What is the subaltern of the comparative philosophy of religion?

It is claimed that Comparative Philosophy of Religion (CPR) mistakenly builds on the dogmas of comparative religion (or history of religions) and philosophy of religion. Thus, the belief that there are things common and therefore comparable between two or more traditions and that these objects of comparison are of philosophical or theological significance are questions that continue to trouble the field. Just what does one compare, how does one choose what to compare or why, through what methodological and epistemic tools, and who is it that carries out the tasks? But what has remained unasked and unanalyzed are the larger meta-questions concerning the motivation, civilizational presuppositions, cultural parochialism, or legacies of orientalism, modernity, and (post-)colonialism that together affect the boundedness of certain key categories and thematic issues in the comparative enterprise such as God or the Transcendent, Creation, the Problem of Evil, the Afterlife, Sin, Redemption, Purpose, and the End. Is difference with respect to alterity and altarity permissible? If so, what a postcolonial, differently gendered, cross-cultural critique would look like and what is left of CPR are two such questions explored here.

No limits : exploring the psychology of unsolicited credit card limit increase offers

The issue of credit card debt has become an increasing concern in recent years. In Australia, for example, there is currently $42.5 billion worth of outstanding debt on credit cards, with $30 billion (over 70 per cent) bearing interest. Further, in 2001, Visa reported that 32 per cent of consumers had not paid their card off in the previous 12 months, which suggests that interest-bearing debt in Australia is held by approximately only 113 of credit card borrowers. An important element of credit card marketing is the use of psychological manipulations to encourage consumers to take-up credit. In this article, we examine the use of language and imagery in unsolicited credit card limit increase offers, and how these might influence consumers' decisions to increase their credit card limit. The analysis found that the use of terms that focused on the benefits of credit card use, such as "choice", "freedom", and "peace of mind" were used consistently to convince consumers to increase their credit card limit, whereas the use the of terms that could be considered more pragmatic and with direct reference to the nature of the product, such as "debt", "repayment" and "loan", were rarely used. Similarly, the use of colour, text changes, and images, were used which may have an influence over a consumer's ability to rationally consider whether the increase is appropriate for them. The paper concludes by recommending that government and representative bodies need to take into account the psychological manipulations used by credit card providers when developing consumer policy and codes of ethics.

Meta-philosophy of religion : the analytic-continental divide in philosophy of religion

How is the philosophical study of religion best pursued? Responses to this meta-philosophical question tend to recapitulate the analytic-Continental divide in philosophy in general. My aim is to examine the nature of this divide, particularly as it has manifested itself in the philosophy of religion. I begin with a comparison of the stylistic differences in the language of the two traditions, taking the work of Alvin Plantinga and John Caputo as exemplars of the analytic and Continental schools respectively. In order to account for these stylistic divergences, however, it is necessary to delve further into meta-philosophy. I go on to show how each philosophical school models itself on different theoretical practices, the analytic school mimicking the scientific style of inquiry, while in Continental philosophy it is the arts and humanities rather than the sciences that provide the model for philosophical discourse. By situating themselves in such different genres,  analytic and Continental philosophers have developed contrasting, if not mutually exclusive, methods for pursuing the philosophy of religion.