DOCSLIB.ORG

Integral Framing-Analysis of the Online Creation-Evolution Controversy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integral Framing-Analysis of the Online Creation-Evolution Controversy “The Numb vs. The Dumb” Integral Framing-Analysis of the Online Creation-Evolution Controversy Tim Stevens (2012) Date: August, 2012 Tim Stevens MSc Thesis MDR (Development and Rural Innovation) COM-80430 MSc Thesis Communication and Innovation Studies Under supervision of Prof. Dr. Noelle Aarts Second examiner: Dr. Ir. Gerard Verschoor, Rural Development Sociology Group Acknowledgements This research was driven by my personal interest and took more than two years’ time. I could not wish for a better supervisor than Prof. Dr. Noelle Aarts. She provided me with the freedom and the trust that allowed me to do this challenging research. Foreword It is hard writing this foreword. The foreword usually describes how the research originated and how the writer, in person, brought about the research and the writing. I do not know exactly how or when this research originated. My mother would say that it all started twenty years ago when I started to ask difficult questions. My supervisor Prof. Dr. Noelle Aarts would say that it started two years ago when the proposal was approved. I remain in doubt. Yet, I am confident that these doubts instigated the inspiration for doing this research, enhanced the impartiality of the process, and augmented the quality of the results. As an interpretive researcher who sneaked on the web and freely quoted disputants to deconstruct their perspectives on the issue, I think it is fair to share my perspectives on the issue, so that you can interpret mine. For me, evolution theory is the most precious theory for humankind. I have no doubts that evolution theory accurately describes how this colourful world came about: Increasingly complex structures of matter turned into life; a world that was made from matter, yet much more than that. Then, increasingly complex organisms developed consciousness; a world created by organisms, but again of a very different kind. And now, here we are, reflecting on this whole process. Life has become conscious of itself. I am grateful to live, right now, yet at the ever-present startling and creative edge of evolution. The creation-evolution discussion is not about the past, it is about the origin of any-thing ever-present. It is about ‘creation’ in general, about a first push, an uncaused cause, about emergence, something that acts rather than reacts. In the past, people used to belief that the source of all was God. God created the world, and God had omnipotent powers to change people’s destiny. Nowadays, people do not belief in God and predetermination, but belief in themselves and self-determination. Although these views seem opposite, they are both ‘creationist’ in some sense. It used to be a taboo to question God’s will. Nowadays the greatest taboo is to question free will. Yet, I am not sure that ‘I have free will’, because I am not sure how to define myself or ‘I’. Sometimes I feel ‘I am doing it’, other times I feel ‘it is doing me’. What I think it all comes down to is that whenever we define anything, this thing is already the result of the perspective that we have taken; the line that we have drawn. In reality there are no separate things, just one big happening. A thing is a think, a unit of thought. It is a cognitive demarcation or conceptual line that distinguishes an inside from an outside in space and time. In order to see, say or know any ‘thing’ at all, you have to draw the line somewhere. We generally explain ‘things’ by pointing at its causes. And so ‘why it is?’ is answered by ‘because that was’. This is basically what science does. Science always says: this is, because that was. ‘That’ is always something prior and/or outside of ‘it’ – it is temporally and/or spatially outside the thing we have defined to explain, whether ‘this thing’ is mental or material. But this is only different from that if we draw a line in-between. The whole game of science starts only after drawing the line, which separates points in time and/or space. We can then argue whether it is either neurological activity causing the thought, or the thought causing neurological activity. But of course every this can be a that and every that can be a this, depending from what side of the line you take a perspective. Anytime we say this is, because that was, we take ‘that’ as a starting point, an uncaused cause. But what is ‘that’ really? Summary This study provides an insight into the ideological and social dimension of the online creation-evolution controversy. We conduct an issue-framing analysis, an identity-framing analysis and a situational framing analysis on Google Discussion Groups, of which the convergence of results engenders an understanding of 1) the ideological dimension, 2) the