Inclusive Communities, Exclusive Theologies: Measuring the Risks of Interreligious Dialogue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is easy to misread Towards a Jewish-Christian-Muslim Theology given the prevalent discourse and biases surrounding interfaith dialogue and interreligious studies.Many of the works in this genre attempt to unearth pluralist thought in the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, especially as articulated by medieval jurists and theologians.Their underlying message is that, despite a political history that suggests deep-seated hatred amongst the three religions, medieval religious scholars constructed theories of love and understanding that reflected the pluralism inherent in their religious texts.While this spirit of tolerance was occasionally actualized in such purportedly pluralistic societies as Muslim Spain, more often than not it was ignored or suppressed in the name of political expedience.Many contemporary scholars argue that, were we to channel the spirit of medieval Abrahamic theologians, we too would be able to espouse a pluralistic theology in the face of political and religious divisiveness.At first glance, David Burrell appears to be writing in this tradition.In his book, he has put together a collection of essays that compare and contrast the ideas of three medieval theologians-Aquinas, Ghazali, and Maimonides-in a manner that pulls from their various ideas to create an overarching, pluralistic view of God, scripture, and human being across the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions.He demonstrates that religious language can transcend religious sectarianism, and that these scholars can be
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.212 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".