全文获取类型
收费全文 | 226篇 |
免费 | 23篇 |
专业分类
249篇 |
出版年
2023年 | 3篇 |
2022年 | 2篇 |
2021年 | 1篇 |
2020年 | 4篇 |
2019年 | 8篇 |
2018年 | 7篇 |
2017年 | 18篇 |
2016年 | 13篇 |
2015年 | 6篇 |
2014年 | 9篇 |
2013年 | 27篇 |
2012年 | 8篇 |
2011年 | 3篇 |
2010年 | 5篇 |
2009年 | 10篇 |
2008年 | 12篇 |
2007年 | 13篇 |
2006年 | 10篇 |
2005年 | 13篇 |
2004年 | 8篇 |
2003年 | 10篇 |
2002年 | 7篇 |
2001年 | 10篇 |
2000年 | 13篇 |
1999年 | 5篇 |
1998年 | 7篇 |
1997年 | 5篇 |
1995年 | 2篇 |
1994年 | 4篇 |
1993年 | 1篇 |
1992年 | 2篇 |
1989年 | 1篇 |
1987年 | 2篇 |
排序方式: 共有249条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
221.
Omar Mirza 《Philosophical Studies》2008,141(2):125-146
Alvin Plantinga has famously argued that metaphysical naturalism is self-defeating, and cannot be rationally accepted. I distinguish between two different ways of understanding this argument, which I call the "probabilistic inference conception", and the "process characteristic conception". I argue that the former is what critics of the argument usually presuppose, whereas most critical responses fail when one assumes the latter conception. To illustrate this, I examine three standard objections to Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism: the Perspiration Objection, the Tu Quoque Objection, and the "Why Can't the Naturalist Just Add a Little Something?" Objection. I show that Plantinga's own responses to these objections fail, and propose counterexamples to his first two principles of defeat. I then go on to construct more adequate responses to these objections, using the distinctions I develop in the first part of the paper. 相似文献
222.
We argue for a naturalistic account for appraising scientific methods that carries non-trivial normative force. We develop
our approach by comparison with Laudan’s (American Philosophical Quarterly 24:19–31, 1987, Philosophy of Science 57:20–33,
1990) “normative naturalism” based on correlating means (various scientific methods) with ends (e.g., reliability). We argue
that such a meta-methodology based on means–ends correlations is unreliable and cannot achieve its normative goals. We suggest
another approach for meta-methodology based on a conglomeration of tools and strategies (from statistical modeling, experimental
design, and related fields) that affords forward looking procedures for learning from error and for controlling error. The
resulting “error statistical” appraisal is empirical—methods are appraised by examining their capacities to control error.
At the same time, this account is normative, in that the strategies that pass muster are claims about how actually to proceed
in given contexts to reach reliable inferences from limited data. 相似文献
223.
by Owen Flanagan 《Zygon》2009,44(1):41-49
The Really Hard Problem: Meaning in a Material World is my attempt to explain whether and how existential meaning is possible in a material world, and how such meaning is best conceived naturalistically. Neuroexistentialism conceives of our predicament in accordance with Darwin plus neuroscience. The prospects for our kind of being-in-the-world are limited by our natures as smart but fully embodied short-lived animals. Many find this picture disenchanting, even depressing. I respond to four criticisms of my relentless upbeat naturalism: that naturalism can make no room for norms, for values; that I overvalue truth at the expense of happiness; that I underestimate the extent to which supernaturalism has made peace with naturalism; and that I can give no account for why humans as finite animals should want to overcome our given natures and seek impersonal, self-transcendent value. 相似文献
224.
William A. Rottschaefer 《Zygon》2001,36(3):407-453
Naturalism is often considered to be antithetical to theology and genuine religion. However, in a series of recent books and articles, Willem Drees has proposed a scientifically informed naturalistic account of religion, which, he contends, is not only compatible with supernaturalistic religion and theology but provides a better account of both than either purely naturalistic or purely supernaturalistic accounts. While rejecting both epistemological and methodological naturalism, Drees maintains that ontological naturalism offers the best philosophical account of the natural world and that, in addition, it provides the opening for a supernaturalistic understanding of religion and theology, one that best fits the condition of epistemic and moral distance from the transcendent characteristic of religious wonderers and wanderers. In this paper I examine Drees's claim and argue that it is seriously flawed. I show that Drees's naturalism is, in fact, both methodologically and epistemologically naturalistic. I also show that his attempts to limit naturalism to the sphere of the natural world by means of the phenomena of limit questions and underdetermination fail. Arguing for a more optimistic, but also, I contend, more empirically accurate account of human epistemic and moral capacities, I propose a full-fledged scientifically based naturalistic account of theology. 相似文献
225.
