According to philosopher of religion Kurt Wuchterl, contingency acknowledgement (German: Kontingenzanerkennung) means that rational thinking is inadequate for explaining contingency experiences. The authors argue that, in the tragic narrative of a contingency experience, subjects face limitations in three dimensions: in the individual, social and transcending dimensions. The individual dimension is expressed in powerful, visual metaphors for the confrontation with forces that do not take the human dimension into account in any way, even coercing the subjects to relinquish their existence. The social dimension concerns the tragic subject’s feeling of being avoided and excluded by some individuals in their environment. The transcending dimension emerges in the complaint “Why me?”, which religious persons address to a religious power, using moral arguments. Empirical research suggests that the acknowledgement of one’s own limitations resulting from a contingency experience can be seen as a sign of strength rather than weakness, for, by doing so, one shows the courage to let go of past interpretative frameworks and be vulnerable. This creates the possibility of an opening in the interpretation crisis, which can lead to an unexpected, new perspective.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Baarda, B., Bakker, E., Fischer, T., De Goede, M., Peters, V. and Van der Velden, T. (2013). Basisboek Kwalitatief onderzoek: Handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van kwalitatief onderzoek (derde druk). Groningen, Noordhoff Uitgevers.
Brugman, P. (2000). Wisdom: Source of narrative coherence & eudaimonia. Delft, Eburon.
Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3e). Los Angeles, Sage Publications.
Dalferth, I. and Stoellger, P. (eds.). (2000). Vernunft, Kontingenz und Gott: Konstellationen eines offenen Problems (Religion in Philosophy and Theology ed., Vol. 1). Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.
Emmons, R. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. New York, The Guilford Press.
Emmons, R. (2005). Striving for the sacred: Personal goals, life meaning, and religion. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 731-745.
Fram, S. (2013). The Constant Comparative Analysis method outside of Grounded Theory. The Qualitative Report, 18(1), 1-25.
Fritzen, W. and Gärtner, S. (2014). Leben als Projekt. In: S. Gärtner, T. Kläden and B. Spielberg (eds.). Praktische Theologie in der Spätmoderne. Herausforderungen und Entdeckungen, pp. 81-86. Würzburg, Echter Verlag.
Frye, N. (1973). Anatomy of criticism; Four essays [First Princeton Paperback Edition, Third printing; oorspr. 1957]. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Geertz, C. (1966). Religion as a cultural system. In: M. Banton (ed.). Anthropological approaches to the study of religion, pp. 1-46. London, Tavistock Publications.
Hohwy, J. (2013). The predictive mind. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland (IKNL) [Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation] (2014). Palliatieve zorg in beeld. Utrecht, IKNL.
Joas, H. (2008). Do we need religion? On the experience of self-transcendence (The yale cultural sociology series ed.). New York, Routledge.
Kleinman, A. (1988). The illness narratives: Suffering, healing, and the human condition. New York, Basic Books.
Knaflic, N. (2015). Storytelling with data; A data visualization guide for business professionals. Hoboken (NJ), John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Liebau, E. and Zirfas, J. (eds.) (2010). Dramen der Moderne: Kontingenz und Tragik im Zeitalter der Freiheit (Vol. Ästhetik und Bildung, Band 4). Bielefeld, transcript Verlag.
Luhmann, N. (1977). Funktion der Religion. Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp.
McNamara, P. (2009). The neuroscience of religious experience . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Murray, K. (1985). Life as fiction. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 15(2), 173-188.
Petrie, H. (1979). Metaphor and learning. In: A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and thought, pp. 438-461. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1990). Soi-même comme un autre. Paris, Édition du Seuil.
Ricoeur, P. (2007). Evil: A challenge to philosophy and theology. London, Continuum.
Ryan, G. and Bernhard, H. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
Saldaña. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks (Californië), Sage.
Scherer-Rath, M. (2002). Lebenssackgassen: Herausforderung für die pastorale Beratung und Begleitung von Menschen in Lebenskrisen, 2. Auflage (Vol. Empirische Theologie, Band 3). Münster, LIT Verlag.
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP). (2018). Christenen in Nederland: Kerkelijk deelname en christelijke gelovigheid [The Netherlands Institute for Social Research. Christians in the Netherlands: Church participation and Christian Belief]. J. de Hart and P. van Houwelingen. Den Haag, SCP.
Strasser, S. (1977). Phenomenology of feeling: An essay on the phenomena of the heart [Das Gemüt: Grundgedanken zu einer Phänomenologischen Philosophie und Theorie des Menschlichen Gefühlslebens]. (R. Wood, Vert.) Pittsburgh, Duquesne University Press.
Taves, A. (2009). Religious experience reconsidered: A building-block approach to the study of religion and other special things. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Van den Brand, J. (2016). Levensverhaal en pedagogische handelingsoriëntatie in de laatmoderne tijd: Een kwalitatieve survey onder leraren in het Nederlandse katholieke basisonderwijs (Theologie en Cultuur—Transdisciplinaire Perspectieven ed., Vol. 2). Zürich, LIT Verlag.
Verschuren, P. (2009). Why a methodology for practice-oriented research is a necessary heresy. Nijmegen, Radboud University.
Wuchterl, K. (2011). Kontingenz oder das Andere der Vernunft. Zum Verhältnis von Philosophie, Naturwissenschaft und Religion. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag.
Wuchterl, K. (2019). Religious-philosophical contingency and empirical theology. Journal of Empirical Theology, 32(2), 169-187.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 675 | 82 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 89 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 118 | 4 | 0 |
According to philosopher of religion Kurt Wuchterl, contingency acknowledgement (German: Kontingenzanerkennung) means that rational thinking is inadequate for explaining contingency experiences. The authors argue that, in the tragic narrative of a contingency experience, subjects face limitations in three dimensions: in the individual, social and transcending dimensions. The individual dimension is expressed in powerful, visual metaphors for the confrontation with forces that do not take the human dimension into account in any way, even coercing the subjects to relinquish their existence. The social dimension concerns the tragic subject’s feeling of being avoided and excluded by some individuals in their environment. The transcending dimension emerges in the complaint “Why me?”, which religious persons address to a religious power, using moral arguments. Empirical research suggests that the acknowledgement of one’s own limitations resulting from a contingency experience can be seen as a sign of strength rather than weakness, for, by doing so, one shows the courage to let go of past interpretative frameworks and be vulnerable. This creates the possibility of an opening in the interpretation crisis, which can lead to an unexpected, new perspective.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 675 | 82 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 89 | 4 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 118 | 4 | 0 |