Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Of all the sub-fields of philosophy, it appears to us that philosophy of religion (or philosophical theology) arouses the most skepticism and derision from non-philosophers of religion. It is not unusual for secular philosophers to accuse philosophers of religion of engaging in a practice without any hope of gaining serious philosophical insights. We offer some examples of such disdain and record how some see the field of philosophy of religion as dominated by Christian apologists who are not really practising philosophy at all. We believe that praise and blame have a rightful place in philosophy of religion, and philosophy in general, but our main focus is on times when blame seems inappropriate. We argue that some of the blame levelled by prominent philosophers against philosophers of religion and the field itself are, in fact, unjustified and not in the spirit of constructive, fruitful philosophical dialogue. We contend that by any fair assessment of the field of philosophy of religion, it is not dominated by Christian apologists and, on the basis of a number of non-question-begging criteria, the field seems as healthy as any other respected sub-field of philosophy. We conclude with a modest explanation as to why philosophy of religion arouses the disparagement it does.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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".