，而不是这两个变量之间的直接因果关系。大多数对目标文章的评论广泛地接受了我们的结论，但一些人认为，在大神假说被最终拒绝之前，未来的研究可能会使用其他方法。在这一答复中，我们认为，虽然应该制定其中一些替代措施，但它们与我们已经采取的措施密切相关。因此，进一步的研究似乎不太可能产生完全不同的结果。讨论的一个特别富有成效的方面是，它说明了跨学科研究的陷阱和富有成效的跳跃，这些研究试图在人文和科学的“两种文化”之间架起桥梁。我们的目标文章是
{"title":"Big Gods and big science: further reflections on theory, data, and analysis","authors":"P. Turchin, H. Whitehouse, Jennifer Larson, Enrico Cioni, J. Reddish, D. Hoyer, Patrick E. Savage, R. Covey, J. Baines, M. Altaweel, Eugene Anderson, Pieter Bol, Eva Brandl, D. Carballo, G. Feinman, Andrey Korotayev, N. Kradin, Jill Levine, S. Nugent, A. Squitieri, V. Wallace, Pieter François","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2065354","url":null,"abstract":"Our target article empirically tested the Big Gods Hypothesis which proposes that beliefs in moralizing supernatural punishment (MSP) contributed to the evolution of socio-political complexity (SPC) in world history. We tested this hypothesis using a suite of measures of MSP, SPC, and other potential evolutionary drivers coded in Seshat: Global History Databank. Our analyses indi-cate that intensity of warfare and productivity of agriculture were major drivers in the evolution of both SPC and MSP. The correlation between social complexity and moralizing religion resulted from shared evolutionary drivers, rather than from direct causal relationships between these two variables. Most commentaries on the target article broadly accept our conclusions, but some argue that alternative measures might be used in future studies before the Big Gods Hypothesis can be conclusively rejected. In this response, we argue that while some of these alternative measures should be developed, they are closely related to the ones we have already adopted. Thus, it seems unlikely that further research will give rise to substantially di ff erent outcomes. A particularly fruitful aspect of the discussion is that it illustrates both the pitfalls and productive a ff or-dances of transdisciplinary research that seeks to bridge the “ two cultures ” of the humanities and sciences. Our target article has","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90194073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-29DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2074085
H. Whitehouse, Pieter François, Patrick E. Savage, D. Hoyer, K. C. Feeney, Enrico Cioni, Rosa S. Purcell, Jennifer Larson, J. Baines, B. Haar, A. Covey, P. Turchin
ABSTRACT This Retake article presents a corrected and extended version of a Letter published in Nature (Whitehouse et al., 2019) which set out to test the Big Gods hypothesis proposing that beliefs in moralizing punitive deities drove the evolution of sociopolitical complexity in world history. The Letter was retracted by the authors in response to a critique by Beheim et al. (2021). Correction of errors in the coding and analysis of missing data to address this critique does not, however, significantly change the main findings of the original Nature Letter. We report the results of a major reanalysis of Seshat data following expansion of the codebook and database and substantial improvements to our data management methods. We also employ a more direct statistical methodology to test theories of evolutionary causality. Together, these results show a compellingly convergent picture, confirming the headline finding of the original Letter in Nature, which shows that the largest increases in social complexity do indeed precede Big Gods in world history and that Big Gods did not contribute to the evolution of sociopolitical complexity as predicted by the Big Gods hypothesis.
