Schutz’s manuscripts on Goethe’s novels show that he approached theological/metaphysical questions with seriousness and in a social-scientific rather than natural-theological vein. Temporality’s passage, issuing in the unintended consequences that intrigue social scientists and economists, opens onto intersubjective structures since the (subjective) meaning of an act for an actor may always be understood differently from another’s later, objective standpoint—even if the other is oneself understanding one’s earlier self. In this micro-level, pretheoretical, temporal/intersubjective matrix, life’s unforeseen, uncontrollable consequences prompt questions about (...) fate. Recognizing that present acts permit later re-interpretation by others is the origin of metaphysical speculation and, paradoxically, fallibilism. (shrink)

Introduction: Context and hisotry -- Introducing the dailogue partners : Torrance and Feyerabend -- Torrance : theology cohabiting with natural science -- Torrance's proposal : a new objectivity -- Feyerabend's challenge : 'knowledge without foundations' -- Two excuses -- Coherence and language -- From foundations to spirals -- Conclusion.

This critical review focuses on Smith's recent revision of his 1988 book: Teilhard and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Curiously, both the revised and original works have been largely ignored. Unfortunately, sometimes the best way to silence critics is to ignore them. This work will look into some of the primary concepts of Teilhard's "scientific theology" and assess Smith's evaluation, including: evolution, the law of complexity and consciousness, the Creative (...) Union, and the Omega Point. (shrink)

The criteria for what is considered as science have been debated for a very long time. This article assumes the scientific nature of Theology as a given. This article discusses in three concentric circles the scientific nature of Theology and the type of contribution Theology can make. The first circle addresses the nature of science. This broader look at what is considered to be science sets the context for the ensuing discussion. Secondly, Theology as (...) science is investigated. The criteria which make Theology an indispensable part of the scientific project is identified as the ability to collaborate with other sciences based on a shared interest in reality and creation. Further, Theology as science has the ability to contextualise the products of scientific efforts to be relevant not only to the faith community but to society at large. Theology as science requires a critical self-reflection which does not only include a self-understanding but also a self-renewal. The third concentric circle focusses on the scientific nature of Theology as practised at the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria. The Faculty of Theology endeavours to produce life-giving Theology. To prove itself to be scientific Theology needs to act credible by contributing to the wellness of society. (shrink)

(1980). Jewish theologies of space in the scientific revolution: Henry More, Joseph Raphson, Isaac Newton and their predecessors. Annals of Science: Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 489-548.

In this timely and provocative book, Nancey Murphy sets out to dispel skepticism regarding Christian belief. She argues for the rationality of Christian belief by showing that theological reasoning is similar to scientific reasoning as described by contemporary philosophy of science. Murphy draws on new historicist accounts of science, particularly that of lmre Lakatos. According to Lakatos, scientists work within a "research program" consisting of a fixed core theory and a series of changing auxiliary hypotheses that allow for prediction (...) and explanation of novel facts: Murphy argues that strikingly similar patterns of reasoning can be used to justify theological assertions. She provides an original characterization of theological data and explores the consequences for theology and philosophy of religion of adopting such an approach. (shrink)

This pioneering work in the history of science, which originated in a series of three Gauss Seminars given at Princeton University in 1984, demonstrated how the roots of the scientific revolution lay in medieval scholasticism.

One of the basic intentions of theology is to extend the explanatory function of the community's faith beyond the community to the realm of wider human experience. In this sense, theology may be called “scientific,’and it will benefit from conforming as much as possible to the characteristics of scientific theory formation. Using the work of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos as a guide, the following theological theory is proposed: Homo sapiens is God's created co‐creator, whose purpose (...) is the stretching/enabling of the systems of nature so that they can participate in Gods purposes in the mode of freedom. It is argued that this research program produces new knowledge in relating the Christian faith to scientific views of human being as comprised of both genes and cultures to a theory of technological civilization; to freedom, determinism, and natural selection; and to credible notions of human purpose. Traditional Christian doctrines are related to this research program. (shrink)

