Taking as a starting point for his quest the teaching received from the Hebrew prophets and transmitted by the people of Israel, Claude Tresmontant identifies in it the specific moment where an entirely new and creative thought is introduced in the history of mankind. Trained in philosophy of science and conscious of the discipline involved in a rigorous experimental method as a key to valid and true knowledge, Claude Tresmontant boldly recreated bridges, long destroyed, between science and philosophy (...) of nature, as well as metaphysics and theology. Following an immense effort, he has found back, stringently and often on his own, a unifying concept capable of integrating the experience and the questions of today's man: "...the central question is that of integrating the teaching of creation and that of revelation in the unity of an intelligible vision of the world, desirable, and verifiable..." as he said himself in the preface to L'histoire de l'univers et le sens de la Création. This immense, powerful and thought-provoking work is here presented by a young philosopher, long time correspondent of Claude Tresmontant, who benefited from decisive moments of encounter with him. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEiWS 701 Theological Investigations XXI: Science and Christian Faith. By KARL RAHNER. Translated by Hugh M. Riley. New York: Crossroad, 1988. Pp. 279. $29.95 (hard bound). Volume XXI of Theological Investigations is the translation of the first three sections of Volume XV of Schriften zur Theologie, which was published in 1983 by Benziger Verlag. The appearance of the volume was somewhat of a surprise since in (...) 1980, when Volume XIV was published, Rahner had assured the readers that in all probability it would be the last volume of the series, which together with the index volume amounts to some 7500 pages-long enough, as Rahner puts it, for. (shrink)

While the influential analytical philosopher Hilary Putnam has made significant contributions to philosophy of mind, philosophy of language and philosophy of science, he isn't generally regarded as a philosopher of religion or a theologian. Nonetheless, I argue that his work should be of great interest to philosophers of religion and theologians. Focusing on the relationship between science and religion, this paper explores the importance of Putnam's attempt to reconcile his anti-metaphysical stance and his commitment to a religious form (...) of life for theology. I first demonstrate why an anti-metaphysical stance and a commitment to Judaism can be deemed contradictory, and then characterize Putnam's anti-metaphysical stance as a modus vivendi to avoid both of what I call analytic and scientistic metaphysics. In a third step I offer my interpretation of Putnam's way of relating science and religion without metaphysics in the qualified sense, and subsequently spell out some important consequences of the emerging picture for theology. In my conclusion I give an account of Putnam as a transitional thinker, and draw a parallel between some of his work and Kierkegaard's “leap of faith”. (shrink)

This article discusses the history of the concepts of potential infinity and actual infinity in the context of Christian theology, mathematical thinking and metaphysical reasoning. It shows that the structure of Ancient Greek rationality could not go beyond the concept of potential infinity, which is highlighted in Aristotle's metaphysics. The limitations of the metaphysical mind of ancient Greece were overcome through Christian theology and its concept of the infinite God, as formulated in Gregory of Nyssa's theology. That is how the (...) concept of actual infinity emerged. However, Gregory of Nyssa's understanding of human rationality went still further. He said that access to the infinity of God was to be found only in an asymptotic ascension, as expressed in apophatic theology, and this view endangered the rationality of theology. Deeply influenced by the apophatic tradition, Nicholas of Cusa avoided this danger by showing that infinity could be accessed by symbolic representation and asymptotic mathematical reasoning. Thus, he made an immense contribution in making infinity rationally accessible. This endeavor was finally realized by Georg Cantor. This rational accessibility revealed discernible structures of infinity, such as the continuum hypothesis, and the cardinal numbers. However, the probable logical inconsistency of Georg Cantor's all-encompassing Absolute Infinity points to an intuitive understanding of infinity that goes beyond its rational structures – as in apophatic theology. (shrink)

English summary: The question of how to determine the relationship between faith and knowledge is still one of the key questions in theology as well as in the philosophy of religion. Martin Schmuck suggests an answer to this question by illustrating Charles Sanders Peirce's philosophy of religion, which is based upon experience, common sense and pragmatism, in the sense of a strong interdependency of the religious and the scientific approach to one single reality. German description: Die Frage nach der Bestimmung (...) des Verhaltnisses von Glaube und Wissen gehort noch immer zu den zentralen Fragen der Theologie und Religionsphilosophie. Auf diese Frage gibt Martin Schmuck eine Antwort, indem er die auf Erfahrung, common sense und Pragmatismus aufbauende Religionsphilosophie von Charles Sanders Peirce im Sinne einer strengen Komplementaritat des religiosen und (natur-) wissenschaftlichen Zugangs zur einen Wirklichkeit entfaltet. Aus der Kritik an Peirces indeterministischer Metaphysik entwickelt er die Alternative einer naturalistischen Ontologie auf dem Stand der aktuellen wissenschaftlichen Diskussion um Dispositionen und Naturgesetze, die wichtige Aspekte der Philosophie Peirces - insbesondere den objektiven Idealismus, die Modalontologie und die Kontinuumsphilosophie - in neuer Weise zur Geltung bringt. 'Religion of Science' und Ontologie werden anschliessend fur das Projekt einer modernen Theologie des christlichen Glaubens fruchtbar gemacht, welche die christlichen Glaubensaussagen konsequent naturalistisch interpretiert. (shrink)

The history of the relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences has been conditioned by the initial decision of the masters of the "first scientific revolution" to disregard any necessary explanatory premiss to account for the constituting organization and the framing of naturally occurring entities. Not paying any attention to hierarchical control, they ended-up disseminating a vision and understanding in which it was no longer possible for a theology of nature to send questions in the direction of the experimental (...) sciences, as was done in the past between theology and many philosophically-based thought-systems. Presenting the history of some hinge-periods in the development of the Western-world sciences, this book first sets out to consider the conceptual revolution which has, in the 20th Century, related consciousness, physical laws and levels of organization, in order to show that a new chance existed then for theology. This discourse was invited to revise its language to open it up to the quest for meaning which we find on the periphery of the project of the experimental sciences. The Century-old reflection on the foundations of probability had prepared the ground for the introduction of the concept of information, at first linked to an effort aimed at maximizing the efficiency of electromagnetic communications. Taking the full measure of the questions that information theory poses to the biological sciences, this work attempts to identify the areas of convergence setting the stage for general systems theory, while it also tries to identify the insufficiencies of this recent vision and to highlight the questions left unanswered. Re-reading some of the traditional proofs of God's existence from the order of the world, relying on some pioneering insights of Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Norbert Wiener, the author brings those proofs and insights in contact with the fascinating initial project of cybernetics and the elements of a "mythical" nature which, from its inception, it could never entirely eliminate. This book ends with the confrontation between the conceptually most extended regulation factors in the history of Western thought. It articulates the poetic utopia concerned with an immediate grasp of the world in its "deictic" character with the concurrent one aimed at the domination over matter and energy expressed by technology's driving rational utopia. (shrink)

