journal: Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

Impact Factor: 0.2

Published since January 1, 1959

Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

ISSN: 1612-9520

Edited by: Johannes Zachhuber

In cooperation with: Lubomir Batka, Philippe Büttgen, Christine Helmer, Shao Kai Tseng, Grant Kaplan, Johanne S. T. Kristensen, Cornelia Richter, Hartmut von Sass, Christiane Tietz, Robert Vosloo, Simeon Zahl

About this journal

The Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie which is published in four annual issues of 112 pages each, examines the exciting dialogue between Lutheran-Reformed theology and philosophy in the broadest sense, seeks to keep open a breadth of responsible thought in the controversial issue of contemporary theology, and offers a variety of ways to formulate questions. Through its international editorial board, it guarantees an exchange of theological research in German and English. Each issue features a review of periodicals which serve to keep the reader abreast of new research in the field.

Abstracting and Indexing

Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie is covered by the following services:

ATLA Religion Database
Baidu Scholar
Base d’information bibliographique en patristique / Bibliographic Information Base in Patristics (BIBP)
Bibliographie biblique informatisée de Lausanne - BiBIL
CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)
CNPIEC - cnpLINKer
Dimensions
EBSCO (relevant databases)
EBSCO Discovery Service
ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)
Genamics JournalSeek
Google Scholar
IBR (International Bibliography of Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
IBZ (International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences)
Index Theologicus
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (ProQuest)
International Philosophical Bibliography - Répertoire bibliographique de la philosophie
J-Gate
JournalGuide
JournalTOCs
KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders)
MyScienceWork
Naver Academic
Naviga (Softweco)
Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, Series and Publishers
PhilPapers
Primo Central (ExLibris)
ProQuest (relevant databases)
Publons
QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)
ReadCube
RelBib - Religionswissenschaftliche Bibliografie
Religious and Theological Abstracts
RKE Online (Religionspädagogik, Kirchliche Bildungsarbeit, Erziehungswissenschaft)
Scilit
SCImago (SJR)
SCOPUS
Semantic Scholar
Sherpa/RoMEO
Summon (ProQuest)
TDNet
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb
WanFang Data
Web of Science - Arts & Humanities Citation Index
Web of Science - Current Contents/Arts & Humanities
WorldCat (OCLC)
X-MOL
Yewno Discover

Supplementary Materials

NZST_Instructions for Authors

Topics

Volume 65 Issue 4

November 2023

Frontmatter

Publicly Available December 2, 2023

Frontmatter

Page range: I-IV

Download PDF

Open Access December 2, 2023

Editorial

Page range: 411-413

Download PDF

Munich Lecture in the Philosophy of Religion

December 2, 2023

Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?

Tim Crane

Page range: 414-429

Abstract

This paper discusses the familiar question of whether expressions of faith or conviction offered by religious believers really express their beliefs, in the standard sense of ‘belief’ used in philosophy and psychology. Some hold that these expressions do not express genuine beliefs because they do not meet the standards of rationality, coherence and integration which govern beliefs. So they must serve some other function. But this picture of ‘genuine belief’ is inadequate, for reasons independent of the phenomenon of religion. Once we get a better picture of belief, we can see that religious beliefs conform to this picture, and that typical expressions of faith really are expressions of belief in the proper sense.

December 2, 2023

What’s Belief Got to Do With It?

A Response to Tim Crane

Sebastian Gäb

Page range: 430-437

Abstract

This paper argues that even Crane’s modified account of belief doesn’t do justice to all varieties of religious belief. Particularly beliefs associated with ritual behavior don’t seem to match the criteria of Crane’s alternative account. So, the question remains whether these beliefs should still be called beliefs, or whether the standard model of belief is even more false than Crane suspects.

December 2, 2023

Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement

A Response to Tim Crane

Eva Schmidt

Page range: 438-446

Abstract

This comment raises two worries for Crane’s view of religious beliefs and their contents. First, I argue that his appeal to inferentialism about the contents of dispositional beliefs cannot fully avoid the problem of inconsistent beliefs. For the same problem can be raised for occurrent thought, and the inferentialist solution is not available there. Second, I argue that religious beliefs differ from ordinary beliefs with respect to their justification in cases of peer disagreements. This suggests that noncognitivism about religious beliefs, which Crane opposes, is the correct view after all.

Open Access December 2, 2023

Why Belief? Varieties of Religious Commitment

A Response to Tim Crane

Michael Scott

Page range: 447-457

More Download PDF

Abstract

Are religious commitments beliefs or some other kind of mental state? Do religious affirmations express beliefs or other non-doxastic attitudes? These questions have been prominent in philosophical research on the language and psychology of religion since the mid-twentieth century, but the history of interest in these topics traces back to late antiquity. In a recent paper, Tim Crane approaches these questions from the perspective of research on theories about the nature of belief. According to some accounts, he argues, the attitudes that we call religious “beliefs” do not exhibit the properties requisite for belief. He raises grounds for dissatisfaction with the proposed account of belief and cognate debates about cognitivism and non-cognitivism, and concludes by setting out a more descriptive approach as the basis for an understanding of religious attitudes. This paper argues that Crane’s argument relies on an unduly demanding theory of belief. However, the concerns that he raises about the belief status of religious commitment can be motivated – and are extensively debated – in recent research on religious faith. Crane’s characterisation of the cognitive/non-cognitive debate is also disputed. The paper concludes by raising concerns about Crane’s description of the scope of the field of religious language.

December 2, 2023

Replies to Gäb, Schmidt and Scott

Tim Crane

Page range: 458-463

Abstract

This article replies to criticism of my article, “Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?” by Sebastian Gäb, Eva Schmidt and Michael Scott.

