Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME: Le débat théologique suscité aujourd'hui par la rencontre des religions peut être éclairé par un débat similaire survenu au début du siècle dernier, suite à la rencontre de la théologie avec l'histoire des religions.La présente étude retrace les grands moments de ce premier débat, qui oppose d'abord Ernst Troeltsch à Julius Kaftan, et qui se poursuit chez Paul Tillich en deux étapes : celle de son premier enseignement allemand, où il pose les fondements de sa théologie des religions, et celle de ses dernières années américaines, marquées par la rencontre effective des religions orientales.La relecture de ce débat procède ici sous l'angle de la question du statut épistémologique de la théologie et de son rapport aux sciences religieuses.ABSTRACT : The contemporary theological debate on the encounter of world religions may profit from the comparison with a similar debate from the beginning of last century, following the encounter of theology with the history of religions.In this article, we recall a few key moments of that earlier debate.Beginning with the struggle between Ernst Troeltsch and Julius Kaftan, we then consider how the question evolves in the writings of Paul Tillich : from his first German teaching, where he lays the theoretical foundations of his theology of religions, to his last American years, when he gets involved in actual religious encounters.The debate is considered herefrom the point of view of the epistemological status of theology in its relation to religious sciences.J 5 ai choisi de traiter le thème de notre dossier en partant de mon propre terrain d'enseignement et de recherche, à savoir, pour l'enseignement, la théologie des religions, cours que je donne non seulement à la Faculté de théologie de l'Université catholique de Lyon mais aussi à Y Institut de sciences et théologie des religions de Marseille, et, pour la recherche, la thèse de doctorat que j'ai présentée aux facultés de théologie et de sciences religieuses de l'Institut Catholique de Paris et de l'Université Laval de Québec, sur la pensée de Paul Tillich dans son débat avec Ernst Troeltsch 1 .1. À paraître prochainement aux Éditions du Cerf, dans la collection « Cogitatio Fidei ». 9
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".