Circumcising “Revelation-Based” Thinking? On the Rationality of Inter-religious Dialogue in the Encounter between Jews and Christians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper provides a continuation of my analysis of the powers and perils of what I call dialogical rationality with respect to the encounter between Jews and Christians. Its primary aim is to define the relationship between dialogical and philosophical rationality with respect to the encounter between Judaism and Christianity. First I introduce the basic principles of dialogical rationality that I developed elsewhere. In a second step one of these principles is scrutinized in the form of a meta-philosophical discussion. At its centre lies the question of whether philosophy of religion should be detached from biblical faith (and thus from divine revelation) to be of use in any justifications of inter-religious dialogue between Jews and Christians. The main reference point of my discussion is recent work on the state of analytic philosophy of religion. I argue that there is no reason to be critical of philosophy's contributions to justifications of inter-religious dialogue between Jews and Christians.
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 | 0.039 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".