social dimension, 3) the relation between ideas and identities and 4) the role of social identity in the online controversy. This thesis consists of two parts. Part one ‘Integral Methodological Framework’, provides a theoretical and methodological framework for the framing-analysis of the creation-evolution controversy. Part two presents the methods and results of the actual ‘Framing-Analysis’. Although part 1 serves the actual framing-analysis, it comprises a new trans-disciplinary approach to framing that is of interest to a broad field of science, and is therefore presented apart from the actual framing-analysis in part 2, allowing for it to be read independently. The integral methodological framework of part 1 provides a conceptualization of framing based on Integral Theory (Wilber, K. 2007). We define framing trans-metaphysically in terms of perspectives. A frame is a perspective, and framing is perspective-taking. Perspectives are apparent in the exterior world in the form of language (language can be conceptualized as a system of perspectives), but also build the interior world (perspectives precede perceptions, and a world-view can be mapped by trans- metaphysical perspectives). Both in language and in our minds we have a range of perspectives to choose from to represent or understand the world, and the selection of a perspective is an act of framing. This conceptualization of ‘framing’ is used because it 1) allows language to be studied as a holistic phenomenon (instead of interpreting ‘frames’ already as passive/active, individual/social, cognitive/interactive, etc.), and 2) allows for a conceptual distinction that is significant to understand this case’s dynamics: ideology and identity. In part 1, we use integral theory to show how opposing metaphysical world-views in the creation-evolution controversy can be integrated in a clear and neutral framework, and how these different world-views (different perspectives on the issue or identity), transpire in language. This framework is used in part 2 ‘Framing-analysis’, comprising an issue-, identity- and situational- framing analysis. The issue-framing analysis identifies the various ways disputants discuss ‘what’s at issue’, resulting in seven issue-frames. A disputant does not use a single issue-frame but a combination of issue-frames. Based on the correlation of issue-frames on CE-Groups we identify four ideological-categories: Objective Evolutionists, Interpretive Evolutionists, Interpretive Creationists, Correct Creationists. Although the creation-evolution controversy is framed as a two-sided conflict over ‘One Objective Truth’, the discussion hosts multiple perspectives on multiple issues that make up four coherent ideological-categories. The identity-framing analysis reveals that of the four ideological-categories, only two groups are identified by disputants: creationists and evolutionists. The communication on online creation-evolution discussion groups is influenced by group-bias because disputants group each other based on minimal cues into referential categories before there is interpersonal communication. Disputants use referent- frames (‘social categories’) mostly for out-groups, indicating out-group homogeneity bias. Moreover, the identity-groups use distinct identity-frames to make sense of identity, indicating positive distinctiveness. The situational-framing analysis makes clear that the two identity-groups use different frames within intergroup and intragroup discussions. In comparison to the intergroup discussion, the intragroup discussions of both creationists and evolutionists show more interpersonal communication (less social categorization, more feedback, and include multiple subjective realties). The online creation-evolution controversy is an identity-conflict because the use of issue-frames and identity-frames corresponds to two conflicting social-groups and is dependent on in-group and out-group discussions of these groups. Table of Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 3 Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Report Structure ............................................................................................................................... 14 Background .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: a Version of the Argument from Reason
