Biological evolution and cultural evolution are distinct evolutionary processes; they are apparent also in human language, where both processes contributed in shaping its evolution. However, the nature of the interaction between these two processes is still debated today. It is often claimed that the emergence of modern language was preceded by the evolution of a language-ready brain: the latter is usually intended as a product of biological evolution, while the former is believed to be the consequence of cultural processes. I (...) label this account separationist, and I argue that current evidence coming from the archaeological and fossil record suggests that cultural evolution has played a pivotal role in shaping not only modern language but also the language-ready brain. I label the latter the integrative perspective. I analyze the two accounts from two different conceptual frameworks, the Standard Evolutionary Theory and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, and I discuss the limits of the sharp proximate–ultimate distinction in this specific case study arguing in favor of a causal feedback model. I extend the argument to the debate on gradual and punctuational evolutionary rates, suggesting that the debate on patterns in language evolution should leave room for discussion of the nature of the processes involved in producing those patterns, providing reasons in favor of the eco-evolutionary feedback dynamics underlying the integrative perspective. (shrink)

In this brief reply to Stephen Davis, I argue that Davis’s separationist position, wherein those who remain eternally apart from God do so by choice, is internally contradictory in that it leads to universalism.

Recently, in this journal, Jeremy Gwiazda has offered a critique of our separationist view of hell. His objection relies on two key assumptions, and we show in our reply that both assumptions can be denied.

Political philosophy has difficulties to cope with the complexity and variety of state-religions relations. ‘Strict separationism’ is still the preferred option amongst liberals, deliberative and republican democrats, socialist and feminists. In this article, I develop a complex typology based on comparative history and sociology of religions. I summarize my reasons why institutional pluralist models like plural establishment or non-constitutional pluralism are attractive not only for religious minorities but for religiously deeply diverse societies in general. Most attention is paid defending (...) associative democracy, the most flexible and open variety of institutional pluralism, against realist objections that group representation is incompatible with liberal democracy, that it leads to stigmatization and bureaucratization, that it strengthens undemocratic leaders, that it leads to an ossification of the status quo, and, most importantly, that it is inherently divisive undermining social cohesion and political unity. In my refutation of these objections I try to show that it helps to integrate minority religions into liberal democratic policies compatible with reasonable pluralism and to prevent religious and political fundamentalism. (shrink)

Political philosophy has difficulties to cope with the complexity and variety of state-religions relations. ‘Strict separationism’ is still the preferred option amongst liberals, deliberative and republican democrats, socialist and feminists. In this article, I develop a complex typology based on comparative history and sociology of religions. I summarize my reasons why institutional pluralist models like plural establishment or non-constitutional pluralism are attractive not only for religious minorities but for religiously deeply diverse societies in general. Most attention is paid defending (...) associative democracy, the most flexible and open variety of institutional pluralism, against realist objections that group representation is incompatible with liberal democracy, that it leads to stigmatization and bureaucratization, that it strengthens undemocratic leaders, that it leads to an ossification of the status quo, and, most importantly, that it is inherently divisive undermining social cohesion and political unity. In my refutation of these objections I try to show that it helps to integrate minority religions into liberal democratic policies compatible with reasonable pluralism and to prevent religious and political fundamentalism. (shrink)

This article defends the principle of non-establishment against 21st-century projects of political religion, constitutional theocracy and political theology. It is divided into two parts, which will appear in two consecutive issues of Philosophy & Social Criticism, 39(4–5) and 39(6). Part 1 proceeds by constructing an ideal type of political secularism, and then discussing the innovative American model of constitutional dualism regarding religion that combined constitutional protection for the freedom of religious conscience and exercise with the principle of non-establishment. The article (...) analyses the strengths and limits of the ‘separation– accommodation’ frame that became hegemonic in 1st amendment jurisprudence from the 1940s to the 1990s. It challenges the standard caricature of the American model as strictly separationist and privatizing. It then critically assesses two contemporary alternatives to that frame: the integrationist approach and the equal liberty approach. The first, disguised as a concern for pluralism and fairness, challenges ‘separation’ and political secularism in a subtle attack on the non-establishment principle, aimed at drastically narrowing its scope. Successes of this approach in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence and politics have triggered a response by liberal egalitarians. The author addresses this response – the equal liberty model – in part 2, which will appear in Philosophy & Social Criticism 39(6), arguing that although on the right track, it fails to find a middle ground between political secularism and integration. (shrink)

This paper addresses whether the often-bemoaned loss of unity of knowledge about humans, which results from the disciplinary fragmentation of science, is something to be overcome. The fragmentation of being human rests on a couple of distinctions, such as the nature-culture divide. Since antiquity the distinction between nature (roughly, what we inherit biologically) and culture (roughly, what is acquired by social interaction) has been a commonplace in science and society. Recently, the nature/culture divide has come under attack in various ways, (...) in philosophy as well as in cultural anthropology. Regarding the latter, for instance, the divide was quintessential in its beginnings as an academic dis-cipline, when Alfred L. Kroeber, one of the first professional anthropologists in the US, rallied for (what I call) the right to ignore—in his case, human nature—by adopting a separationist epistemic stance. A separationist stance will be understood as an epistemic research heuristic that defends the right to ignore a specif-ic phenomenon (e.g., human nature) or a specific causal factor in an explanation typical for a disciplinary field. I will use Kroeber’s case as an example for making a general point against a bias towards integration (synthesis bias, as I call it) that is exemplified, for instance, by defenders of evolutionary psychology. I will claim that, in principle, a separationist stance is as good as an integrationist stance since both can be equally fruitful. With this argument from fruitful sepa-ration in place, not just the separationist stance but also the nature/culture di-vide can be defended against its critics. (shrink)

In this article I compare Ryle's notion of a thick description with Williams' notion of a thick concept so as to illuminate our understanding of both. In doing so I suggest lines of thought that show us that the notion of 'evaluation' in play in many people's writings should be broadened. Doing so will help to lessen the credibility of separationist notions of thick concepts.