Abstract

As a counterpoint to demonstrative proofs in metaphysics, Robert Nozick presented the case for God’s existence based on the value of personal experiences. Personal experiences shape one’s life, but this is even more evident with extraordinary experiences, such can be religious ones. In the next step, says the argument, if those experiences can be explained only by invoking the concept of the Supreme Being, then God exists. The second step mirrors scientific explanation constituting what Nozick calls the “argument to the best explanation.” The argument is set against the background of Nozick’s methodology which rejects demonstrative proofs in metaphysics. Its purpose is threefold. It aims to establish a certain sort of experience (religious/spiritual) as a legitimate basis for the argumentation; it aims to show that it is not philosophically blasphemous to explain such experiences by introducing a concept of divinity. Finally, it seeks to showcase the non-dogmatic, investigative nature of the argument. By exploring the merits of Nozick’s proposal, I will try to elucidate all three components, which should pave the way for a broader discussion on the role of non-demonstrative arguments in metaphysics.

November 6, 2023

An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences

Junghyung Kim

Page range: 487-506

Abstract

In this article I explore Christoph Schwöbel (1955–2021)’s distinctive contributions to the ongoing dialogue between religion and science in the following three perspectives. First, he emphasizes the need of a more consistently trinitarian theology of creation in dialogue with sciences which is expected to rectify widespread one-sided approaches. Second, he advocates for the continued importance of having philosophy as theology’s dialogue partner along with natural sciences. Finally, he places significant emphasis on the ethic of createdness in the face of ecological crisis. After critical as well as appreciative analyses of each of Schwöbel’s contributions, I make constructive proposals for the future discussion, in terms of more direct engagement with natural sciences, fuller explication of the ontology of communicative relations, and extended application of his ethic of createdness to the emerging issues concerning recent technological innovations.

Volume 65 (2023)

Volume 64 (2022)

Volume 63 (2021)

Volume 62 (2020)

Volume 61 (2019)

Volume 60 (2018)

Volume 59 (2017)

Volume 58 (2016)

Volume 57 (2015)

Volume 56 (2014)

Volume 55 (2013)

Volume 54 (2012)

Volume 53 (2011)

Volume 52 (2010)

Volume 51 (2009)

Volume 50 (2008)

Volume 49 (2008)

Volume 48 (2007)

Volume 47 (2005)

Volume 46 (2004)

Volume 45 (2003)

Volume 44 (2002)

Volume 43 (2001)

Volume 42 (2000)

Volume 41 (1999)

Volume 40 (1998)

Volume 39 (1997)

Volume 38 (1996)

Volume 37 (1995)

Volume 36 (1994)

Volume 35 (1993)

Volume 34 (1992)

Volume 33 (1991)

Volume 32 (1990)

Volume 28 (1986)

Volume 27 (1985)

Issue Jahresband

Volume 26 (1984)

Volume 25 (1983)

Issue 1-3

Volume 24 (1982)

Issue 1-3

Volume 23 (1981)

Issue Jahresband

Volume 22 (1980)

Issue 1-3

Volume 21 (1979)

Volume 20 (1978)

Volume 19 (1977)

Volume 18 (1976)

Volume 17 (1975)

Volume 16 (1974)

Volume 15 (1973)

Volume 14 (1972)

Volume 13 (1971)

Volume 12 (1970)

Volume 11 (1969)

Volume 10 (1968)

Volume 9 (1967)

Volume 8 (1966)

Volume 7 (1965)

Volume 6 (1964)

Volume 5 (1963)

Volume 4 (1962)

Volume 3 (1961)

Volume 2 (1960)

Volume 1 (1959)

Journal Impact Factor	0.2	2022, Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate, 2023)
5-year Journal Impact Factor	0.2	2022, Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate, 2023)
Journal Citation Indicator	0.30	2022, Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate, 2023)
CiteScore	0.2	2022, Scopus (Elsevier B.V., 2023)
SCImago Journal Rank	0.117	2022, SJR (Scimago Lab, 2023; Data Source: Scopus)
Source Normalized Impact per Paper	0.419	2022, CWTS Journal Indicators (CWTS B.V., 2023; Data Source: Scopus)

More information about journal rankings

Submit

Please submit your manuscript via ScholarOne:

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nzst

Before submitting your manuscript, please make sure to follow the submission guidelines.

Editorial

Edited by

Johannes Zachhuber, Oxford

In Collaboration with

Lubomir Batka, Bratislava
Philippe Büttgen, Paris
Christine Helmer, Chicago
Shao Kai Tseng, Zhejiang
Grant Kaplan, Saint Louis
Johanne Stubbe T. Kristensen, Copenhagen
Cornelia Richter, Bonn
Hartmut von Saß, Berlin
Christiane Tietz, Zurich
Robert Vosloo, Stellenbosch
Simeon Zahl, Cambridge

(Deutsch)

Online ISSN: 1612-9520
Print ISSN: 0028-3517
Type: Journal
Languages: German, English
Publisher: De Gruyter
First published: January 1, 1959
Publication Frequency: 4 Issues per Year

Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

Frontmatter

Editorial

Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?

Abstract

What’s Belief Got to Do With It?

A Response to Tim Crane

Abstract

Religious Belief, Occurrent Thought, and Reasonable Disagreement

A Response to Tim Crane

Abstract

Why Belief? Varieties of Religious Commitment

A Response to Tim Crane

Abstract

Replies to Gäb, Schmidt and Scott

Abstract

Why we do not need demonstrative proof for God’s existence to know that God exists

Robert Nozick’s case for the existence of God

Abstract

An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences

Abstract