Catholic modernist John Augustine Zahm is best known for his attempt to reconcile the theory of evolution with the Christian scriptures. However, Zahm's theological method—the underlying principles and procedures in his effort to reconcile faith and science—remains largely unexamined. In this article, I analyze Zahm's theological method and submit that it is an attempt to harmonize scientific knowledge and Christian scripture through a “scientific allegory” of the bible, which takes into account the human and divine meanings of scripture, (...) the exegesis of the church fathers, and the dogmatic constitutions of the Catholic church. I compare Zahm's method with that of pioneering Catholic bible critic Marie-Joseph Lagrange, and his conception of biblical inspiration and the supra-literal sense of scripture. Through this historical investigation, I hope to contribute to the question of the relationship between modern science and Christian hermeneutics. (shrink)

A great deal of research has been done on the origin of belief and its effects on human beings. In recent years, these researches are not only limited to the theological field, but also continued by various branches of science. Scientific disciplines that investigate different dimensions of belief have made some explanations about the origins of belief under titles such as cognitive science, mental science, evolutionary theory and genetics, but these results have been someti-mes discussed and criticized. Studies on (...) this subject have not yet achieved a general consis-tency so far. In the last century, there has been a great increase in the number of such studies. Before the 1970s, there was an understanding that tried to explain the issue from an evolutio-nary perspective. The interest in the source of human belief started especially in the field of biology and has been supported by many systematic scientific studies. These types of studies tried to understand and explain the biological origins of belief, but did not go beyond labora-tory experiences. These studies associated belief with certain diseases, attempted to explain biologically different versions of belief, tried to explain the relationship between brain mobi-lity and religious experience, and searched for a separate God Gene and God Field. This article focuses on the psychological basis of the subject, and then the biological basis of the subject. Studies on consciousness, unconsciousness, death, diseases, and many psychological disorders handled in different ways the relation with belief. Such basic human processes are tried to be explained in relation to many areas such as health, spirituality and culture. Socio-biology, evo-lutionary psychology, and contemporary cognitive sciences have carried out a series of studies on this subject, especially looking for the foundations of belief. Since the 1970s, there have been some attempts in biology, especially depending on the developments in science and tech-nology. These studies mostly claim that “the ability to believe” is innate in humans and is parti-ally supported by some scientific discussions. Scientists who seek the source of belief directly in biology follow the hypothesis that the temporal lobe of the brain is the source of religious and mystical experience. Neurologists have focused on the prefrontal cortex of the brain and suggested that this region of the brain may be related to religion and belief. These studies are the continuation of other research that started earlier and searched for belief, spirituality, and God in a certain region of the brain. In these studies, conceptualizations such as “the God spot” and “the God module” have been made instead of the concept of the “God gene.” As a result, studies on religion and brain will increasingly come to the fore. Studies on this subject have opened a new door in terms of showing the relationship between religious belief, attitudes and behaviors and the brain. However, more studies are needed in this area in order to understand more accurately and fully the relationship between religious beliefs or experiences and physi-cal processes because most of the studies on this subject have focused on Christians and Budd-hists. Although a serious relationship has not been established between religion and biology until now, it is likely that these issues will come to the fore more frequently from now on. These studies which investigate whether there is a relationship between believing and the brain are called neurotheology. In this study, the developmental process of neurotheology as a science and the studies in this field were examined by literature and document review. Studies conducted in the last hundred years were systematically examined and the current situation was discussed. (shrink)

The article deals with the main problems connected with the process of institutionalization of theological education in the educational field in the scientific space of our country. At the same time, the necessity of forming effective mechanisms of cooperation between representatives of secular and religious circles in the development of spiritual education is outlined.

. Philip Hefner's focus on contingency and field as the guiding concepts in my thinking and his characterization of my theological enterprise as a Lakatosian research program are appropriate and helpful.I welcome Jeffrey Wicken's holistic approach to the emergence of life. Theology can appropriate the language of self‐organizing systems exploiting the thermodynamic flow of energy degradation for interpreting organic life as a creation of the Spirit of God.However, I cannot sympathize with Lindon Eaves's equation of “hard science” with a (...) reductionism which raises the double helix to the status of icon; the “meaning” of DNA derives from its place in the total phenomenon of life—not the reverse.Frank Tipler's cosmology raises the prospect of a rapprochement between physics and theology in the area of eschatology. A Christian cosmology, however, would require at least three modifications: contingency in the history of creation; the uniqueness of Jesus' resurrection; and the relation of these to the problem of evil. (shrink)