从维特根斯坦非重叠理论(WNOMA)的角度看泛神论

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Religions Pub Date : 2023-12-18 DOI:10.3390/rel14121551
Gorazd Andrejč
{"title":"从维特根斯坦非重叠理论(WNOMA)的角度看泛神论","authors":"Gorazd Andrejč","doi":"10.3390/rel14121551","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines pantheism within the framework of the ‘faith and reason’ field in the philosophy of religion, with an emphasis on the question of the relationship between pantheism and empirical–scientific rationality. I address this question from what I call the Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA) approach to religion and science. WNOMA affirms a categorial difference between religious and scientific language and attitudes. This difference is interpreted with the help of Wittgenstein’s distinction between religious and scientific beliefs and van Fraassen’s distinction between religious and empiricist stances. This means that WNOMA is antievidentialist regarding religious beliefs and sees the experiential and instinctive aspects of religion as more fundamental than the systematic–intellectual aspect. Part of the variety in contemporary pantheism relates to the question of whether the emphasis is on the experiential–spiritual side of pantheism or its intellectual side, i.e., whether pantheism is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. I examine a few telling examples: Spinoza, Einstein, the World Pantheism Movement and a recent awe-some argument for pantheism by Ryan Byerly. The main contribution of this paper is a critical reading of these versions of pantheism from a WNOMA perspective, through which I hope to establish the plausibility and show some of the persuasive force of the WNOMA approach to pantheism, focusing on the relation of pantheism to scientific rationality on the one hand and felt experience on the other. I argue that hotter kinds of pantheism can be intellectually virtuous if they find a way to combine the empiricist stance and pantheist religious stance, even without a developed philosophical or theological system. I also argue that colder and philosophically rigorous pantheism can be problematic if it assumes religious evidentialism, neglects the experiential part of pantheism in favor of intellectualism or/and confuses the spheres of science and religion.","PeriodicalId":38169,"journal":{"name":"Religions","volume":"45 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pantheism from the Perspective of Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA)\",\"authors\":\"Gorazd Andrejč\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/rel14121551\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay examines pantheism within the framework of the ‘faith and reason’ field in the philosophy of religion, with an emphasis on the question of the relationship between pantheism and empirical–scientific rationality. I address this question from what I call the Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA) approach to religion and science. WNOMA affirms a categorial difference between religious and scientific language and attitudes. This difference is interpreted with the help of Wittgenstein’s distinction between religious and scientific beliefs and van Fraassen’s distinction between religious and empiricist stances. This means that WNOMA is antievidentialist regarding religious beliefs and sees the experiential and instinctive aspects of religion as more fundamental than the systematic–intellectual aspect. Part of the variety in contemporary pantheism relates to the question of whether the emphasis is on the experiential–spiritual side of pantheism or its intellectual side, i.e., whether pantheism is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. I examine a few telling examples: Spinoza, Einstein, the World Pantheism Movement and a recent awe-some argument for pantheism by Ryan Byerly. The main contribution of this paper is a critical reading of these versions of pantheism from a WNOMA perspective, through which I hope to establish the plausibility and show some of the persuasive force of the WNOMA approach to pantheism, focusing on the relation of pantheism to scientific rationality on the one hand and felt experience on the other. I argue that hotter kinds of pantheism can be intellectually virtuous if they find a way to combine the empiricist stance and pantheist religious stance, even without a developed philosophical or theological system. I also argue that colder and philosophically rigorous pantheism can be problematic if it assumes religious evidentialism, neglects the experiential part of pantheism in favor of intellectualism or/and confuses the spheres of science and religion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religions\",\"volume\":\"45 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-18\",\"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/rel14121551\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14121551","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

摘要

本文在宗教哲学 "信仰与理性 "领域的框架内研究泛神论,重点是泛神论与经验科学理性之间的关系问题。我从维特根斯坦的非重叠理论(WNOMA)来探讨宗教与科学。维特根斯坦非重叠理论肯定了宗教与科学语言和态度之间的分类差异。维特根斯坦区分了宗教信仰和科学信仰,范-弗拉森区分了宗教立场和经验主义立场,并以此来解释这种差异。这意味着,WNOMA 在宗教信仰方面是反经验主义的,认为宗教的经验和本能方面比系统的知识方面更重要。当代泛神论的多样性部分与强调泛神论的经验-精神层面还是知识层面有关,即泛神论是 "热 "还是 "冷"。我研究了几个有说服力的例子:斯宾诺莎、爱因斯坦、世界泛神论运动以及瑞安-拜尔利(Ryan Byerly)最近为泛神论所做的令人敬畏的论证。本文的主要贡献在于从 WNOMA 的视角对这些版本的泛神论进行了批判性解读,我希望通过这种解读建立 WNOMA 泛神论方法的合理性,并展示其一定的说服力,重点是泛神论与科学理性和感觉经验之间的关系。我认为,即使没有发达的哲学或神学体系,较热的泛神论如果能找到将经验主义立场和泛神论宗教立场结合起来的方法,也能在理智上是良性的。我还认为,如果较冷的、哲学上严谨的泛神论假定宗教证据主义,忽视泛神论的经验部分而偏向知识论,或/和混淆科学与宗教的范畴,那么这种泛神论就会产生问题。
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
Pantheism from the Perspective of Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA)
This essay examines pantheism within the framework of the ‘faith and reason’ field in the philosophy of religion, with an emphasis on the question of the relationship between pantheism and empirical–scientific rationality. I address this question from what I call the Wittgensteinian Nonoverlapping Magisteria (WNOMA) approach to religion and science. WNOMA affirms a categorial difference between religious and scientific language and attitudes. This difference is interpreted with the help of Wittgenstein’s distinction between religious and scientific beliefs and van Fraassen’s distinction between religious and empiricist stances. This means that WNOMA is antievidentialist regarding religious beliefs and sees the experiential and instinctive aspects of religion as more fundamental than the systematic–intellectual aspect. Part of the variety in contemporary pantheism relates to the question of whether the emphasis is on the experiential–spiritual side of pantheism or its intellectual side, i.e., whether pantheism is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. I examine a few telling examples: Spinoza, Einstein, the World Pantheism Movement and a recent awe-some argument for pantheism by Ryan Byerly. The main contribution of this paper is a critical reading of these versions of pantheism from a WNOMA perspective, through which I hope to establish the plausibility and show some of the persuasive force of the WNOMA approach to pantheism, focusing on the relation of pantheism to scientific rationality on the one hand and felt experience on the other. I argue that hotter kinds of pantheism can be intellectually virtuous if they find a way to combine the empiricist stance and pantheist religious stance, even without a developed philosophical or theological system. I also argue that colder and philosophically rigorous pantheism can be problematic if it assumes religious evidentialism, neglects the experiential part of pantheism in favor of intellectualism or/and confuses the spheres of science and religion.
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
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