纯粹经验世界中的教会归属:威廉·詹姆斯、杜波依斯与危机中的宗教理性

IF 0.3 0 RELIGION Open Theology Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1515/opth-2020-0152
Walter Scott Stepanenko
{"title":"纯粹经验世界中的教会归属:威廉·詹姆斯、杜波依斯与危机中的宗教理性","authors":"Walter Scott Stepanenko","doi":"10.1515/opth-2020-0152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The global COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted several instances of churches violating state issued and scientifically recommended guidelines designed to keep populations healthy and to prevent the further spread of the disease. While these instances are minority responses to these orders, they nonetheless raise questions about the rationality of ecclesial belonging in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, I draw on the work of William James and W. E. B. Du Bois to articulate a conception of ecclesial belonging as a social epistemological process engaging a complex, fluid multiplicity of knowers of various scales. I argue that, in this view, ecclesial rationality involves the construction of a concatenation of internal and external practices individual believers and groups can traverse so long as they consistently satisfy a plurality of desiderata. I suggest that what is irrational about religious-based defiance of COVID-19 guidelines is the church-sanctioned severance of internal from external practices. I suggest that this behavior is supported by a failure to grasp the demands of ecclesial rationality rather than embrace them, and that this conception of rationality may have been eroded by the value-neutral skepticism of secular rationality.","PeriodicalId":42436,"journal":{"name":"Open Theology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0152","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ecclesial Belonging in a World of Pure Experience: William James, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Religious Rationality in Crisis\",\"authors\":\"Walter Scott Stepanenko\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opth-2020-0152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The global COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted several instances of churches violating state issued and scientifically recommended guidelines designed to keep populations healthy and to prevent the further spread of the disease. While these instances are minority responses to these orders, they nonetheless raise questions about the rationality of ecclesial belonging in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, I draw on the work of William James and W. E. B. Du Bois to articulate a conception of ecclesial belonging as a social epistemological process engaging a complex, fluid multiplicity of knowers of various scales. I argue that, in this view, ecclesial rationality involves the construction of a concatenation of internal and external practices individual believers and groups can traverse so long as they consistently satisfy a plurality of desiderata. I suggest that what is irrational about religious-based defiance of COVID-19 guidelines is the church-sanctioned severance of internal from external practices. I suggest that this behavior is supported by a failure to grasp the demands of ecclesial rationality rather than embrace them, and that this conception of rationality may have been eroded by the value-neutral skepticism of secular rationality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Theology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/opth-2020-0152\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Theology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要全球新冠肺炎大流行突出了教会违反国家发布和科学建议的旨在保持人口健康和防止疾病进一步传播的指导方针的几起事件。虽然这些情况是少数人对这些命令的回应,但它们仍然引发了对新冠肺炎大流行时教会归属合理性的质疑。在这篇文章中,我借鉴了威廉·詹姆斯和W·E·B·杜波依斯的作品,阐述了教会归属的概念,认为这是一个社会认识论过程,涉及各种规模的复杂、流动的多个知识者。我认为,在这种观点中,教会理性涉及内部和外部实践的串联构建,只要信徒和团体始终满足多种需求,他们就可以穿越。我认为,基于宗教的对新冠肺炎指导方针的蔑视是不合理的,因为教会批准了内部和外部做法的分离。我认为,这种行为是因为没有抓住教会理性的要求,而不是接受它们,这种理性的概念可能已经被世俗理性的价值中立怀疑论侵蚀了。
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
Ecclesial Belonging in a World of Pure Experience: William James, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Religious Rationality in Crisis
Abstract The global COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted several instances of churches violating state issued and scientifically recommended guidelines designed to keep populations healthy and to prevent the further spread of the disease. While these instances are minority responses to these orders, they nonetheless raise questions about the rationality of ecclesial belonging in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, I draw on the work of William James and W. E. B. Du Bois to articulate a conception of ecclesial belonging as a social epistemological process engaging a complex, fluid multiplicity of knowers of various scales. I argue that, in this view, ecclesial rationality involves the construction of a concatenation of internal and external practices individual believers and groups can traverse so long as they consistently satisfy a plurality of desiderata. I suggest that what is irrational about religious-based defiance of COVID-19 guidelines is the church-sanctioned severance of internal from external practices. I suggest that this behavior is supported by a failure to grasp the demands of ecclesial rationality rather than embrace them, and that this conception of rationality may have been eroded by the value-neutral skepticism of secular rationality.
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
Open Theology
Open Theology RELIGION-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Theology is an international Open Access, peer-reviewed academic journal that welcomes contributions written in English addressing religion in its various forms and aspects: historical, theological, sociological, psychological, and other. The journal encompasses all major disciplines of Theology and Religious Studies, presenting doctrine, history, organization and everyday life of various types of religious groups and the relations between them. We publish articles from the field of Theology as well as Philosophy, Sociology and Psychology of Religion and also dialogue between Religion and Science. The Open Theology does not present views of any particular theological school nor of a particular religious organization. The contributions are written by researchers who represent different religious views. The authors present their research concerning the old religious traditions as well as new religious movements. The aim of the journal is to promote an international and interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of Theology and Religious Studies. The journal seeks also to provide researchers, pastors and other interested persons with the fruits of academic studies.
期刊最新文献
“Teachers of Good Things”: Origen on Women as Teachers Constructive After Systematic? On Doing Theology in South Africa Today Blood Lines: Biopolitics, Patriarchy, Myth A Militant Bride: Gender-Loaded Metaphors in Jerome’s Writings to Ascetic Men and Women “The Remedy for a World Without Transcendence”: Georges Bataille on Sacrifice and the Theology of Transgression
×
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