如何对宗教信仰进行推理

IF 0.1 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
D. Bertini
{"title":"如何对宗教信仰进行推理","authors":"D. Bertini","doi":"10.51917/dialogo.2021.8.1.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intractable disagreements are commonly analyzed in terms of the semantic opposition of (at least) couples of disputed beliefs (purely epistemic view, from here on PEV). While such a view seems to be a very natural starting point, my intuitions are that such an approach is misleadingly unrealistic, and that an empirical modeling towards how individuals hold beliefs in intractable opposition constitutes a strong defeater for PEV. My work addresses disagreements within the religious domain. Accordingly, I will be concerned with developing my empirical understanding of religious beliefs, and will show the consequences of such proposal on how to answer the problem of religious diversity.","PeriodicalId":42179,"journal":{"name":"Dialogo","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to reason about religious beliefs\",\"authors\":\"D. Bertini\",\"doi\":\"10.51917/dialogo.2021.8.1.17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Intractable disagreements are commonly analyzed in terms of the semantic opposition of (at least) couples of disputed beliefs (purely epistemic view, from here on PEV). While such a view seems to be a very natural starting point, my intuitions are that such an approach is misleadingly unrealistic, and that an empirical modeling towards how individuals hold beliefs in intractable opposition constitutes a strong defeater for PEV. My work addresses disagreements within the religious domain. Accordingly, I will be concerned with developing my empirical understanding of religious beliefs, and will show the consequences of such proposal on how to answer the problem of religious diversity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialogo\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialogo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.51917/dialogo.2021.8.1.17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51917/dialogo.2021.8.1.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

棘手的分歧通常是根据(至少)一对有争议的信念的语义对立来分析的(纯粹的认识论观点,从PEV开始)。虽然这样的观点似乎是一个非常自然的起点,但我的直觉是,这种方法具有误导性,是不切实际的,而且关于个人如何在棘手的反对派中持有信念的经验模型构成了PEV的强大挫败。我的作品涉及宗教领域内的分歧。因此,我将关注发展我对宗教信仰的经验理解,并将展示这种建议对如何回答宗教多样性问题的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How to reason about religious beliefs
Intractable disagreements are commonly analyzed in terms of the semantic opposition of (at least) couples of disputed beliefs (purely epistemic view, from here on PEV). While such a view seems to be a very natural starting point, my intuitions are that such an approach is misleadingly unrealistic, and that an empirical modeling towards how individuals hold beliefs in intractable opposition constitutes a strong defeater for PEV. My work addresses disagreements within the religious domain. Accordingly, I will be concerned with developing my empirical understanding of religious beliefs, and will show the consequences of such proposal on how to answer the problem of religious diversity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Dialogo
Dialogo SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信