In Theologie und Wissenschaft bei Petrus Aureoli, Florian Wöller offers an account of the theories of science and of theology as they emerge from Peter Auriol's (c. 1280-1322) commentaries on the Sentences.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Ignorance, Knowledge, and Omniscience: At and Beyond the Limits of Faith and Reason after Shinran:Reflections on The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science, with Special Attention to Dennis HirotaAmos YongAlthough published in the series Religion, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, Paul Numrich's edited volume is really about epistemology in religion and science, in particular about human knowing in Buddhist and Christian traditions shaped by the world (...) of science on the one hand, and how such knowing might also inform scientific knowledge on the other hand.1 The panoply of positions is presented by both Buddhist and Christian thinkers.From the Buddhist side, the following arguments are sketched:• that religion and science are complementary modes of knowing and that "understanding the true nature of the physical world" opens up "the way to enlightenment" (Trinh Xuan Thuan).2• that Buddhism is both continuous with (and hence deserving of serious consideration amidst) the epistemic discourses of modernity in many respects and yet also discontinuous with (and hence capable for critically interrogating) modernity's epistemology in other respects as well (David L. McMahan).3• that a Shin Buddhist approach to human knowledge—which in this chapter is brought into dialogue with Martin Heidegger's (1889-1976) notion of truth—opens up to a Kuhnian philosophy of science that emphasizes how paradigmatic shifts occur when new perspectives replace older frameworks (Dennis Hirota).4• that the questions raised by theoretical and quantum physics provide a scientific framework for discussing fundamental epistemological, ontological, and metaphysical questions that Buddhists and Christians might otherwise disagree about (Mark T. Unno).5From the Christian side, the following theses are explored: [End Page 201]• that boundary constraints confront not only working scientists but also Buddhists and Christians, and that these constraints can thus serve as a springboard for a science and religion "trilogue" (Paul O. Ingram).6• that the mystery of creative becoming (God, in traditional Christian terms) is the dynamic backdrop to the ongoing human quest for knowledge (Gordon D. Kaufman).7• that it is at the boundaries of knowledge that genuine creativity occurs (not only scientific creativity but also theological creativity emerges, i.e., the apophatic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy or the theory of coincidentia oppositorum of Nicholas of Cusa [1401-1464]), and where, as a result of such creative approaches, distinct fields of inquiry open up and different domains of knowledge emerge (Antje Jackelén).8• that theological discourse is paradoxical precisely because such discourse marks the fluid boundaries demarcating sense and nonsense (Tom Christenson).9And, befitting a volume on the encounter between religion (i.e., Buddhism and Christianity) and science, there is a concluding chapter from a physicist on the limits of scientific knowledge that both is encouraged by the gains made by science (presuming a critical realist approach to science's modeling of reality) and yet also is honest about there being much more to learn on small and big questions (John R. Albright).10The foregoing summaries do not do justice to the complexity and sophistication of the chapters in the book. However, they provide a broader context for my interactions with Dennis Hirota's chapter on Shinran's (1173-1263) epistemology and its implications for both religious and scientific knowledge. As an evangelical Christian, I am particularly intrigued by the challenges confronting a Shin Buddhist approach to the sciences, even as I am hopeful that such a consideration will precipitate creative insights both for the Buddhist-Christian encounter and for the religion-science dialogue. I am all the more motivated since I have long been convinced that the religion-science dialogue has been dominated by generically religious approaches and that it is time for more particularistic or even confessional positions to be registered in the discussion.11 I am optimistic that the specificity of the Shin tradition will provide both complementary and contrasting perspectives to the contemporary Buddhist encounter with science that has so far been dominated by the broadly Tibetan approaches of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (1935-) and those in his circle of dialogue partners,12 and that this will in turn open up new trajectories—even initiate new paradigms, as Hirota suggests—for the Buddhist... (shrink)

SUMMARYThe cognitive science of religion is a multi-disciplinary research program that attempts to integrate the study of religion with behavioural sciences such as cognitive sciences. Such integration raises several methodological questions that concern, for example, the nature of the relationship between psychology and social life, the autonomy of the study of religion and the role of causal explanations in social sciences. This article examines the methodological assumptions of the cognitive science of religion and analyses possible drawbacks as well (...) as advantages of a naturalistic study of religion. Finally, this article argues that we should allow different kinds of methodological frameworks in the study of religion. (shrink)

This article is focused on the concept of logic in Avicenna’s Isagoge, a text which had great impact both on Arabic and Western thought. Its main section is devoted to an investigation of Avicenna’s clarification of the nature of logic, its proper subject matter as well as its place within the canon of the philosophical sciences. In this connection, special attention is given to Avicenna’s use of the concepts ‘art’ and ‘science’. Significantly, he regards logic as both a (...) class='Hi'>science and an art, and argues that in the latter sense, logic is an instrument for the philosophical sciences. Because Avicenna’s Isagoge was read in the Latin West for several centuries, his ideas on the nature of logic played a prominent role in the debates at medieval universities and hence were a likely source of the distinction between ‘logica utens’ and ‘logica docens’. (shrink)

Sur la base des travaux théologiques publiés par Ernst Troeltsch entre 1900 et 1913, rassemblés dans le volume 111 de ses Oeuvres , nous cherchons à montrer comment s'est précisée sa pensée sur la théologie durant cette période. Dans le but de l'intégrer à la culture scientifique, il lui assigne pour méthode et site l'histoire de la religion en général, et pour tâche propre l'exploration des connaissances normatives qui se dégagent de la finalité de cette histoire. La tâche spécifique de (...) la théolo­gie chrétienne est de situer la prédication de Jésus et celle de l'Église dans l'histoire universelle de la religion et de subvenir aux besoins spirituels de la communauté ; il lui trace, dans cette perspective, un programme de « dogmatique » inspiré de Schleiermacher.L'intérêt actuel de la pensée de Troeltsch est de souligner les condi­tionnements historiques du christianisme auxquels doit se soumettre la théologie. Cependant, ni son épistémologie ni sa conception téléologi­que de l'histoire ne peuvent fonder la méthode d'une théologie pour aujourd'hui. Trop préoccupé du déploiement de Hélée religieuse, il ne permet pas de penser la révélation de l'Absolu dans la contingence de l'événement et de la chair du Christ. Mais son souci du divorce entre la pensée chrétienne et la culture occidentale moderne nous encourage à frayer les voies du « libre christianisme » auquel il aspirait.On the basis of the theological works published by Ernst Troeltsch between 1900 and 1913, brought together in volume III of his Works , we would like to show how his thinking on theology during this period became more precise. In order to integrate it into scientific culture, he uses a method and background in the history of religion in general, and more particularly the exploration of normative knowl­edge that comes out of the finality of this history. The specific task of Christian theology is to situate the preaching of Jesus and that of the Church in the universal history of religion and to provide for the spiritual needs of the community. In this perspective he traces a program of “dogmatics" inspired by Schleiermacher.Today's interest in the thought of Troeltsch is to point out the historical conditions of a Christianity that ought to defer to theology. Nevertheless, neither his epistemol­ogy nor his theological conception of history are capable of laying the ground for a theological method today. Too preoccupied about the use of the religious Idea, he does not allow for reflection on revelation of the Absolute in the contingency of the event and theflesh of Christ. But his concern about the divorce between Christian thought and modern occidental culture encourages us to trace the paths of a 'free Chris­tianity " to which he aspires. (shrink)

