MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W255978882

Religious Pluralism: Problems and Prospects

2001· article· en· W255978882 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Gordon Melton

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtestantismEcumenismReligious pluralismPluralism (philosophy)Religious studiesLawReligious organizationPolitical scienceSociologyHistoryTheologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION I have spent much of the last thirty years mapping the religious life of the United States. This unique occupation began in graduate school with a dissertation problem-to discern the important structures in the American religious life. At the time (the 1960s) there was much talk of a post-denominational era, of ecumenism. The great ecumenical hope was fueled by mergers in the mission field. Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and even Anglican churches were joining together to create a new wave of Protestant churches, gathering participation from churches in South Korea, Pakistan, Japan, and India. While most of these new united churches were Asian, one was close at hand-the United Church of Canada. Founded in 1925, this merger of Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists seemed to be working well after fifty years. Two factors separated American churches from the possibility of such ecumenical unions. In almost every case where such a united church had been formed, the merging churches were a distinct minority. First, in the United States, Protestantism was the majority religious factor. Second, while the Canadians were experiencing a union, the United States had gone through an intense religious controversy that split its major churches into warring theological camps. Such a split continues to this day and goes under various names-fundamentalist/modernist, conservative/liberal, evangelical/ecumenical. The dynamic still fuels major religious controversies in the United States, as neither side has been able to claim a clear majority. Moreover, this major barrier to older groups coming together also led to a regular set of new groups being formed. At the time I began mapping the religious landscape, the popular observation was that some 250 denominations existed in America. An initial survey of the scene in the 1960s produced a list of some 750 groups. By the mid 1970s, when we first published, around 1000 denominations, including a growing number of non-Christian groups, had become visible. In the process, we-and I use the plural because by this time other researchers on the same issues and phenomena had arisen-were able to identify and describe the continuing structures shaping contemporary religious life: denominations, or basic religious groupings that focus the week-to-week religious life of people and express their primary religious commitment; and family groups, sets of closely related denominations. While at times it appears that there is simply chaos on the religious scene, such is not the case. There are only so many ways to be religious, and so many religious myths that spiritually animate people. Genuinely new religious myths are exceedingly rare, and almost all newer religious groups develop a variation on one of the fairly small number of old religious myths and adopt one of the even smaller number of ways to organize a religious community. We can see this clearly, for example, in Scientology. Often condemned as a shallow new religion with a science-fiction theology, when we actually analyze the theology, we see that founder L. Ron Hubbard made a forceful restatement of the old Gnostic myth. Understanding that relationship to be one of the oldest and most powerful traditional religious myths helps from a religious perspective to understand why people can find Scientology so appealing as a religious community (though the price is depriving Scientology of at least one of its claims to uniqueness). However, no sooner had we solved the first problem, than a second rose to the top. It had been posed earlier by a few sociologists like H. Richard Neibuhr, but in the 1970s took on a new level of concern. As originally stated, the problem was something like this: Why are so many young people abandoning the older religious groups for newer ones? At that point, a spectrum of new religions was becoming visible in America. Of course, the new question was a restatement of the older ecumenical problem. …

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207