Religion and Rationality: A Semeiotic Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The article argues that, contrary to New Atheism's claim, religion does not eo ipso violate standards of rationality, provided that rationality is understood in a non-positivist way. To illustrate, the first section analyzes examples of religious argument across world religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam), while the second section introduces basic key features of a minimum concept of rationality (person-relatedness, structure-relatedness, communicability, generality, differentiatedness) implied by the previous examples. The third section offers a semiotic frame theory broad enough to allow for different types of rationality and to this end uses Charles Peirce's analytical system of ten semiotic trichotomies, which presupposes that all living processes, especially human ones (including feeling and acting), can be analyzed along the line of “sign,” “object,” and “interpretant.” The fourth, fifth, and sixth sections argue that rationality is primarily ascribable to so-called normal interpretants, i.e., terms, judgments, and arguments, although rationality will take a different shape in each case. The last section draws six brief conclusions concerning the relationship between religion and rationality.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it