In August 1712 A. L. Königsmann sent to Leibniz a copy of his dissertation De rationali metaphysices cultu together with a letter. In his answer to Königsmann Leibniz underlines, firstly, his rationalistic opinion on the relationship between natural and revealed theology and, in second place, his moderate position regarding the anti-Scholastic polemics. Leibniz's letter, till now unpublished, has been edited and annexed at the bottom of the article.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science by Lucas SiorvanesP.A. MeijerLucas Siorvanes. Proclus: Neo-Platonic Philosophy and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Pp. xv+ 340. Cloth, $35.00.This book will be welcomed by scholars of Proclus and by readers unfamiliar with Proclus alike. There are not many introductory books on Proclus. And Siorvanes presents in an interesting way the latest developments in scholarship. [End Page 160]Siorvanes gives an (...) account of Proclus’s life and times, his position in the Athenian Neoplatonic school, and his influence and offers a panoramic view of Proclus’s philosophy in the chapters: “General Metaphysics,” “Knowledge and the levels of Being,” “Physics and Metaphysics,” and “Stars and Planets.” He presents not only Proclus’s views on physics and astronomy, but also his poetics (189).Siorvanes deals competently with Proclus’s metaphysics, analyzing it in its own right and as the indispensable background of his scientific views. His summaries are on the whole adequate and instructive. But a scheme or outline of levels of the multi-layered Proclean system of Gods (Henads), such as that offered by H. D. Saffrey and L. G. Westerink in Proclus, Théologie Platonicienne (Paris 1968) for example, would have facilitated understanding.In an impressive description of Proclus’s historical influence, Siorvanes establishes connections between Proclus’s ideas and modern views in metaphysics, mathematics, physics, logic and astronomy. Yet a warning would be appropriate in this context. There is, for instance, the strikingly modern Proclean theory that planets have satellites. Perhaps Siorvanes is too much enamoured with these modern Proclean theories. Though he recognizes that the theory about the satellites is really a consequence of Proclus’s metaphysics (268–271), he fails to emphasize that Proclus’s modern-seeming theories are no less speculative than other ancient theories. Neither Proclus’s metaphysics nor his mathematics can replace evidence as used in modern science. Thus, the rather triumphal tones Sioravanes sounds in this regard are somewhat out of place. The incidental similarities in theoretical structures and patterns that emerge in the course of history are interesting to note, but we should beware of becoming too enthusiastic about their significance. The so-called indirect influence may be due precisely to the structure of problems and the (limited) range of possible solutions.I would raise some objections to Siorvanes’s manner of translating and interpreting the Greek word for “to be” (einai) or “Being” (on). As is often done, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, Siorvanes alternatively uses “being,” “existence” and “reality,” without being aware of the fact that in ancient philosophy the Greek words “on/ousia” (“Being”) generally do not admit of the translation “existence.” Such translations are anachronistic and wrong. “Reality” is entirely inappropriate as a translation. As an essentially medieval expression, the word “reality” (realitas) as such is nowhere to be found in antiquity. When Proclus presents his multilevel system of Being, there are no degrees of reality in the sense that one transcendent level is more real than another. There are only degrees of Being. The problematic nature of the issue stands out even more when one speaks about not being. “Being” interpreted as “reality” suggests that what is not being, has no reality. But that is not what Proclus meant to say. The translation “existence” is bound to bring about similar misunderstandings. The notion “existence” is seldom in the focus of the interest when an ancient philosopher uses “einai.” Thus, an innocent reader of Siorvanes’s book may despair when he encounters “real existence” as a translation for “ousia” (124). Do the levels of being other than the one called “ousia” exist or do they not exist? If they do not, Proclus’s entire philosophy would be incoherent, and our world would not even exist or possess “reality.” But this is not what Proclus or Siorvanes mean. To avoid misunderstandings, we should use only “Being” (and “to be”) as translations. [End Page 161]There are also problems with some aspects of Siorvanes’s description of participation. In picturing the connection of the entity that is participated (methekton), what is given to the participant (metechomenon) and the participant (metechon), the terms “predication” and... (shrink)

Thought experiments are employed for a number of reasons and in many different disciplines. This paper explores the work of Novalis in relation to the method of thought experiments in theology, with a special focus on the encounter between Christianity and the science of his day. In a first step I revisit the ongoing philosophical discussion on thought experiments in order to highlight the lack of interest in the literary features of thought experiments. Step two is dedicated to a (...) discussion of the work of Novalis as far as his metaphysics of phantasy and imagination is concerned as it plays out in his romantic poetry. Building on the results of this discussion, in a third step I discuss the relationship (a) between thought experiments in theology and other disciplines, (b) between current discussions of thought experiments and previous periods of philosophical investigation into the ‘laboratory of the mind’, (c) between Christianity and science, and (d) between literary fiction and cognition. (shrink)

Theologians of the 14th C. agreed that theology is scientific knowledge based upon the truths of revelation. But the very introduction of Aristotle's and aristotelian philosophy into theology turned out to be problematic. Above all, it was questionable to integrate theology—as a science based on revelation—within the aristotelian framework of sciences. This problem is difficult for Scotus in two ways. On the one hand, he uses the concepts elaborated in greek philosophy, but, on the other hand, his franciscan spirituality (...) compels him towards the opposite solution. Scotus only has the Aristotle's division of theoretical and practical sciences at his disposal to determine the character of theology, and he chooses to classify theology as practical science. Scotus is pouring “new wine” of Christian revelation into “old wineskins” of greek philosophy, the fact causing noticeable problems when interpreting many Scotus' ideas and views. (shrink)

De 1903 à 1905, une discussion serrée s'engage entre Loisy, Blondel, Hügel. C'est le philosophe d'Aix qui focalise le débat sur la christologie en soulevant la question de la science et de la conscience du Christ. Il le fait dans la perspective de son « panchristisme » qui le rend peu sensible au Jésus de l'Histoire et à la lecture littérale des Evangiles. Il s'oppose ainsi à l'exégèse de Loisy, soupçonnant chez lui une position doctrinale qui va plus loin (...) qu'une réserve purement méthodologique.Ce débat a l'intérêt d'avoir été largement interdisciplinaire en mettant en œuvre l'exégèse, l'histoire, la philosophie et la théologie. S'il a été troublé par les urgences de la crise moderniste, il a permis d'entrevoir la nécessité et la difficulté d'un travail épistémologique pour articuler les divers savoirs dans le respect de leurs méthodes respectives.From 1903 to 1905, a lively debate was had between Loisy, Blondel, and Hügel. The philosopher of Aix focused the debate on Christology by raising the question of the knowledge and consciousness of Christ. He did it in the perspective of his panchristianism which rendered him insensitive to the Jesus of History and a literal reading of the Gospels. Thus he was against Loisy's exegesis, suspecting that he had a doctrinal position that went farther than a purely methodological reticence.The debate was interesting in so far as it was interdisciplinary, making use of exegesis, history, philosophy and theology. If it was troubled by the urgency of the modernist crisis, it gave an opening to the need and difficulty of working on an epistemology to articulate different disciplines with respect for their varied methods. (shrink)

