Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This paper is my contribution to twentieth anniversary of Oxford Round Table that met in Oxford July 13-18, 2008. topic of Round Table was Religion: politics of and Conflict. In choosing this theme Oxford Round Table cited the strife in national and international affairs, apparent insoluble disharmony in Middle East, and religious discord in most other sectors of world as well. (1) While Middle East is most salient example of conflict, Religious Tolerance organization based in Ontario keeps tabs on twenty-five conflicts worldwide. (2) These range from Afghanistan War-- pitting Taliban and Al Qaida against Northern Alliance of Afghans (with an assist from U.S. and Britain), to conflict between Buddhists and Hindus in Sri Lanka, to Sudan where Muslim regime committed genocide against both Animists and Christians. (3) listing may be found at Religious Tolerance. org. It should be obvious from this listing referenced above that--though other factors enter into these conflicts: economics, race, class, ethnicity, nationalism, and political ambitions-religious conflict is real, and, if we wish to gain a peaceful community of nations and states, we neglect it at our peril. For this reason, we need to understand dynamics that lead to conflict and also what it is within religions that may provide a basis for concord. In this regard, it is thesis of this work that every world religion contains within it both seeds that lead to conflict and those that lead to concord and peace. Many of sources that lead to conflict or peace come directly from divine commandments or directives, teachings from scriptures and writings of interpreters of a particular faith. Other conflicts arise, not from (4) divine direction, but out of claims of one religion which run counter to culture, politics, and beliefs of other religions. It is in area of mutually exclusive claims of one faith vis-a-vis another that conflict may arise as these religions bump up one against another. Another cause for conflict occurs when persons forget true values of their religion and are enticed by culture, state, zealots, or political leaders into committing acts contrary to teachings of their faith. One of best examples of this is Crusades in which participants meant so well when they went into battle to glorify Christ. However, when we reflect on Crusades, it's hard to imagine The Prince of Peace at head of those armies with their swords red with innocent or not so innocent blood. More of contradictions between faith and action, peace and conflict, will be discussed later under heading A Brief History of Religion in War and Peace. aim of this process is that information provided may begin to provide a framework for understanding some of causes and cures for interfaith conflict. I also pray that it will push us toward renewed effort in finding ways for differing faiths to work together for common good and in promoting peace in world. In our common discourse, hopefully, we may find reasonable and workable means to resolve conflicts among religions and cultures while producing a model that will allow adherents to maintain their loyalties as they work together in harmony for good of humankind. It is God's love and our love for humanity that should bind religions together in peace and in common cause. Methodology Prior to next section of this paper, The Dialectic Problem, we need to understand how scriptures and Holy Writings of World's Religions will be used here. We want to be clear that in dealing with sources of conflict and peace found in writings of religions of world, no attempt will be made to interpret or subject to literary criticism writings of these faiths. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.002 |
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.
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".