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.

Significance of the Philosophy of Family-Centered Care in the

The philosophy of family-centered care is “an approach to the planning, delivery, and evaluation of healthcare that is grounded in mutually beneficial partnerships among patients, families and healthcare practitioners” (Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, 1996-2008). The word “family” refers to “two or more persons who are related in any way-biologically, legally, or emotionally” (Institute for Family-Centered Care). It is patients and families, who define those included in their families, which usually in pediatrics includes parents or guardians.