ABSTRACT : The scientific character of theology was hotly debated among theologians of the 13th and 14th century. In what follows I expound the singular views of Hervaeus Natalis, a thinker who lived in the first quarter of the 14th century. According to him, the solution to this problem lies in the notion of abstraction. I offer a historical and philosophical analysis of his position based on the first French translation of a significative portion of one of his Quodlibets. I (...) made the translation from my own edition of its Latin text. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDieser Aufsatz erörtert einige philosophische Fragen in Bezug auf Bayers Vergegenwärtigung Luthers. Die Einbeziehung der Philosophie bietet der Theologie sowohl Chancen als auch Risiken. Einerseits kann die Philosophie zwischen einem religiösen oder theologischen Vokabular und der gegenwärtigen säkularen Gesellschaft vermitteln; andererseits riskiert die Theologie auf diese Weise eine Beeinflussung durch die innerweltlichen Kategorien der Philosophie. Diese zweite Position scheint die Bayers zu sein, da er die Beziehung von Philosophie und Theologie als Dissonanz interpretiert. Um zu untersuchen, ob (...) und auf welche Weise die Philosophie als Vermittlerin zwischen der Religion und der säkularen Gesellschaft fungieren kann, konzentriere ich mich auf ein gemeinsames Merkmal von Philosophie und Theologie, darauf, dass sie alle Arten überlieferter Weisheit in Frage stellen, um wahre, theologisch oder philosophisch bewährte Weisheit zu bieten.Zunächst analysiere ich Bayers Konzeption der Theologie als persönliche, traditionsgebundene Weisheit. Er entwickelt diesen Gedanken im Kontrast mit Kants kritischer Beurteilung der Weisheit in seiner Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, derzufolge die Wissenschaft die einzige enge Pforte ist, die zur Weisheit führt. Nach Bayer ist der Eintrittspreis viel zu hoch, insofern er ein Reduktion der Theologie auf Wissenschaft erfordert. Im Gegensatz dazu versteht er theologische Weisheit als Metakritik, die in der Mitte zwischen Dogmatismus und Skeptizismus steht.In meinen Bemerkungen zu Bayers Position beginne ich mit der Definition der Weisheit als einer Form von Wissen, die Menschen hilft, die wahre Bestimmung ihres Lebens zu finden. In unserer postmodernen Situation wird jedoch die Plausibilität des Wahrheitsanspruches in Frage gestellt, der in dieser Definition beinhaltet ist. Alle unsere Vokabulare über die Bestimmungen unseres Lebens, ob religiös, theologisch oder philosophisch, werden als radikal kontingent und äquivok wahrgenommen. In der Konsequenz ist Weisheit zur Privatmeinung einer Person oder einer Gruppe Gleichgesinnter geworden. Obwohl ich mit Bayers Kritik der Privatisierung der Weisheit übereinstimme, scheint mir seine Argumentation zugunsten einer theologischen Weisheit, die auf Grund von Gottes persönlicher Anrede über jeden Ideologieverdacht erhaben ist, höchst problematisch zu sein. Obwohl die Religion ein enormes kritisches Potential in Bezug auf die Ideologien unserer Zeit hat, überzeugt das säkulare Zeitgenossen kaum, weil sie die Religion selbst als eine Form der Ideologie betrachten. Deshalb schlage ich mithilfe von Kants Essay Was heißt: Sich im Denken orientieren? einen anderen Zugang zur notwendigen Kritik der religiösen Weisheit vor, die sich im Unterschied zum Begriff der Wissenschaft am Begriff der Vernunft orientiert. Dies führt zu einer weniger dissonanten Beziehung zwischen Philosophie und Theologie als bei Bayer.SummaryThe focus of this article is to raise some philosophical questions concerning Bayer's aim of making topical the theology of Luther. The involvement of philosophy offers both opportunities and risks for theology. On the one hand, philosophy can mediate between a religious or theological vocabulary and contemporary secular society; on the other, however, theology runs the risk of being affected by the inner-worldly categories of philosophy. The latter position seems to be the one of Bayer since he defines the relation between philosophy and theology as a discordant one. In order to examine if and how philosophy can serve as a mediator between religion and secular society, I concentrate on a common characteristic of theology and philosophy, viz. that they query all kinds of traditional wisdom in order to offer true, theologically or philosophically corroborated wisdom.First, I analyse Bayer's idea of theology as personal, traditional wisdom. He develops it through a confrontation with Kant's critical assessment of wisdom in his Critique of Practical Reason, according to which science is the only narrow entrance gate that leads to wisdom. According to Bayer, the entrance fee is far too high, since is implies an imoverishing reduction of theology to science. Instead, he understands theological wisdom as meta-criticism, standing in the middle between dogmatism and scepticism.In my comment on Bayer's position, I start from the definition of wisdom as a kind of knowledge, helping humans to find the true destiny of their lives. However, in our post-modern times, the plausibility of the truth-claim implied in this definition is being challenged. All our vocabularies about the destinies of our lives, be they religious, theological, or philosophical, are perceived as radically contingent and equivocal. Consequently, wisdom has become a private opinion of a person or a group of like-minded people. Although I agree with Bayer's critique of the privatisation of wisdom, his argument in favour of a theological wisdom which claims to be above any suspicion of being ideological in character because of God's personal address, seems highly problematic to me. Although religion has an enormous critical potential with regard to the ideologies of our times, it does not convince contemporary, secularised people, because they perceive religion itself as a form of ideology. Therefore, I propose, with the help of Kant's, What Does it Mean to Orientate Oneself in Thinking, another approach of the necessary critique of religious wisdom, which is based on the concept of reason, as distinct from science. This leads to a less discordant view of the relationship between philosophy and theology than Bayer's. (shrink)

