Religion as Social Reality. A Take on the Emic–Etic Debate in Light of John Searle’s Philosophy of Society

In this article I argue that the shift from a private to a public–social understanding of religion raises new ontological and epistemological questions for the scientific study of religion\s. These questions are deeply related to three central features of the emic– etic debate, namely the problems of intentionality, objectivity, and comparison. Focusing on these interrelated issues, I discuss the potential of John Searle’s philoso- phy of society for the scientific study of religion\s. Considering the role of intentional- ity at the social level, I present Searle’s concept of “social ontology” and discuss its epistemological implications. To clarify Searle’s position regarding the objectivity of the social sciences, I propose a heuristic model contrasting different stances within the scientific study of religion\s. Finally, I explore some problematic aspects of Searle’s views for a comparative study of religion\s, and sketch a solution within his frame- work. I shall argue that a distinction between the epistemological and ontological dimensions of religious affairs would help clarify the issues at stake in the past and future of the emic–etic debate.

Information ohne Energiebedarf. Das Konzept der „aktiven Information“ bei John Polkinghorne

Ist der Geist des Menschen in der Lage, seinen eigenen Körper zu beherrschen? Und kann man sich Gottes Handeln in der Welt in einem Zeitalter der Wissenschaft noch vorstellen? Diese beiden Fragen scheinen zunächst sehr verschieden zu sein, sie haben aber etwas gemeinsam. Beide machen eigentlich keinen Sinn, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass das Universum vollständig von physikalischen Gesetzen determiniert ist. Denn dann gibt es einerseits keinen Platz für Gott, in diesem Universum, wenn es einmal entstanden ist, irgendetwas zu ändern. Andererseits ist dann so etwas wie ein freier Wille des Menschen ebenfalls nicht denkbar. Das freie Handeln eines göttlichen wie jedes menschlichen Akteurs liegt also außerhalb der Vorstellung der heutigen Naturwissenschaft. Eine zumindest im letzteren Falle zugegebenermaßen merkwürdig anmutende Einsicht.

Bemerkungen zum Bericht von Sir John Hope Simpson

Arthur Ruppin

Sir John Simon [Illustration] : Sergeant-at-Law des Unterhauses, (geb. 1818, gest. 1897)

Scan von Monochrom-Mikroform

Sir John Simon, Bart., Q. C. [Illustration] : (Porträt)

Scan von Monochrom-Mikroform

2006: A Safe Year for Falls at John Dempsey Hospital!

Our Goal: To Prevent Harm The most important goal for the Collaborative Center for Clinical Care Improvement (C4I) Patient Falls Group is to prevent any serious injury should a fall occur. While our goal is also to reduce the number of patient falls, it is especially important to prevent any serious harm to the patient. During calendar year 2006 (January-December), we accomplished our most important goal - there were no serious injuries related to any patient falls that occurred in the hospital during the past twelve months.

Predicting State Allocation of Funds: The Case of John Rowland and his Hometown of Waterbury, Connecticut.

This study attempts to analyze the underlying factors and motives influencing the allocation of discretionary state expenditures. The fact that some cities receive more money than other cities begs the question of what accounts for this variation. After framing the provision of state money within the theoretical framework of political patronage, a case study of Governor Rowland’s tenure in office and the accompanying expenditures to Connecticut’s 17 largest cities from 1995 to 2004 was conducted to evaluate whether a disproportionate amount of money was given to Rowland’s hometown of Waterbury, Connecticut. Besides employing a statistical analysis that determined that cities with similar characteristics received different amounts of money, interviewing was conducted to identify reasons for such variation. The results indicate that Waterbury received a greater amount of money than was predicted based on the city’s economic and demographic characteristics, and that non-objective and biased factors such as favoritism, the need to reward political support, or the desire to increase political loyalty sometimes take precedence over more objective factors.