MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072616726 · doi:10.3138/tjt.18.2.231

Karl Barth's Critique of Classical Theism

2002· article· en· W2072616726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Don Schweitzer

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicKarl Barth and Christian Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheismPhilosophyRevelationFaithIdolatryAbsolutenessEpistemologyTheologyPhilosophy of religionNatural theology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Classical theism" designates an understanding of God in which God has no need of the world and is not internally related to it. In classical theism, God's joy is not increased by the world's beauty or diminished by its pain. God's being is perfectly and fully actualized apart from the world. Any alternation would only decrease it. In this understanding, God's being is immutable in a static sense, essentially unrelated to the world and unaffected by what happens in and to it. Thomas Aquinas is usually cited as representative of this position. But this concept of God has been present in Christian theology from the patristic. era on, when absoluteness and impassibility came to be seen as basic attributes of God that determined how the revelation of God in Jesus Christ could be understood. Classical theism, this understanding of God as impassible and statically perfect, has been sharply criticized by process philosophers and theologians as logically incoherent, an obstacle to faith and de-valuing creation. Feminist theologians have repeated and extended this, arguing that classical theism is a male idolatry that undermines peoples' humanity, especially women's.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.029
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicKarl Barth and Christian TheologyFrench-language works237,207