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2019-04-30 The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: A Version of the Argument from Reason Hawkes, Gordon Hawkes, G. (2019). The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: A Version of the Argument from Reason (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/110301 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY The Argument from Logical Principles Against Materialism: A Version of the Argument from Reason by Gordon Hawkes A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2019 © Gordon Hawkes 2019 i Abstract The argument from reason is the name given to a family of arguments against naturalism, materialism, or determinism, and often for theism or dualism. One version of the argument from reason is what Victor Reppert calls “the argument from the psychological relevance of logical laws,” or what I call “the argument from logical principles.” This argument has received little attention in the literature, despite being advanced by Victor Reppert, Karl Popper, and Thomas Nagel.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Interreligious Dialogue: the Non-Negotiable Need for Attention to Context
    Spiritan Horizons Volume 15 Issue 15 Article 7 Spring 2020 Effective Interreligious Dialogue: the non-negotiable Need for Attention to Context Marinus Chijoke Iwuchukwu Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/spiritan-horizons Part of the Catholic Studies Commons Recommended Citation Iwuchukwu, M. C. (2020). Effective Interreligious Dialogue: the non-negotiable Need for Attention to Context. Spiritan Horizons, 15 (15). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/spiritan-horizons/vol15/iss15/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Spiritan Collection at Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Spiritan Horizons by an authorized editor of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. Spiritan Interreligious Dialogue Forum — Forum Spiritain de Dialogue Interreligieux Effective Interreligious Dialogue: the non- negotiable need for Attention to Context Dr. Marinus Chijioke Iwuchukwu, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Chair of the Theology Department of Duquesne University. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 2008 from Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA, and joined Duquesne faculty. Dr. Iwuchukwu is Chair of the Duquesne University Consortium for Christian- Muslim Dialogue (CCMD). Introduction In a post- Vatican II world, we are obligated to approach our call to mission and evangeliza- tion and our entire Catholic theology from the prism of the spirit of Vatican II. We are al- ready experiencing remarkable changes in both our encounter with other religions and the way we interpret them theologically. Vatican II gave us not just Nostra Aetate but also Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae. Dignitatis Humanae not only mirrors the Universal Bill of Rights but it is also an official endorsement of the thoughts of John XXIII in Pacem in Terris where the pope argues for the protection of the religious rights of every person as well as the equality of all people both in the eyes of civil law and God.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint Helen Youth Ministry (6Th-12Th) // Family Ministry Session 3 // REVEAL
    Saint Helen Youth Ministry (6th-12th) // Family Ministry Session 3 // REVEAL Goal The goal of this session is to challenge the teens to ponder the existence of God and provide them with proofs of His existence. Main Ideas God’s existence is philosophical — meaning He can be known through reason. Science can only tell us about the measurable, physical world. God, because He is infinite and pure spirit, cannot be measured by science. God, in His infinite goodness and wisdom, chose to reveal Himself to us in time so that we could know and love Him. God does not merely reveal Himself to us, He also nourishes us and sustains us so that we might experience the goodness of life. KEY TERMS Divine Revelation: God’s communication of Himself, by which He makes known the mystery of His divine plan, a gift of self-communication which is realized by deeds and words over time, and most fully by sending us His own divine Son, Jesus Christ. Natural Reason: The ability to use our human reason, innate and given by God, to determine God’s existence. SCRIPTURE CATECHISM Matthew 6:25-31 §31-35 Psalm 19:1 §36-38 §50-52 Gather Opening Prayer Lord open our hearts that we might seek you more perfectly and our minds to know you more deeply. Bless this time together and send your spirit to direct our hearts and minds. Big Question Video (5 mins) – Found on the Website: www.sainthelens.org/resources-2 as Session 3: Big Questions Video Proclaim // “Reveal” Teaching Does God Exist? One of the biggest questions we will ever ask is whether or not God exists.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Arguments for the Existence of God