The main idea consists in researching the existence of certain characteristics of nature similar to human reasonability and purposeful actions, originating and rigorously inferable from the postulates of quantum mechanics as well as from those of special and general relativity. The pathway of the “free-will theorems” proved by Conway and Kochen in 2006 and 2009 is followed and pioneered further. Those natural reasonability and teleology are identified as a special subject called “God” and studyable by “quantum theology”, a scientific counterpart (...) of classical theology as far as the latter endeavors to justify rationally God (without quotation marks) postulated by religion, but meaning in the present study, first of all, Christianity. The suggested “quantum theology” is situated in the historical opposition and conflict of science and religion in Modernity and its reflection in Heidegger’s conception of “ontotheology”. The conception of “ontomathematics” introduced in previous papers to unite and unify physics, mathematics, and philosophy is reinterpreted in the present context to be conservatively generalized in a way to include “quantum theology”. Two conceptions, “locality” and “nonlocality”, originating initially from physics and especially, from theory of entanglement and quantum information, are also generalized ontomathematically, and thus in relation to the newly introduced “quantum theology”. The “quantum theology” subject of “God” is juxtaposed with God of religion and billions of believers all over the world. Husserl’s conception of “philosophy as a rigorous science” is considered to be generalized now to theology as quantum theology, particularly by the phenomenon (in the sense of his “phenomenology”) of “God”, or by an “epoché” to whether God exists or not. The research of the phenomenon of “God” is extended to the conception of the “totality” being inherent for philosophy, especially for classical German philosophy preceding Husserl’s phenomenology. Those sequences for philosophy implied by the introduction of quantum theology are investigated further, on the pathway of ontomathematics, also in relation to what “God” should mean for today’s physics and mathematics. The option and research field of “experimental quantum theology” is discussed as a direct corollary from quantum theology though being sacrilegious as for classical theology. The concluding section reflects in a more loose way on the relation of “God” for quantum theology to God for religion and billions of believers all over the world. (shrink)

After a bibliographic introduction highlighting various research trends in science and religion, Joshua Moritz explores how the current academic and conceptual landscape of theology and science has been shaped by the history of science, even as theology has informed the philosophical foundations of science. The first part assesses the historical interactions of science and the Christian faith (looking at the cases of human dissection in the Middle Ages and the Galileo affair) in order to challenge (...) the common notion that science and religion have always been at war. Part two investigates the nature of the interaction between science and Christian theology by exploring the role that metaphysical presuppositions and theological concepts have played - and continue to play - within the scientific process. (shrink)

Dans les quelques paragraphes qu’il consacre à la comparaison entre la théologie révélée et la théologie philosophique, Siger de Brabant procède à de nombreux écarts par rapport au texte de Thomas d’Aquin qui lui sert de modèle. Cet article a pour but de montrer comment dans le même mouvement par lequel Siger reconnaît la supériorité de la théologie révélée sur plusieurs points, il en limite pourtant aussitôt, et assez strictement, le champ aussi bien du point de vue de la méthode (...) que du champ d’application. Ainsi, au-delà de l’accord de surface entre Siger et Thomas, il faut voir dans ce texte autant une défense de l’autonomie de la philosophie qu’une affirmation de sa supériorité pour tout ce qui peut être investigué par la raison humaine, un rejet donc, profond, du projet thomasien d’une théologie toute-puissante à laquelle sont subordonnées toutes les autres sciences.In the few paragraphs he dedicates to comparing revealed theology and philosophical theology, Siger of Brabant distances himself from the text of Thomas Aquinas which he uses as a model. This article aims to show how, in the same movement by which Siger acknowledges on many points the superiority of revealed theology, he nevertheless immediately limits its field, and this rather strictly, both from a methodological as well as a practical perspective. Thus, beyond the apparent agreement between Siger and Thomas, this text must be understood to be as much a defence of philosophy’s autonomy as an affirmation of its superiority with regard to everything which can be investigated by human reason; it is a deep rejection therefore of Thomas’ project of an all-powerful theology to which the other sciences are subordinated. (shrink)

Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Theologie und Philosophie ist so alt wie das Christentum. Im Mittelalter wurde der Streit weitgehend zugunsten der Theologie entschieden. Die Philosophie, verstanden als Metaphysik, wurde ancilla theologiae, Magd der Theologie. Im Zeitalter der Aufklärung drehte sich jedoch der Spieß um, die Theologie wurde nun zur Magd der Philosophie. Später, unter dem wachsenden Einfluss der empirischen Wissenschaften und der Technik, verlor die Philosophie ihren metaphysischen Charakter und wurde weitgehend eine Theorie der Wissenschaften, die schließlich (...) in einer Selbstkritik des empirisch-wissenschaftlichen Denkens überhaupt gipfelte. Diese letzte Entwicklung wird in dem folgenden Artikel skizziert. Es wird gezeigt, wie gegenwärtig Theologen, die diese Entwicklung nicht erkannt haben und von einem heute überholten Wissenschaftsbegriff ausgehen, immer noch versuchen, ihn mit dem theologischen Denken zu versöhnen. So werden sie mehr und mehr gezwungen, das, was sie für einen »dogmatischen Ballast« halten, über Bord zu werfen mit der Folge, dass sie das Wesen der christlichen Offenbarung weitgehend verfremden.The struggle between theology and philosophy is as old as Christianity. In the middle age this struggle ended in favour of theology. Philosophy, understood as metaphysics, was called ancilla theologiae. However, in the age of enlightenment the tables were turned: Now, theology became the ancilla of philosophy. Later, under the growing influence of the empirical sciences and technology, philosophy lost its metaphysical character and widely became a theory of sciences which culminated in self-criticism of scientific thinking. Now, this last development will be sketched in the following article. It will be shown how at present theologians who ignore this development and proceed from an antiquated concept of science still try to reconcile it with theological thinking. Thereby, they are more and more compelled to throw off what is deemed to be »dogmatic ballast« with the consequence that they alienate the essence of christian revelation. (shrink)

Les principaux problèmes que Bultmann a posés au plan de l’exégèse historique des textes évangéliques étaient commandés par des positions théologiques et continuent pour ce motif à interroger les théologiens catholiques, qui parfois le rejettent dans le camp tantôt du scientisme tantôt du dogmatisme.Contre la théologie libérale des « vies de Jésus », il élève une double protestation, d’ordre christologique : il revendique le caractère historique de la foi chrétienne, et historique : il prend au sérieux la visée eschatologique de (...) la prédication de Jésus. Marquée en ses origines par un rationalisme dogmatique, l’exégèse historico-critique travaille à son tour la théologie, l’oblige à assumer sa propre historicité et à sortir ainsi de son propre positivisme dogmatique.Réservant – à juste titre – à la foi de dire le sens de la Croix, Bultmann semble séparer le fait et le sens et mettre l’historiographie et la théologie en rapport contradictoire de double vérité. Nous savons mieux aujourd’hui qu’il n’y a de faits qu’interprétés ; la foi atteint la vérité historique des faits, mais doit renoncer à demander de les établir « scientifiquement » à une historiographie censée « objectivement neutre ». En soutenant que le sens de la Croix relève d’une décision de foi, Bultmann nous rappelle utilement, ainsi que l’a reconnu R. Marlé, qu’on ne peut jamais évacuer le skandalon de la foi.The principal problems that Bultmann presented as regards the historical exegesis of evangelical texts were guided by theological positions and continued, for this reason, to question Catholic theologians, who sometimes put him in the camp of scientism and sometimes in that of dogmatism.Against the liberal theology of the “lives of Jesus”, he raised a double protest : of a christological nature and of a historical nature . Marked in its origins by dogmatic rationalism, historical-critical exegesis works in its turn on theology, obliges it to assume its own historicity and this to escape from its own dogmatic positivism.Allowing faith – and for good reason – to decide the meaning of the Cross, Bultmann seems to separate the fact and the meaning and to put historiography and theology in contradictory rapport of a double truth. We know better today that there are only interpreted facts ; faith attains the historical truth of facts, but must renounce the demand to establish them “scientifically” to a historiography believed to the “objectively neutral”. In holding that the meaning of the Cross depends on a decision of faith, Bultmann helpfully reminds us, as R. Marlé recognized, that one can never escape the skandalon of faith. (shrink)

