公共场合宗教思维的形而上学基础?论与非裔新教思想的理性共享

IF 0.4 4区 哲学 N/A RELIGION International Journal of Public Theology Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.1163/15697320-20230098
Julius Crump
{"title":"公共场合宗教思维的形而上学基础?论与非裔新教思想的理性共享","authors":"Julius Crump","doi":"10.1163/15697320-20230098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines metaphysics as a method for religious thinking in public. Such a method invites criticism because 1) no one institution or population group can determine how well others use reason and 2) religious justifications for optimal reason-sharing emanate from privileged institutions. Reason is worth using and sharing when traditions share limit-questions. On what basis had the determination – that some use and share reason better than others – seemed plausible? Some scholars base their determination on appeals to metaphysics. The first part of this article introduces public theology’s origins in American civil religious discourse. The second part examines a foundational method for public reason. These parts establish a relationship between a description of public theology and an examination of its use of reason in David Tracy’s methodological justification of metaphysics. The third part shows how Afro-protestant thought mediates public and emancipatory reason by asking whose inquiry liberates and why.","PeriodicalId":43324,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Public Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Metaphysical Foundation for Religious Thinking in Public? On Sharing Reason with Afro-protestant Thought\",\"authors\":\"Julius Crump\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15697320-20230098\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article examines metaphysics as a method for religious thinking in public. Such a method invites criticism because 1) no one institution or population group can determine how well others use reason and 2) religious justifications for optimal reason-sharing emanate from privileged institutions. Reason is worth using and sharing when traditions share limit-questions. On what basis had the determination – that some use and share reason better than others – seemed plausible? Some scholars base their determination on appeals to metaphysics. The first part of this article introduces public theology’s origins in American civil religious discourse. The second part examines a foundational method for public reason. These parts establish a relationship between a description of public theology and an examination of its use of reason in David Tracy’s methodological justification of metaphysics. The third part shows how Afro-protestant thought mediates public and emancipatory reason by asking whose inquiry liberates and why.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Public Theology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Public Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15697320-20230098\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Public Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15697320-20230098","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文考察了形而上学作为一种公共宗教思维方法。这种方法会招致批评,因为1)没有一个机构或人口群体能够决定其他人如何运用理性,2)最佳理性分享的宗教理由来自特权机构。当传统共享极限问题时,理性是值得使用和分享的。某些人比其他人更善于运用和分享理性,这一决定是基于什么而显得可信呢?有些学者的决定是基于对形而上学的求助。本文第一部分介绍了公共神学在美国民间宗教话语中的起源。第二部分考察了公共理性的基本方法。这些部分在大卫·特雷西的《形而上学的方法论辩护》中建立了对公共神学的描述与对其运用理性的考察之间的关系。第三部分展示了非裔新教思想是如何通过追问谁的探究是解放的以及为什么是解放的来调解公共的和解放的理性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Metaphysical Foundation for Religious Thinking in Public? On Sharing Reason with Afro-protestant Thought
Abstract This article examines metaphysics as a method for religious thinking in public. Such a method invites criticism because 1) no one institution or population group can determine how well others use reason and 2) religious justifications for optimal reason-sharing emanate from privileged institutions. Reason is worth using and sharing when traditions share limit-questions. On what basis had the determination – that some use and share reason better than others – seemed plausible? Some scholars base their determination on appeals to metaphysics. The first part of this article introduces public theology’s origins in American civil religious discourse. The second part examines a foundational method for public reason. These parts establish a relationship between a description of public theology and an examination of its use of reason in David Tracy’s methodological justification of metaphysics. The third part shows how Afro-protestant thought mediates public and emancipatory reason by asking whose inquiry liberates and why.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
50.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
On Critiquing Christian Nationalism: Two Recent Books on the Perils of Christian Nationalism Intersex and Medical Health: a Construction of a Public Health Theology Paradigm for Sexual Polymorphism in Indonesia Beyond the Shadows: a Public Theology of Disability Inclusion Triangulated Challenges to Democracy: a Critical Voice of Public Theology to Counter Fear and Escalating Polarization in Indonesia Binding Citizenship as a Bridge between Communities and Institutions: Dialogues between Christian Social Ethics, Political Philosophy and Social Sciences
×
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