    12 Arguments for the Existence of God Author Caner Taslaman Translated by Selçuk AKTÜRK Cosmo Publishing Cosmo Publishing Company UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ISBN: All rights reserved, including the rights of reproduction in whole or in part of any form. CONTENT Preface 1 Introduction 2 PART I ARGUMENTS FROM THE UNIVERSE 9 1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument 10 2. Argument from the Existence of Laws 18 3. Argument from the Discoverability of the Universe 24 4. Argument from the Potentiality of the Universe 32 5. Argument from the Fine Tunings of the Physical Laws and Constants 39 6. Argument from the Fine Tuning of Physical Phenomena 46 7. Argument from Life’s Design 52 PART II ARGUMENTS FROM HUMAN NATURE 65 8. Argument from Natural Desires 66 9. Argument from Innate Morality 76 10. Argument from Reason 85 11. Argument from Will 93 12. Argument from Consciousness and Self 104 Epilogue 121 12 Arguments for the Existence of God Preface Claims of obsoleteness for presenting arguments for the existence of God, or that these arguments now belong to the dusty shelves of history; stemming often from Hume, Kant or Marxist philosophies, from New Atheism, from positivism or from religious cults belittling human reason… I contend that these claims are naïve, and they do not stand on consistent grounds. I present details of my contention organized into twelve arguments. Some of the arguments are also presented in greater depth in my other works. Judgment on whether God exists or not has a profound impact on our perception of ourselves, our beloved ones, the earth and the entire universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Religion
    Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION BEAU BRANSON, MARCUS WILLIAM HUNT, TIMOTHY D KNEPPER, ROBERT SLOAN LEE, STEVEN STEYL, HANS VAN EYGHEN, BEAU BRANSON (BOOK EDITOR), AND CHRISTINA HENDRICKS (SERIES EDITOR) Rebus Community Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion by Beau Branson, Marcus William Hunt, Timothy D Knepper, Robert Sloan Lee, Steven Steyl, Hans Van Eyghen, Beau Branson (Book Editor), and Christina Hendricks (Series Editor) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. DEDICATION To Roger Branson — the best dad I ever had. For all the sacrifices I know ouy made. And for all the ones I don’t. CONTENTS What is an Open Textbook? ix Christina Hendricks How to Access and Use the Books xi Christina Hendricks Introduction to the Series xiii Christina Hendricks Praise for the Book xvi Acknowledgements xviii Beau Branson and Christina Hendricks Introduction to the Book 1 Beau Branson 1. The Intertwining of Philosophy and Religion in the Western Tradition 7 Beau Branson 2. Reasons to Believe – Theoretical Arguments 18 Marcus William Hunt 3. Non-Standard Arguments for God’s Existence 30 Robert Sloan Lee 4. Reasons Not to Believe 49 Steven Steyl 5. Debunking Arguments against Theistic Belief 62 Hans Van Eyghen 6. From Philosophy of (Mono)theism to Philosophy of Religions 74 Timothy D Knepper Glossary 87 About the Contributors 91 Feedback and Suggestions 94 Adoption Form 95 Licensing and Attribution Information 96 Review Statement 98 Accessibility Assessment 99 Version History 101 WHAT IS AN OPEN TEXTBOOK? CHRISTINA HENDRICKS An open textbook is like a commercial textbook, except: (1) it is publicly available online free of charge (and at low-cost in print), and (2) it has an open license that allows others to reuse it, download and revise it, and redistribute it.
    [Show full text]
  • Craig, William Lane and Mcgrew, Timothy and Lydia
    11 The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth TIMOTHY MCGREW AND LYDIA MCGREW Introduction It is a curiosity of the history of ideas that the argument from miracles is today better known as the object of a famous attack than as a piece of reasoning in its own right. It was not always so. From Paul’s defense before Agrippa to the polemics of the orthodox against the deists at the heart of the Enlightenment, the argument from miracles was central to the discussion of the reasonableness of Christian belief, often supplemented by other con- siderations but rarely omitted by any responsible writer. But in the contemporary literature on the philosophy of religion it is not at all uncommon to fi nd entire works that mention the positive argument from miracles only in passing or ignore it altogether. Part of the explanation for this dramatic change in emphasis is a shift that has taken place in the conception of philosophy and, in consequence, in the conception of the project of natural theology. What makes an argument distinctively philosophical under the new rubric is that it is substantially a priori, relying at most on facts that are common knowl- edge. This is not to say that such arguments must be crude. The level of technical sophis- tication required to work through some contemporary versions of the cosmological and teleological arguments is daunting. But their factual premises are not numerous and are often commonplaces that an educated nonspecialist can readily grasp – that something exists, that the universe had a beginning in time, that life as we know it could fl ourish only in an environment very much like our own, that some things that are not human artifacts have an appearance of having been designed.