Huston Smith 《Zygon》2001,36(2):223-231
Responses and clarifications are given to the three respondents to my recent book, Why Religion Matters , in which I discuss what I see as the drawbacks and inconsistencies of Darwinism. While certain of their criticisms are understandable, others are based on a misreading of my work. Finally, my critics fail to show that my book is mistaken in its central claim that the modern loss of faith in transcendence, basic to the traditional/religious worldview, is unwarranted, because science has not been able to disprove the metaphysical claim that transcendence exists. 相似文献
226.
Jonathan Israel 《Frontiers of Philosophy in China》2013,8(2):183
A profound split is evident during the period 1670–1730 in the way European scholars and commentators attempted to understand and describe classical Chinese thought. For some, Confucianism acknowledged divine creation and divine governance of the world, immortality of the soul and other elements of Natural Theology. The Radical Enlightenment thinkers, however, and also some Christian scholars denied that Confucianism was based on Natural Theology or pervaded by belief in divine providence, characterizing it rather as monist, naturalist and Spinozist. The disagreement proved fundamental in several respects and proved divisive for the Church, as well as European thought more generally, producing a series of lively disputes that continued over several decades. 相似文献
227.
《Frontiers of Philosophy in China》2017,(1):104-119
"Experience" is so central to Dewey's philosophy that one must,first of all,understand what he means by the term.Diverging from the traditional conception of experience,Dewey's understanding involves two dimensions,namely,naturalism and historicism;in this,it can be seen as the unification of Darwinism and Hegelianism.Without attending to its dimension of naturalism,one would ignore experience's basic character,namely that of receptivity,while without attending to the aspect of historicism,one would ignore experience's dimension of meaning,its character of spontaneity.Dewey's notion of experience is unique.Its true value can be seen more clearly in comparison with the conceptions of experience advanced by Quine and McDowell. 相似文献
228.
by James W. Haag 《Zygon》2010,45(1):273-280
Philip Hefner calls for religion-and-science to shift attention from pure ideas to embodied ideas. He urges scholars to get back to the Baconian idea that science is intended to enhance life; in Hefner's wording, we must give attention to "science-as-enabler-for-changing/improving-the-world." I believe that this is the realm of overlap between all academic disciplines—what I call the pragmatic overlap. To make his argument Hefner mentions two forms of "conventional wisdom" that need to be rethought. First, he is worried that a "pressure toward naturalism" prevents certain words (such as teleological and transcendence ) from having instructive meaning. Second, with this move toward naturalism Hefner believes we dismiss as archaic all valuable implications of traditional religious myths and symbols. He rightly highlights these exceedingly significant concerns. However, narrowing our focus to the implications of naturalism alone misses the root crisis. That crisis can be articulated as: "conventional wisdom" regarding nature is too unsophisticated to account for the phenomenon it depicts, and furthermore, this understanding of nature controls the methodological, metaphysical, and practical versions of naturalism acquiring societal acceptance. Accordingly, an alternative vision of nature is needed to transform our current "conventional wisdom" such that Hefner's worries are addressed. 相似文献
229.
by Nancey Murphy 《Zygon》2010,45(1):193-212
This essay compares Robert John Russell's work in his recent book Cosmology from Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science (2008) to that of the authors known collectively as "the new atheists." I treat the latter as recent contributors to the modern tradition of scientific naturalism. This tradition makes claims to legitimacy on the basis of its close relations to the natural sciences. The purpose of this essay is to show up the poverty of the naturalist tradition's scientific credentials by contrasting it with Russell's careful account of positive relations between science and Christian theology. 相似文献
230.
Ann M. Michaud 《Zygon》2010,45(4):905-920
John Haught has awarded the debates between religion (Christianity in particular) and science a central place in his ongoing corpus of work. Seeking to encourage and enhance the conversation, Haught both critiques current positions and offers his own perspective as a potential ground for continuing the discussion in a fruitful manner. This essay considers Haught's primary criticisms of the voices on both sides of the debate which his work connotes as polarizing or conflating the debate. It also extrudes from Haught's work themes that provide alternative visions. The essay concludes with two questions for further consideration. 相似文献