RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND GLOBALIZATION: SECULAR AND THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY APPROACH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The absolute and supreme authority of religion makes social andpoliticalnorms indisputable, which guarantees social stability. It is one of the three factors fortheunification of humanity, along with universal empires and universal payment (Харари,2016). There are three points in considering the relationship between religion and globalization.First, why does it resist the idea of globalism. Secondly, that unification will graduallylead to the construction of a new religion and hence to the abolition of religionitself. Andthird, today it is the only alternative to globalism, so it suffers the most powerful pressure(Косиченко, 2013). Following the Montreal Conference of the World Council of Churches (1963), therehasbeen a shift in emphasis from theology to anthropology or “fromGod to man”. But whichanthropology: the secular one, based on Bonhoeffer’s ill-quoted phrase that “thereis no God” or the theological one (according to Raner), which defines man not onlyaspsychologically, but also as a phenomenon impossible to explain without referencetoGod. This is important for modern ecumenical thinking, in which secular theories provedecisive. They try to derive categories that are valid for both the Christian andthesecularman (Майендорф, 2021).In the 21st century, religious myths still divide people. With the progress of science, theyfail to explain the world – they do not bring rain, they do not cure diseases, theydonotproduce bombs. They set the boundaries of national identities (Харари, 2019). Buttheyalso give confidence that human happiness can be achieved in the mystical religiousexperience, which frees from the monotonous and inhuman determinismof theeconomyand other systems that regulate human life.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".