    [Show full text]
  • Bahai-Atheism-Hitchins-Dawkins-Etc
    1 LOGICAL ERRORS IN FOUR ATHEIST AUTHORS: HITCHENS, DAWKINS, HARRIS, DENNETT Identified and compiled by Ian Kluge [email protected] This is a catalogue of some of the representative errors of basic logic found in Hitches’ god Is Not Great, Dawkins’ The God Delusion, Harris’ The End of Faith and Dennett’s Breaking the Spell. Many of these errors are committed over and over again and it would be too tiresome for all concerned to catalogue each instance of each logical error, though this would not be difficult to do. It needs to be noted that the existence of these errors – shockingly numerous as they are – do NOT prove God exists, or that any particular religion is true. What this catalogue shows is that if they want to make credible arguments, atheists must do better than Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris or Dennett. As presented, their arguments are too riddled with logical errors and irrationalities to be trustworthy and convincing. If they are the best atheism has to offer, then atheism has a dim future among thinking people. I. GOD IS NOT GREAT by Christopher Hitchens Note: I will leave Biblical scholars to deal with Hitchen’s errors in regards to Biblical issues. By showing his logical errors, I can only show that Hitchens’ reasoning is not to be trusted # 1: much of this book is an extended non sequitur: proving that God does not exist is logically distinct from God’s nature, i.e. God may be evil but He may exist nonetheless. # 2: It is also a category mistake, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Letters These Christians Interpret a Particular Text, They Perceive I Have a Few Other Quibbles
    Letters these Christians interpret a particular text, they perceive I have a few other quibbles. The authors repeat that science as anti-Scripture and anti-God. the purpose of the biblical creation stories is to oppose polytheism (p. 25), but the accounts have other functions. In contrast, Reconciling the Bible and Science provides They are etiological; they explain the world as we see it— a context for how both books of God should be embraced farming, marriage, shame and modesty, the trials of by believers. It reveals how the philosophical contribu- parenting, and adversarial relationships between spouses tions of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas underpin and between brothers. Regarding the order of the Hebrew modern science as well as religious concerns among cur- Bible, the authors assume that Malachi is the last book rent creationists, the intelligent design movement (ID), and that between Malachi and Matthew were “silent and theistic evolutionists (chaps. 1–2). The book then years” (p. 23). Actually, Chronicles is the last book in the traces the history of modern astronomy through Coperni- Hebrew Bible and 400 BC to 0 were anything but silent cus, Galileo, and Newton (chap. 3) before focusing on in terms of Jewish literature. Daniel was, in fact, written Charles Darwin and his successors in the field of biologi- during these years, and seemed for a time to reside in the cal evolution, who have verified, corrected, and expanded prophetic division. In addition, regarding the New Testa- upon many aspects of his theory (chaps. 4–6). ment canon, Mitchell and Blackard claim that “Marcion The book proceeds to identify the roots of the current began the process,” but this gives him too much credit.
    [Show full text]
  • Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins Free
    FREE WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS A GOD: DOUBTING DAWKINS PDF Keith Ward | 160 pages | 01 Apr 2009 | Lion Hudson Plc | 9780745953304 | English | Oxford, United Kingdom Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia In order to utilize all of the features of this Why There Almost Certainly is a God: Doubting Dawkins site, JavaScript must be enabled in your browser. Richard Dawkins claimed that 'no theologian has ever produced a satisfactory response to his arguments'. Well-known broadcaster and author Keith Ward is one of Britain's foremost philosopher- theologians. This is his response. Ward welcomes all comers into philosophy's world of clear definitions, sharp arguments, and diverse conclusions. But when Dawkins enters this world, his passion tends to get the better of him, and he descends into stereotyping, pastiche, and mockery. In this stimulating and thought-provoking philosophical challenge, Ward demonstrates not only how Dawkins' arguments are flawed, but that a perfectly rational case can be made that there, almost certainly, is a God. Find this product and thousands more on ebooks. Bible Software. Books and Courses. Download Logos. Publisher: Lion Books. ISBN: Be the first to rate this. Format: Digital. Add to cart We'll take you to your cart at ebooks. About Keith Ward. Associate Faculty, St. Why There Almost Certainly Is No God | HuffPost Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Error rating book. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Details if other :. Thanks for telling us about the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • How the New Atheists Are Reminding the Humanities of Their Place and Purpose in Society
