Theologians and their Homes (or the Lack Thereof): The Quest for Truth and the Question of Belonging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much depends on questions of belonging and home. If one must, by definition, belong to a single home community to do theology, then the use of the term “theology” in both comparative theology and Theology Without Walls is equivocal. Transreligious theologians refuse to stipulate that theology must be done for a theologian's home community. But the term “theology” might be understood in another sense—the existentially invested quest for religious truth that does not require a primary religious home. With this understanding, theology is existentially serious and committed reflection, whereas truth-seeking that entails no existential commitment (with or without a home) might go by another label, such as “philosophy of religion.” After all, the philosopher of religion may well be agnostic or atheist. But two further sets of distinctions must follow: 1) the distinction between a) transformative truth accessed through the specific therapeutic regimes of a particular home tradition and b) public truth that requires no transformation but only publicly defensible epistemological warrants; and 2) the means of arriving at a) transformative truth on the one side and b) publicly available truth claims on the other. What I know by way of experience ( anubhava) or a scriptural revelation ( śruti) is particular to how my tradition accesses transformative truth. When I seek to publicly defend the content of that experience or scripture, I must engage all comers by means of knowing and disputation that are acceptable to all and do not depend on belonging to or accepting the internal norms of a home tradition. Avoiding muddled debates between comparative theology and TWW requires keeping these distinctions in view.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".