这篇Retake文章是对发表在《自然》(Whitehouse et al.， 2019)上的一封信的更正和扩展版，该信旨在测试大神假说，该假说提出，对道德惩罚神的信仰推动了世界历史上社会政治复杂性的演变。在Beheim等人(2021)的批评下，作者撤回了这封信。然而，为了解决这一批评而纠正编码错误和分析缺失数据的错误并没有显著改变原始《自然快报》的主要发现。我们报告了在扩展代码本和数据库以及对我们的数据管理方法进行实质性改进之后对Seshat数据进行重大重新分析的结果。我们还采用更直接的统计方法来检验进化因果关系的理论。综上所述，这些结果显示了一幅令人信服的趋同图景，证实了《自然》原信的标题发现，即在世界历史上，社会复杂性的最大增长确实先于“大神”出现，而“大神”并没有像“大神”假说所预测的那样，对社会政治复杂性的演变做出贡献。
{"title":"Testing the Big Gods hypothesis with global historical data: a review and “retake”","authors":"H. Whitehouse, Pieter François, Patrick E. Savage, D. Hoyer, K. C. Feeney, Enrico Cioni, Rosa S. Purcell, Jennifer Larson, J. Baines, B. Haar, A. Covey, P. Turchin","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2074085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2074085","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This Retake article presents a corrected and extended version of a Letter published in Nature (Whitehouse et al., 2019) which set out to test the Big Gods hypothesis proposing that beliefs in moralizing punitive deities drove the evolution of sociopolitical complexity in world history. The Letter was retracted by the authors in response to a critique by Beheim et al. (2021). Correction of errors in the coding and analysis of missing data to address this critique does not, however, significantly change the main findings of the original Nature Letter. We report the results of a major reanalysis of Seshat data following expansion of the codebook and database and substantial improvements to our data management methods. We also employ a more direct statistical methodology to test theories of evolutionary causality. Together, these results show a compellingly convergent picture, confirming the headline finding of the original Letter in Nature, which shows that the largest increases in social complexity do indeed precede Big Gods in world history and that Big Gods did not contribute to the evolution of sociopolitical complexity as predicted by the Big Gods hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88159259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-17DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2084444
Aneta Niczyporuk
ABSTRACT Ritualized behavior has been characterized as rigid and goal-demoted. According to Boyer and Liénard (2006), these features ensure that ritualized behavior is non-automatic, enabling it to reduce anxiety. At the same time, non-automatic behavior has been characterized as conscious, effortful, controlled, and slow. As shown in the article, however, none of the non-automaticity features follow from the features of ritualized behavior. Indeed, the rigidity of ritualized behavior should lead to it being automatized. Moreover, it is not non-automaticity as such but conscious preoccupation with ritualized behavior that is likely to decrease anxiety. The consequences of ritualized behavior's automaticity for Boyer and Liénard's theory are discussed. Additionally, there are reviewed available tools for ritualized behavior's automaticity measurement.
{"title":"(Non)automaticity of ritualized behavior","authors":"Aneta Niczyporuk","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2084444","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2084444","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Ritualized behavior has been characterized as rigid and goal-demoted. According to Boyer and Liénard (2006), these features ensure that ritualized behavior is non-automatic, enabling it to reduce anxiety. At the same time, non-automatic behavior has been characterized as conscious, effortful, controlled, and slow. As shown in the article, however, none of the non-automaticity features follow from the features of ritualized behavior. Indeed, the rigidity of ritualized behavior should lead to it being automatized. Moreover, it is not non-automaticity as such but conscious preoccupation with ritualized behavior that is likely to decrease anxiety. The consequences of ritualized behavior's automaticity for Boyer and Liénard's theory are discussed. Additionally, there are reviewed available tools for ritualized behavior's automaticity measurement.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90972119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2076727
Kerstin Stucky, Andy Gardner
ABSTRACT Despite religion’s apparent ubiquity, hypotheses about the selection pressures that may have shaped its cognitive foundations remain controversial. Here, we develop and analyze a mathematical model inspired by Crespi and Summers’ suggestion that parent-offspring conflict has driven the evolution of religious beliefs to explore the causes and consequences of these selection pressures. To this end, we employ kin selection methodology to investigate how selection may mold an individual’s propensity for religiosity and corresponding patterns of gene expression, revealing that the evolution of religiosity is modulated by genetic relatedness between social partners, that selection in relation to religiosity may depend on an individual’s age and sex, and that religiosity can foment intragenomic conflicts of interest that give rise to parent-of-origin specific patterns of gene expression and concomitant clinical disorders. More generally, we develop a formal, theoretical framework that enables the derivation of clear-cut, comparative predictions about adaptive as well as maladaptive religiosity phenotypes.