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2018 The emperor's new clothes: how the new atheists are reminding the humanities of their place and purpose in society. David Ira Buckner University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Buckner, David Ira, "The emperor's new clothes: how the new atheists are reminding the humanities of their place and purpose in society." (2018). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3112. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/3112 This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES: HOW THE NEW ATHEISTS ARE REMINDING THE HUMANITIES OF THEIR PLACE AND PURPOSE IN SOCIETY By David Ira Buckner B.S., East Tennessee State University, 2006 M.A., East Tennessee State University, 2008 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • Bratislava International School of Liberal Arts
    BRATISLAVA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF LIBERAL ARTS BACHELOR THESIS Jozef Majerník BRATISLAVA 2012 BRATISLAVA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF LIBERAL ARTS WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CALL ONESELF AN ATHEIST? AN EXAMINATION OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW Study Program: Liberal Arts Field of Study: 3.1.6 Political Science Thesis Advisor: Matthew Post Degree to be awarded: Bachelor (Bc.) Handed in: 30.4.2012 Date of Defense: 13.6.2012 JOZEF MAJERNÍK BRATISLAVA 2012 How unreasonable people are! They never use the freedoms they have but demand those they do not have; they have freedom of thought – they demand freedom of speech. – Søren Kierkegaard1 1 Kierkegaard 1987, p. 19. iii Declaration of Originality I declare that this Thesis is my own work and has not been published in part or in whole elsewhere. All used literature and other sources are attributed and properly cited in references. Bratislava, 30.04.2012 Jozef Majerník iv Abstrakt Autor práce: Jozef Majerník Názov práce: What Does It Mean to Call Oneself an Atheist? An Examination of the Atheistic Worldview Názov vysokej školy: Bratislavská medzinárodná škola liberálnych štúdií Meno školiteľa: Matthew Post Komisia pre obhajoby: Dagmar Kusá, PhD., prof. PhDr. František Novosád, Csc., Samuel Abrahám, PhD. Predseda komisie: Samuel Abrahám, PhD. Miesto, rok, rozsah práce: Bratislava, 2012, 51 strán Stupeň odbornej kvalifikácie: Bakalár (Bc.) Témou tejto bakalárskej práce je ateizmus chápaný z filozofického hľadiska. Jej cieľom je odhaliť myšlienkové vzorce, ktoré sa skrývajú pod povrchom ateistického postoja, a tak oponovať populárnemu názoru, že ateizmus je jednoducho racionálny postoj odmietania toho, čo nemôže byť dokázané. Cieľom tejto práce je dokázať, že existuje ateistický svetonázor, ktorý má svoje korene v osvietenskej ére.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Representative Works on the Resurrection
    COMPASS SOME REPRESENTATIVE WORKS ON THE RESURRECTION GERALD O’COLLINS SJ E WOULD COME up with a ted- cise definitions that would pin it down. Rather iously long list if we were to reply it provides the broadest horizon within which Wcomprehensively to the question: we can recognize what human life ultimately what have they been saying about the resur- means, how we should live, and what we can rection of Jesus in the last ten years? In any expect from the God who raised Jesus from case many authors go over the same ground the dead. and do not add very much either to the de- This latest plea for the utter centrality of bates about the resurrection or to the conclu- Easter faith follows earlier attempts to focus sions that can be reached. Hence I have de- Christian thinking and life on the resurrection cided to select nine books that have signifi- of the crucified Jesus. In the run up to the Sec- cant things to say, either positively or nega- ond Vatican Council, François-Xavier tively, about the resurrection and the possibil- Durrwell helped to ‘rehabilitate’ Easter as the ity of Easter faith and hope. This representa- central mystery of Christianity.2 In the tive sample will bring readers into the current postconciliar years some writers, like the Lu- state of resurrection studies. theran Wolfhart Pannenberg and myself,3 tried In presenting these nine works, I do not again to revitalize theology and its various intend to take readers through them in com- specializations by recalling where they should plete detail and provide full-length book re- constantly go to draw meaning, values and ports.
    [Show full text]