Reconfigurations of Philosophy of Religion: A Possible Future, edited by Jim Kanaris
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the beginning of the book, Kanaris forewarns: "One will be hard pressed to find a uniform vision in this collection" (ix).From the start, then, it seems there is scarce chance of uncovering a golden thread weaving together the twelve contributions of the book.An impression further confirmed by the radical divergence of the contributors' methodologies, interlocutors, and objectives.Consider, for instance, Pamela Sue Anderson's feminist philosophy of religion, Jin Y. Park's East-West comparative philosophy of religion, Tyler Robert's socio-political critical philosophy of religion, or Clayton Crockett's appeal to François Laurelle's non-philosophy for philosophy of religion.Each of the contributors in the volume presents an innovative reconfiguration of philosophy of religion with varying implications for its future.And yet, as the subtitle suggests, the many reconfigurations of philosophy of religion propose "a possible future," in the singular, and consequently, the possibility of a cumulative way forward for a field of inquiry which seemingly has as many methods as it has researchers like so many unrelated points of light in the night sky.As philosophy of religion continues to proliferate in a myriad of directions with increasing distance and isolation over time, what possible future can constellate its reconfigurations together?Kanaris prefers a musical metaphor suggesting that the differences among the contributors form a polyphony (echoing the title of one of his earlier books) rather than the chaotic dissonance of a cacophony.To this polyphony ensues the back and forth of philosophy of religion.Following Raschke, Kanaris likens the contrasting interplay of the contributors to "play therapy" -a kind of jouissance or "jig" -intended to characterize the contributions' interrelation as step and counter step, which involves a certain degree of synchronization harmonized, at least in part, by a common cadence.In the introduction, the reader can find a succinct summary of the contributions that delineates their similarities and differences, so it would be redundant to do the same here.Rather, the purpose of this review will be to adumbrate several of the primary leitmotifs composing the fugue of the future of philosophy of religion intonated in the book.In the first chapter, Joy Morny fittingly quotes David Tracy: "The entire narrative of philosophy of religion in the modern West
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".