La réception tardive de l'oeuvre de Ernst Troeltsch en France nous a privés d'une analyse du christianisme originale et féconde. Elle nuance et enrichit ce que nous savons, au travers de la réflexion wébérienne notamment, des relations de la religion chrétienne à la modernité. Contre les interprétations usuelles qui datent l'émergence de cette dernière de la Renaissance et de la Réforme, Troeltsch insiste sur la centralité des Lumières comme marquant la fin de la civilisation ecclésiastique ; c'es l'évanouissement de la (...) référence structurante à l'ordre divin qui inau­gure selon lui l'entrée dans le monde moderne. Sur la base de ce constat, il s'agit pour Troeltsch de trouver une définition du christianisme qui soit en adéquation avec les conditions de l'existence moderne. Dans son ouvrage datant de 1912, « Les doctrines sociales des Églises et groupes chrétiens », il examine les types « Église », « secte » et « mystique » pré­sents depuis les origines évangéliques, circonscrivant trois modes socio­logiques et éthiques qu'il confronte à la modernité. Aucun n'est seul adéquat. Pour durer, le christianisme devra, selon Troeltsch, renoncer à la réalisation d'un programme éthique d'essence religieuse au sein du monde et accepter le cantonnement de la foi dans l'intimité des cons­ciences, tout en s'articulant à des réalités socio-culturelles à l'échelle de tous dont les formes et les transformations internes sont toujours à repenser.The delayed reception of the work of Ernst Troeltsch in France deprived us of an analysis of an original and fertile Christianity. It nuances and enriches what we know, especially through a Weberian reflection, about the relations of the Christian religion and modernity. Against the customary interpretations that date the emergence of the latter from the Renaissance and the Reformation, Troeltsch insists on the centrality of the Enlightenment as marking the end of an ecclesiastical civilization. It is the disappearance of the structuring reference to the divine order that inaugurated, according to him, the entrance to the modern world. On the basis of this observation, Troeltsch is interested in finding a definition of Christianity that would be in harmony with the conditions of modern existence. In his work dating from 1912, "The social doctrines of the Churches and Christian groups ", he examines the categories "Church", "sect", and "mystic" that were present evangelical times, circumscribing three sociological and ethical modes, which he confronts with modernity. No single one is adequate. In order to endure, Christian­ity should, according to Troeltsch, renounce the attempt to set up an ethical program of a religious essence in the heart of the world and accept the establishment of a faith in the intimacy of consciences, all the while adapting its« to socia-cultural realities applicable to everyone, of which the forms and internal transformations are always to be re-thought. (shrink)

L’expression de « théologie pratique » donne une clé de l’interprétation que faisait René Marlé de sa propre pratique de la théologie, telle qu’il l’a mise en œuvre notamment à l’Institut Supérieur de Pastorale Catéchétique de Paris et dans ses inlassables contributions au mouvement catéchétique. C’est aussi un clé de l’unité de sa vie de croyant, de savant et de formateur.Articulée sur une approche herméneutique, confrontée aux rationalités modernes d’un côté, et sur une analyse des pratiques, familière des sciences humaines (...) d’autre part, cette pratique théologique, pleine de pudeur, alliait le souci pédagogique de la formation des esprits et de la transmission du savoir aux recherches les plus aiguës sur les problèmes contemporains de la foi.The expression “practical theology” is a key to the interpretation that René Marlé made of his own practice of theology. He did it, especially, at the Institut Supérieur de Pastorale Catéchétique de Paris and in his untiring contributions to the catechetical movement. It is also a key to the unity of his life as a believer, savant and teacher.On the one hand, his work was articulated with a hermeneutical approach and confronted modern rationalities. On the other hand, he analysed experience and was familiar with the human sciences. This theological work, full of modesty, brought together a pedagogical concern for the formation of minds and, from very careful research, the transmission of knowledge to contemporary problems of faith. (shrink)

Il s’avère nécessaire d’élaborer une théologie fondamentale de la sacramentalité qui implique une réévaluation de notre rapport à la théologie sacramentaire scolastique et invite à la fois à en mesurer les limites et à s’alimenter de ce qu’elle a de meilleur . Parmi les points qui requièrent une vigilance particulière, l’auteur aborde les sacrements en tant qu’actions de l’Église , le lien intime entre Parole et Sacrement . Il évoque également l’anamnèse eucharistique , l’épiclèse sacramentelle et la dimension eschatologique des (...) sacrements.It would appear necessary to set out a fundamental theology of sacramentality that entails re-evaluating our relationship to scholastic sacramentary theology and incites us both to measure its limits and to take nourishment in the best it has to offer . Among the points that require particular attention, the author examines the sacraments as actions of the Church , the intimate relationship between Word and Sacrament . He also takes up the question of Eucharistic anamnesis , sacramental epiclesis and the eschatological dimension of the sacraments. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Évangile et Providence: Une théologie de l’action de Dieu by Emmanuel DurandMichael J. Dodds, O.P.Évangile et Providence: Une théologie de l’action de Dieu. By Emmanuel Durand. Paris: Cerf, 2014. Pp. 345. €35.00 (paper). ISBN: 978-2-204-10201-8.Emmanuel Durand offers a refreshing perspective on the question of divine action, so much discussed in recent years in the dialogue between theology and science. While not neglecting the fruit of that discussion, (...) his framing of the question under the headings of “Gospel” and “Providence” opens a new vista that is evident in his opening question: “What theology of Providence is needed today for the Gospel of salvation?” (7).Although contemporary theology readily affirms the biblical proclamation of God’s universal offer of salvation, its account of God’s salvific action on behalf of each person has become “uncertain and problematic.” Discussions of divine “kenosis, self-limitation, retreat, and powerlessness” have led many to the conviction God’s action must somehow be “limited” (8). The result is the paradox of a limited God attempting to offer universal salvation. The remedy lies in the recovery of a correct understanding of “the sovereignty of God”—the God who acts not only in the “intimacy of human hearts” but also in and through the “happy and unhappy contingencies” of human life (8-9).Durand begins by placing the question of divine action in the context of contemporary theology and culture, considering first the relationship between divine and human action, then the question of God’s action in history, and finally the understanding of divine action that has surfaced in the dialogue between theology and science (chap. 1). His next task is to clarify the notion of “action” itself. This entails an account of analogy (chap. 2). The discussion then turns to the “creative reappropriation” (10) of three classical theologies of divine providence, those of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and John Henry Newman. This involves a careful consideration of the Confessions of Augustine, the Summa contra gentiles of Aquinas, and the sermons of Newman (chaps. 3-5).The flip side of the question of divine action is of course the problem of evil and why a God who is capable of overcoming evil does not do so. Durand proposes not to “resolve” (résoudre) such problems here, but simply to help us “press” (serrer) them (11) as a preparation for listening to what revelation may say of them (chap. 6). The question of evil serves as the background for the discussion of Scripture that follows, where aspects of the books of Wisdom, Luke, and John are considered (chap. 7). Durand concludes with a [End Page 133] constructive proposal for understanding Providence in the world as we find it today, afflicted with evil (chap. 8).Durand begins his book with a discussion of the widespread opinion in contemporary philosophy and theology that divine and human action are somehow opposed to or in competition with each other. He traces this notion to Sartre, arguing that it now seems to pervade our culture despite the efforts of theologians such as Sertillanges to refute it. God’s action in the world is thought to diminish as humanity matures historically. The sovereign God gives place to the suffering God, who can act only through the actions of humans. The contemporary notion of history itself poses problems for divine action. It is difficult to affirm God’s saving and directing action in history, when history itself has lost its direction: “The loss of confidence in the intelligibility of history also jeopardizes the representation of God as sovereign, cause, author, director or guarantor of history” (29). Finally, the ability of science to explain natural events has led some to the conviction that there is simply no room for God to act in the world without interfering with the order of scientific laws. Durand presents a fine summary and critique of the responses to this dilemma that have surfaced in the ongoing dialogue between theologians and scientists, especially under the auspices of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley (31-60).Durand... (shrink)

