Bernard Lonergans filosofiska teologi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article deals with the theory of knowledge of God elaborated by the Canadian theologian and philosopher Bernard Lonergan. Its main aim is to present Lonergan’s theory and to discuss whether it is foundationalist in character or not. The first part of the article introduces the reader into the discussion about foundationalism in contemporary philosophy, especially with regard to the field of philosophy of religion. In the article’s second part Lonergan’s theory of how to ground knowledge of God is being presented, along with its connection to Lonergan’s general cognitional theory. Lonergan’s fourfold God-question and its relationship to the distinction between natural and supernatural knowledge of God is also elucidated. The concluding part of the article shows why Lonergan’s philosophy of God is not a version of foundationalism in its proper sense, since Lonergan rejects the foundationalist attribution of epistemic primacy to propositional entities, and instead places his epistemic foundations in a set of intentional operations of the human mind.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 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".