A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology
There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Benedikt Paul Göcke [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Deutsch ; Englisch ; Spanisch ; Italienisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: TheoLogica - Catholic University of Louvain, 2019, 1(2017), 1 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:1 ; year:2017 ; number:1 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ063465000 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ063465000 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503061331.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230228s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||ger c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ063465000 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a ger |a eng |a spa |a ita | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Benedikt Paul Göcke |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a scientific theology | |
| 650 | 4 | |a philosophy of science | |
| 650 | 4 | |a analytic theology | |
| 650 | 4 | |a confessional theology | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Philosophy. Psychology. Religion | |
| 653 | 0 | |a B | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t TheoLogica |d Catholic University of Louvain, 2019 |g 1(2017), 1 |w (DE-627)1662480458 |x 25930265 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:1 |g year:2017 |g number:1 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2036 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 1 |j 2017 |e 1 | ||
| author_variant |
b p g bpg |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:25930265:2017----::siniitelgargamtcconoterbesnpopcsocnes |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 doi (DE-627)DOAJ063465000 (DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb ger eng spa ita Benedikt Paul Göcke verfasserin aut A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand scientific theology philosophy of science analytic theology confessional theology Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B In TheoLogica Catholic University of Louvain, 2019 1(2017), 1 (DE-627)1662480458 25930265 nnns volume:1 year:2017 number:1 https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f kostenfrei https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2036 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2017 1 |
| spelling |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 doi (DE-627)DOAJ063465000 (DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb ger eng spa ita Benedikt Paul Göcke verfasserin aut A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand scientific theology philosophy of science analytic theology confessional theology Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B In TheoLogica Catholic University of Louvain, 2019 1(2017), 1 (DE-627)1662480458 25930265 nnns volume:1 year:2017 number:1 https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f kostenfrei https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2036 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2017 1 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 doi (DE-627)DOAJ063465000 (DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb ger eng spa ita Benedikt Paul Göcke verfasserin aut A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand scientific theology philosophy of science analytic theology confessional theology Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B In TheoLogica Catholic University of Louvain, 2019 1(2017), 1 (DE-627)1662480458 25930265 nnns volume:1 year:2017 number:1 https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f kostenfrei https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2036 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2017 1 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 doi (DE-627)DOAJ063465000 (DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb ger eng spa ita Benedikt Paul Göcke verfasserin aut A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand scientific theology philosophy of science analytic theology confessional theology Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B In TheoLogica Catholic University of Louvain, 2019 1(2017), 1 (DE-627)1662480458 25930265 nnns volume:1 year:2017 number:1 https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f kostenfrei https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2036 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2017 1 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 doi (DE-627)DOAJ063465000 (DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb ger eng spa ita Benedikt Paul Göcke verfasserin aut A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand scientific theology philosophy of science analytic theology confessional theology Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B In TheoLogica Catholic University of Louvain, 2019 1(2017), 1 (DE-627)1662480458 25930265 nnns volume:1 year:2017 number:1 https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f kostenfrei https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2036 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 1 2017 1 |
| language |
German English Spanish Italian |
| source |
In TheoLogica 1(2017), 1 volume:1 year:2017 number:1 |
| sourceStr |
In TheoLogica 1(2017), 1 volume:1 year:2017 number:1 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
scientific theology philosophy of science analytic theology confessional theology Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
TheoLogica |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Benedikt Paul Göcke @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1662480458 |
| id |
DOAJ063465000 |
| language_de |
deutsch englisch spanisch italienisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ063465000</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503061331.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||ger c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.14428/thl.v1i1.83</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ063465000</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ger</subfield><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">spa</subfield><subfield code="a">ita</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Benedikt Paul Göcke</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">scientific theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">philosophy of science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">analytic theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">confessional theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philosophy. Psychology. Religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">B</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">TheoLogica</subfield><subfield code="d">Catholic University of Louvain, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2017), 1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1662480458</subfield><subfield code="x">25930265</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2036</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Benedikt Paul Göcke |
| spellingShingle |
Benedikt Paul Göcke misc scientific theology misc philosophy of science misc analytic theology misc confessional theology misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology |
| authorStr |
Benedikt Paul Göcke |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1662480458 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
25930265 |
| topic_title |
A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology scientific theology philosophy of science analytic theology confessional theology |
| topic |
misc scientific theology misc philosophy of science misc analytic theology misc confessional theology misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc scientific theology misc philosophy of science misc analytic theology misc confessional theology misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B |
| topic_browse |
misc scientific theology misc philosophy of science misc analytic theology misc confessional theology misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
TheoLogica |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1662480458 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
TheoLogica |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1662480458 |
| title |
A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ063465000 (DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f |
| title_full |
A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology |
| author_sort |
Benedikt Paul Göcke |
| journal |
TheoLogica |
| journalStr |
TheoLogica |
| lang_code |
ger eng spa ita |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Benedikt Paul Göcke |
| container_volume |
1 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Benedikt Paul Göcke |
| doi_str_mv |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 |
| title_sort |
scientific theology? a programmatic account of the problems and prospects for confessional and scientific theology |
| title_auth |
A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology |
| abstract |
There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand |
| abstractGer |
There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand |
| abstract_unstemmed |
There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2036 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83 https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| ppnlink |
1662480458 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.14428/thl.v1i1.83 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T17:51:17.886Z |
| _version_ |
1803581210389118976 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ063465000</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503061331.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||ger c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.14428/thl.v1i1.83</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ063465000</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ger</subfield><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">spa</subfield><subfield code="a">ita</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Benedikt Paul Göcke</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A Scientific Theology? A Programmatic Account of the Problems and Prospects for Confessional and Scientific Theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">There are at least three kinds of arguments against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology: The first kind of argument tries to show that there is no universe of discourse that theology could investigate as a scientific discipline. The second kind of argument is not directed against the existence of theology’s putative universe of discourse. Instead, this kind of argument tries to show that even if there is a universe of discourse theology could investigate, it fails to do so by using scientific methods. The third kind of argument tries to show that even if theology has a universe of discourse and deploys scientific methods, it is still not a scientific discipline because it conflicts with the historical and natural sciences that are supposed to be more reliable than theology. In what follows, I clarify the importance of the scientificness of confessional theology for the plausibility of religious worldviews. I analyse the arguments put forward against the possibility of scientific and confessional theology. I indicate systematic weaknesses in the arguments that the theologian should use to show that they do not stand up to scrutiny and suggest a programmatic list of tasks the theologian has to engage in to demonstrate that scientific and confessional theology is indeed possible, if not already at hand</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">scientific theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">philosophy of science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">analytic theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">confessional theology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philosophy. Psychology. Religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">B</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">TheoLogica</subfield><subfield code="d">Catholic University of Louvain, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2017), 1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1662480458</subfield><subfield code="x">25930265</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.14428/thl.v1i1.83</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/0105fc9bd64042c7a3ff8cc9c5cede8f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://ojs.uclouvain.be/index.php/theologica/article/view/83</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2593-0265</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2036</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3994513 |