{"title":"The evolution of religiosity by kin selection","authors":"Kerstin Stucky, Andy Gardner","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2076727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2076727","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Despite religion’s apparent ubiquity, hypotheses about the selection pressures that may have shaped its cognitive foundations remain controversial. Here, we develop and analyze a mathematical model inspired by Crespi and Summers’ suggestion that parent-offspring conflict has driven the evolution of religious beliefs to explore the causes and consequences of these selection pressures. To this end, we employ kin selection methodology to investigate how selection may mold an individual’s propensity for religiosity and corresponding patterns of gene expression, revealing that the evolution of religiosity is modulated by genetic relatedness between social partners, that selection in relation to religiosity may depend on an individual’s age and sex, and that religiosity can foment intragenomic conflicts of interest that give rise to parent-of-origin specific patterns of gene expression and concomitant clinical disorders. More generally, we develop a formal, theoretical framework that enables the derivation of clear-cut, comparative predictions about adaptive as well as maladaptive religiosity phenotypes.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76081554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-07DOI: 10.1080/2153599x.2022.2050789
J. Beauregard
Robert McNamara has made a highly interesting contribution in Religion, Neuroscience, and the Self . He attempts to bring together, and to bring into dialogue personalist thought, religion, and neuroscience for the development of neuroscience-informed personalism directed toward the human future. In this brief response to McNamara, I will focus primarily on the ethical implications he has articulated for his new personalism.
{"title":"The view toward persons: personalism, neuroscience, and the present","authors":"J. Beauregard","doi":"10.1080/2153599x.2022.2050789","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599x.2022.2050789","url":null,"abstract":"Robert McNamara has made a highly interesting contribution in Religion, Neuroscience, and the Self . He attempts to bring together, and to bring into dialogue personalist thought, religion, and neuroscience for the development of neuroscience-informed personalism directed toward the human future. In this brief response to McNamara, I will focus primarily on the ethical implications he has articulated for his new personalism.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72794500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050793
B. Johnstone
Social Structures and Culture: A Primer on Critical Realism for Christian Ethics (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2020). 5. Robert Schreiter, The Ministry of Reconciliation: Spirituality and Strategies (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988). Cf. McNamara on p. 144, on the “dream-like intuition of the ideal commonwealth, but is experienced as uncannily tangible and real in moments of ritual practice, prayer and meditation... . It is what we strive to realize and it is what we celebrate as coming to be within and without us in the present moment.” 6. The cultivation of interiority/privacy/solitude in groups that promote eschatological personalism sets “political limits on state intrusion into personal life” (p. 178). 7. “That shifting of identity from the current to the blessed age is slowly accomplished over time with the help of the tradition Christian ascetical, ritual, sacramental, and ecclesial practices... Entry into the blessed age is accomplished through participation in the Christian community” (p. 85). 8. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 131. 9. For the inspiration of this formulation, see Robert Sokolowski’s essay on “Phenomenology and Eucharist” in his Christian Faith and Human Understanding (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 70.
社会结构和文化:对基督教伦理的批判现实主义入门(华盛顿特区:乔治城大学出版社，2020)。5. Robert Schreiter，《和解部:灵性与策略》(纽约玛利诺:奥比斯出版社，1988)。参见麦克纳马拉在第144页，关于“理想共同体的梦幻般的直觉，但在仪式练习，祈祷和冥想的时刻被体验为不可思议的有形和真实... .这是我们努力去实现的，这是我们在当下时刻内在和外在的庆祝。”6。在提倡末世论人格主义的群体中，对内在/隐私/孤独的培养为“国家对个人生活的侵犯设置了政治限制”(第178页)。7. “随着时间的推移，在传统的基督教苦行、仪式、圣礼和教会实践的帮助下，从现在到被祝福的时代的身份转变是慢慢完成的……进入受祝福的年龄是通过参与基督徒团体来完成的”(第85页)。8. 卡尔·拉纳:《基督教信仰的基础:基督教理念导论》，英译。威廉·戴奇(纽约:十字路口出版社，1995)，第131页。9. 关于这一表述的灵感，请参见罗伯特·索科洛夫斯基在他的《基督教信仰与人类理解》(华盛顿特区:美国天主教大学出版社，2006年)第70页中关于“现象学和圣餐”的文章。