En conclusion de deux dossiers, et faute de pouvoir traiter le sujet sous tous ses aspects, M. Fédou l'aborde ici sous l'angle suivant : qu'est-ce qui, dans la situation de notre temps, aurait chance de féconder une réflexion de théologie fondamentale et dogmatique sur « le christianisme et les autres religions » ? Ainsi formulé, le questionnement a au moins deux implications. D'une part, malgré la grande diversité des religions et de leurs contextes sociaux, politiques ou culturels, il doit y (...) avoir encore place pour une réflexion théologique qui ne considère pas seulement telle religion en particulier mais l'ensemble des religions. D'autre part, nous avons moins à proposer une « théologie des religions » qu'une réflexion théologique sur « le christianisme et les autres religions » : cette dernière formule suggère que le regard des chrétiens sur les religions ne saurait être indépendant de leur confession de foi ; elle attire en outre l'attention sur les rapports mêmes entre le christianisme et les diverses religions du monde.To sum up two endeavours and, without any claim at dealing with the subject comprehensively, M. Fédou takes it up here from the following angle: given the situation of our times, what might have a good chance of making reflexion about fundamental and dogmatic theology concerning “Christianity and other religions” fruitful? Formulated in this way, this reasoning has at least two implications. On the one hand, in spite of the diversity of religions and their social, political or cultural contexts, there must still be room for a theological reflexion that does not limit itself to considering just one particular religion, but that takes the ensemble of religions into account. On the other hand, it behooves us to propose, not a “theology of religions”, but rather a theological reflexion on “Christianity and other religions”: this latter formulation suggests that the view Christians have of other religions could not be independent of their own confession of faith; it likewise focuses on the relations between Christianity and the various religions of the world. (shrink)

An enlightening discussion that will motivate students to think critically, the book opens with Plantinga's assertion that Christianity is compatible with evolutionary theory because Christians believe that God created the living world, and it is entirely possible that God did so by using a process of evolution.

Paul Tillich noted the emergence of science by “demythologization” from its original unity with religion in antiquity. Demythologization can lead to conflict with accepted paradigms and therefore requires the “courage to create,” as exemplified by Galileo. Tillich's “God above God” as the ground of creativity and courage can, in this new millennium, enable religion to be reconciled with science. Religion is a source of the “courage to create,” which is essential for progress in scientific knowledge. Religion and (...) class='Hi'>science working together as complementary dimensions of the human spirit can lead us into a wider world and greater wisdom. Reconciliation and reunion characterize the New Being and Creation. (shrink)

Cognitive approaches to religious phenomena have attracted considerable interdisciplinary attention since their emergence a couple of decades ago. Proponents offer explanatory accounts of the content and transmission of religious thought and behavior in terms of underlying cognition. A central claim is that the cross‐cultural recurrence and historical persistence of religion is attributable to the cognitive naturalness of religious ideas, i.e., attributable to the readiness, the ease, and the speed with which human minds acquire and process popular religious representations. In this (...) article, we primarily provide an introductory summary of foundational questions, assumptions, and hypotheses in this field, including some discussion of features distinguishing cognitive science approaches to religion from established psychological approaches. Relevant ethnographic and experimental evidence illustrate and substantiate core claims. Finally, we briefly consider the broader implications of these cognitive approaches for the appropriateness of ‘religion’ as an explanatorily useful category in the social sciences. (shrink)

Quel est le type de rationalité que peut revendiquer la théologie dans le champ des savoirs ? Pas seulement d’épistémologie, la question prend aujourd’hui une tournure nettement plus utilitaire : qu’est-ce qui justifie le fait que des institutions prestigieuses comme les universités entretiennent encore à grand frais des Facultés dont l’objet même est devenu culturellement marginal ? Craintes illusoires ? Les gestionnaires des universités d’inspiration chrétienne, comme il en existe dans mon pays, vous diront qu’elles ne sont pas dépourvues de (...) fondement. Les urgences en termes humains : là est l’enjeu. Nos sociétés se trouvent face à des défis inédits. La prise de conscience la plus récente est la catastrophe écologique qui nous menace. Et l’écologie n’est pas le seul défi. Nous vivons dans un monde d’inégalités terrifiantes, où sévissent de nombreux espaces de famine, où la violence semble incontrôlable, où les idéologies religieuses qu’on croyait mortes exercent encore des ravages. L’enjeu, ce n’est donc pas la survie d’institutions vénérables, ni même la qualification culturelle de notre digne corporation, mais l’avenir de la planète et de cette espèce de vivants très particulière, les humains. A moins d’être inconscient, le théologien qui essaie de faire son métier dans ce contexte ne peut que s’interroger sur la pertinence de son travail et sur la responsabilité qui est la sienne.What kind of rationality can theology claim in the field of knowledge? No longer solely epistemological, this question today takes on a decidedly more utilitarian turn: what might justify the fact that prestigious institutions such as universities still maintain at great cost departments the only object of which has become culturally marginal? Illusory fears? The administrators of universities of Christian inspiration, as we have in my country, will tell you that these questions are well founded. What is paramount is the urgency of the issues human being must face. Our societies have to cope with previously unheard of challenges, the most recent of which is the realization that we are facing the threat of an ecological catastrophe, and this is not the only one. We live in a world of terrifying inequalities, where many areas are plagued by famine, violence appears uncontrollable, and religious ideologies we thought long past still wreak havoc. What is at stake is thus not the survival of venerable institutions, nor even the cultural qualification of our worthy community of scholars, but the future of the planet and of this very particular species – human beings. Unless they insist on being oblivious to the situation, theologians trying to do their job in this context cannot help but question what the pertinence of their work might be and what their responsibility is. (shrink)

