MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607153796 · doi:10.1017/s003441251500030x

The idolatry argument against natural theology: how it works and why it fails

2015· article· en· W2607153796 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh Burling

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdolatryWorshipPhilosophyNatural theologyNatural (archaeology)TheologyArgument (complex analysis)Object (grammar)EpistemologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Some thinkers in the Reformed and ‘postmodern’ traditions in theology have argued that natural theology is ‘idolatrous’. This article shows that such arguments hinge on distinguishing the object of revealed theology from the perfect being or first cause. It then shows that, on plausible analyses of worthiness of worship, the perfect being will always be more worthy of worship than anything not identified with it. Natural theology therefore has a proper place in investigating the nature of the ‘true’ God, if an object is the ‘true’ God because it is the being worthy of our worship.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.101
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0100.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.268
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious StudiesSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207