{"title":"Moving beyond the neuroanatomy of religious experience: a commentary on McNamara’s thoughts on personalism, technology, and the Eschaton","authors":"B. Johnstone","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050793","url":null,"abstract":"Social Structures and Culture: A Primer on Critical Realism for Christian Ethics (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2020). 5. Robert Schreiter, The Ministry of Reconciliation: Spirituality and Strategies (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988). Cf. McNamara on p. 144, on the “dream-like intuition of the ideal commonwealth, but is experienced as uncannily tangible and real in moments of ritual practice, prayer and meditation... . It is what we strive to realize and it is what we celebrate as coming to be within and without us in the present moment.” 6. The cultivation of interiority/privacy/solitude in groups that promote eschatological personalism sets “political limits on state intrusion into personal life” (p. 178). 7. “That shifting of identity from the current to the blessed age is slowly accomplished over time with the help of the tradition Christian ascetical, ritual, sacramental, and ecclesial practices... Entry into the blessed age is accomplished through participation in the Christian community” (p. 85). 8. Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, trans. William Dych (New York: Crossroad, 1995), 131. 9. For the inspiration of this formulation, see Robert Sokolowski’s essay on “Phenomenology and Eucharist” in his Christian Faith and Human Understanding (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2006), 70.","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82331598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050786
J. Crosby
Brown, R. E. (1997). An introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday. Buford, T. O. (n.d.). Personalism. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. https://iep.utm. edu/personal/ Burgos, J. M. (2018). An introduction to personalism. CUA Press. McNamara, P. (2020). Religion, neuroscience and the self: A new personalism. Routledge. Pinckaers, S. (2011). The pursuit of happiness – God’s way: Living the beatitudes (M. T. Noble, Trans.). Wipf and Stock. (Original work published 1998) von Hildebrand, D. (2007). The heart. St. Augustine’s Press. Wojtyla, K. (1993). Love and responsibility (H. T. Willets, Trans.). Ignatius Press. (Original work published 1981)
{"title":"Reflections on Patrick McNamara, religion, neuroscience, and the self: a new personalism","authors":"J. Crosby","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050786","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050786","url":null,"abstract":"Brown, R. E. (1997). An introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday. Buford, T. O. (n.d.). Personalism. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. https://iep.utm. edu/personal/ Burgos, J. M. (2018). An introduction to personalism. CUA Press. McNamara, P. (2020). Religion, neuroscience and the self: A new personalism. Routledge. Pinckaers, S. (2011). The pursuit of happiness – God’s way: Living the beatitudes (M. T. Noble, Trans.). Wipf and Stock. (Original work published 1998) von Hildebrand, D. (2007). The heart. St. Augustine’s Press. Wojtyla, K. (1993). Love and responsibility (H. T. Willets, Trans.). Ignatius Press. (Original work published 1981)","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82940724","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050794
Dominic Doyle
cendence, which is found in all the personalists, is not distinctly eschatological. It is also true that M addresses various eschatological issues, as when he discusses the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar (89-91), but such an excursion into explicit eschatology does not seem to have the effect of imparting an eschatological character to M’s personalism as a whole. He says that “an eschatological personalism asserts that the essence of the self can only be grasped as a person’s whole history and ultimate end and purpose” (177). But this thought is already found among the Greeks: “count noman happy as long as he is alive.”Would any of the key concepts of M’s personalism—autarchy, agent intellect, subjectivity, temporality, group bias—be obscured if he did not call his personalism eschatological?
在所有的人格论者中都能找到的优越感，并不是明显的末世论。同样，当M讨论汉斯·乌尔斯·冯·巴尔塔萨(Hans Urs von Balthasar, 89-91)的作品时，他谈到了各种末世论问题，但这种对明确末世论的短途旅行似乎并没有将末世论特征作为一个整体传授给M的人格。他说，“一个末世论的人格主义断言，自我的本质只能被理解为一个人的整个历史和最终目的”(177)。但是这种想法在希腊人中已经存在了:“只要一个人活着，他就是幸福的。”如果M不把他的个人主义称为末世论，那么他的个人主义的关键概念——专制、智能主体、主体性、时间性、群体偏见——是否会被模糊?
{"title":"Eschatological personalism: a theological response","authors":"Dominic Doyle","doi":"10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050794","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2050794","url":null,"abstract":"cendence, which is found in all the personalists, is not distinctly eschatological. It is also true that M addresses various eschatological issues, as when he discusses the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar (89-91), but such an excursion into explicit eschatology does not seem to have the effect of imparting an eschatological character to M’s personalism as a whole. He says that “an eschatological personalism asserts that the essence of the self can only be grasped as a person’s whole history and ultimate end and purpose” (177). But this thought is already found among the Greeks: “count noman happy as long as he is alive.”Would any of the key concepts of M’s personalism—autarchy, agent intellect, subjectivity, temporality, group bias—be obscured if he did not call his personalism eschatological?","PeriodicalId":45959,"journal":{"name":"Religion Brain & Behavior","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76296909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：