Le thème de la nature revient dans la pensée contemporaine sous le signe de la menace. C’est parce que la nature est en péril que l’intérêt se porte à nouveau sur elle. Le souci d’éviter une possible catastrophe écologique doit-il nous faire revenir à une « théologie naturelle » où chaque composante du monde serait invitée à occuper son « lieu » sous la conduite du « Moteur immobile » ? Dans le monde catholique en particulier, cette nostalgie n’est pas (...) rare. Mais si l’on tient à un certain « anthropocentrisme chrétien », tout en restant conscient des risques qu’il comporte, comment redonner à la nature un statut théologique ? C’est ici le propos du présent article.Il commence par reprendre la composante anthropologique de l’héritage chrétien qui contraste avec le cosmocentrisme de la pensée antique. Il s’interroge ensuite sur la nouvelle vision de la nature. L’approche globale s’accompagne d’une perspective évolutive que l’on peut qualifier d’« historique », qui invite à s’interroger sur l’avenir du monde, plus ouvert et donc plus risqué, que dans les visions anciennes. Dans cette « dramatique » de l’histoire naturelle, la théologie peut apporter sa contribution.The subject of nature has come back into contemporary thought under a threatening cloud. It is because nature is endangered that so much interest is being taken in it. Should the concern with avoiding a potential ecological catastrophe make us come back to a “natural theology” in which every component of the world would be requested to occupy its “place” under the guidance of the “Immobile Mover”? This nostalgia is far from rare, especially in the Catholic world. However, if we prize a certain “Christian anthropocentrism,” while remaining quite aware of the risks it involves, how can we give a theological status back to nature? This is the subject of the present article.We thus begin by taking up the anthropological aspect of Christian heritage that stands in contrast to the cosmocentrism of Ancient thought, and then examine this new vision of nature. This global approach is accompanied by a progressive perspective that can be qualified as “historical” and that incites us to investigate the future of the world, which is thus more open and more hazardous than in the worldview of Antiquity. Within the framework of this “drama” of natural history, theology has a contribution to make. (shrink)

Amsterdam University Press is a leading publisher of academic books, journals and textbooks in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Our aim is to make current research available to scholars, students, innovators, and the general public. AUP stands for scholarly excellence, global presence, and engagement with the international academic community.

In its first section, dedicated to the topic science and relativism, the article argues against those who hold that science is absolutist while ethics is relativist. The point made is that the two disciplines are not all that different. There is an element of objectivity and an element of relativity in both. The article insists that there are two plausible ways in which these elements may be appreciated in both disciplines. The first way involves an analysis of precedents; (...) the second way an analysis of secondary precepts. Then, in its second section, dedicated to science and utilitarianism, the article focuses on the problem of abstraction. The author argues that the crucial issue is the way both scientists and utilitarian philosophers choose the relevant parameters for their theorising. When the choice of parameters is not correct, deformation results. Like economics, utilitarianism tends to present itself as an exact science that guarantees a complete explanation. However, the article shows how and why this attitude can be deeply problematic. (shrink)

Science policy mandates across the industrialized world insinuate more active roles for publics, their earlier participation in policy decisions, and expanded notions of science and technology governance. In response to these policies, engaged scholars in science studies have sought to design and conduct exercises aimed at better attuning science to its public contexts. As demand increases for innovative and potentially democratic forms of public engagement with science and technology, so also do the prospects for insights (...) from science studies to contribute to policy agendas and institutional capabilities. This collection brings together an international set of scholars in science, technology and society who inquire into the meaning, efficacy and responsibility of engaged science studies scholarship as a public matter. (shrink)

This is the outline: Introduction : le praticien d’une science-philosophie; Épiphénoménisme retourné et subjectivité délocalisée; Dieu est-il jamais inféré par la science ?; La question du panthéisme; Le pilotage axiologique et la parabole mécaniste; L'unité domaniale comme ce qui reste en dehors de la science.

Friedrich Schleiermacher suggested that his project was to make Christianity compatible with reason and with the natural sciences. This article argues that Schleiermacher re- jected Christian doctrine und developed a religion which he called ‘Christian’ but which does not contain the Chris- tian doctrine and which is not rational. The article sketches Schleiermachers rejection of Christian doctrine, examines his claim that the natural sciences exclude miracles, criti- cises Schleiermachers non-cognitivism, and sketches the role of doctrine in Christianity.

This paper addresses the conception of theology developed by Giles of Rome from the Reportatio of his lecture on the second book of the Sentences to his fifth Quodlibet. It demonstrates that, from the beginning of his career, Giles discredited the power of philosophical reason in the realm of theology, a discipline which he conceived as a defensive, rhetorical and exegetical practice. Henry of Ghent was the principal adversary attacked by Giles, who challenged the scientific legitimacy of theology which Henry, (...) after Thomas Aquinas, had established as the highest speculative discipline. In the conclusion, the paper highlights strong similarities between Giles’ theological epistemology and Godfrey of Fontaines’ conception and practices of university sciences. (shrink)

Werner Heisenberg zahlt zu den bedeutendsten Physikern des 20. Jahrhunderts. Internationale Anerkennung und Beruhmtheit erlangte er durch die Formulierung der Unscharferelation. Allerdings liess ihn sein reges Interesse fur die Philosophie seine naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse immer wieder hinterfragen. In seinen Essays, Reden und wissenschaftlichen Abhandlungen trifft man deshalb haufig auf philosophische und theologische Aspekte. Ein Themenkreis, der ihn immer wieder beschaftigte, war der Dialog zwischen Naturwissenschaft und Theologie. Heisenbergs Bedeutung zur Forderung dieses Dialoges ist grosser als es auf den ersten Blick (...) erscheint und der zentrale Gegenstand dieser Arbeit.". (shrink)

This book offers an engaging and comprehensive introduction to scientific theories, and the evolution of science and mathematics through the centuries. It discusses the history of scientific thought and ideas and the intricate dynamic between new scientific discoveries, scientists, culture, and societies. Through stories and historical accounts, the volume illustrates the human engagement and preoccupation with science and the interpretation of natural phenomena. It highlights key scientific breakthroughs from the ancient to later ages, giving us accounts of the (...) work of ancient Greek and Indian mathematicians and astronomers as well as of the work of modern scientists like Descartes, Newton, Planck, Mendel and many more. The author also discusses the vast advancements which have been made in the exploration of space, matter, and genetics and their relevance in the advancement of the scientific tradition. He provides great insights into the process of scientific experimentation and the relationship between science and mathematics. He also shares amusing anecdotes of scientists and their interactions with the world around them. Detailed and accessible, this book will be of great interest to students and researchers of science, mathematics, the philosophy of science, science and technology studies, and history. It will also be useful for general readers who are interested in the history of scientific discoveries and ideas. (shrink)