Theology, Science, and Human Uniqueness: A Response to Wentzel van Huyssteen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In challenging Wentzel van Huyssteen's theology of human uniqueness, it is argued first that theology is reflection on the meaning of revelation, which is the fundamental datum of a religion to which a theologian is personally committed. Whereas one's theology is a human construct, one's religion is not. Concerning the relation of theology and natural science, it is argued that each discipline can learn from the other without having to justify itself by the principles of the other, especially theology not having to justify itself by naturalist criteria (the error of “natural theology”). Concerning human uniqueness, it is argued that only a biblically based theology, with its doctrine of the imago Dei, can constitute a theory of human uniqueness that takes humans to be different from the rest of creation, yet not in opposition to it. Concerning the relation of Judaism and Christianity, it is argued that Jewish “traditionalism” or “particularism” is not a detriment Christianity has superseded, but a manifestation of the essential embodiment (both physical and political) of human being.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| 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".