Recently, Eric Yang and Stephen Davis have defended what they call the separationist view of hell against an objection leveled by Jeremy Gwiazda by invoking the concept of hard-heartedness as an account of why some would eternally choose to remain in hell. Gwiazda’s objection to the separationist view of hell is an instance of a broader strategy of objection invoked by other universalists to argue that God could guarantee universal salvation while respecting libertarian freedom—an objection that Kronen and I have (...) dubbed the Infinite Opportunity Argument. Yang’s and Davis’s reply to Gwiazda thus amounts to a response to the Infinite Opportunity Argument, and the merits of their reply bear on the feasibility of the freedom-respecting version of universalism that the argument supports. I argue that the kind of hard-heartedness that must be posited in order to derail the Infinite Opportunity Argument—the kind of absolute hard-heartedness that Yang and Davis explicitly invoke—suffers significant problems that prevent it from posing a serious challenge to freedom-respecting universalism. (shrink)

Thomas Crisp has attempted to revive something akin to Alvin Plantinga’s Principle of Dwindling Probabilities to argue that the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus does not make the posterior probability of the resurrection very high. I argue that Crisp’s argument fails because he is attempting to evaluate a concrete argument in an a priori manner. I show that the same moves he uses would be absurd in other contexts, as applied both to our acquaintance with human beings and (...) to evidence for divine intervention. Crisp’s attempt to relate the evidence for a specific act of God such as the resurrection to generic theism, thereby creating skepticism about the power of the evidence, is symptomatic of a larger problem in the philosophy of religion which I dub “separationism” and which has characterized the work of both advocates of classical apologetics and philosophers of science. (shrink)

The article deals with the relationship between theological ethics and moral philosophy. The former is seen as a theoretical reflection on Christian ethics, the latter as one on secular ethics. The main questions asked are: Is there one and only one pre-theoretical knowledge about acting rightly? Does philosophy provide us with the theoretical framework for understanding both Christian and secular ethics? Both questions are answered in the negative. In the course of argument, four positions are presented: theological unificationism, philosophical unificationism, (...) theological separationism and Lutheran dualism. It is argued that the latter position is most convincing. It is dual in the sense of being both a theory of Christian ethics and of including a recognition of natural law. Hence, it unites a particularistic and a universalistic point of view. In the last section a reformulation of the Lutheran position is attempted in making use of the ethical theory of Knud E. Løgstrup''s The Ethical Demand. (shrink)

This article defends the principle of non-establishment against 21st-century projects of political religion, constitutional theocracy and political theology. It is divided into two parts. The first part, published in special issue 39.4–5 of Philosophy and Social Criticism, proceeds by constructing an ideal type of political secularism, and then discussing the innovative American model of constitutional dualism regarding religion that combined constitutional protection for the freedom of religious conscience and exercise with the principle of non-establishment. It then critically assesses the integrationist (...) approach –disguised as a concern for pluralism and fairness – as an alternative to this framework. The integrationist approach challenges ‘separation’ and political secularism in a subtle attack on the non-establishment principle, aimed at drastically narrowing its scope. Successes of this approach in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence and politics, have triggered a response by liberal egalitarians. I address this response – the equal liberty model – in this second part, arguing that although on the right track, it fails to find a middle ground between political secularism and integration. Instead, by abandoning the discourse of separation, it plays into populist integrationist hands without delivering on the promise of providing a coherent standard for deciding cases. The article proposes a third approach, one that does not throw out the non-establishment baby with the strict separationist bathwater and that wholeheartedly endorses political secularism, a sine qua non for 21st-century constitutional democracy. Equal liberty properly construed can help provide criteria for determining when an accommodation, a regulation or no regulation of religion by the state is appropriate. But it must be supplemented by other values – democratic and civil republican. The article concludes with a typology of the forms of regulation that are warranted under the conditions of the contemporary regulatory state, now the target and prize of politicized religion. (shrink)

There is a view that the U.S. Supreme Court has acted as a “republican schoolmaster,” defining and educating the public on the permissible interaction between government and religion. The Court gave government, especially state governments, considerable latitude until incorporation of the religion clauses in the 1940s. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court articulated a rigid conception of church and state which set precedents for decades. Those precedents restricted accommodation to religion by government, based on an incomplete reading (...) of the Founding debates on religion. It has been gradually corrected since Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985). The implications of the separationist interpretation have had consequences that remain. The most obvious being forestalling experimentation with school choice for non-public school students and precluding the use of public facilities for religious groups until a series of corrective rulings beginning, for the most part, in the 1990s. The republican schoolmaster is now accountable for the intellectual lineage it uses. (shrink)

Persisting discussion, in both the academy and the wider public, about how democracy properly relates to religion is confused. All agree that religious freedom is required, but each of its two principal interpretations, separationist and religionist, commends itself by disclosing the other’s problems. Debate between the two is a standoff because both commonly assume that religions, in the sense protected by religious freedom, are or must be treated politically as immune to argumentative assessment. A third alternative is here proposed: religious (...) freedom presupposes that religions or comprehensive assessments answer a rationalquestion, and democracy is constituted as a full and free political discourse among them in order that governing decisions might be consistent with a validunderstanding of the common good. (shrink)

Persisting discussion, in both the academy and the wider public, about how democracy properly relates to religion is confused. All agree that religious freedom is required, but each of its two principal interpretations, separationist and religionist, commends itself by disclosing the other’s problems. Debate between the two is a standoff because both commonly assume that religions, in the sense protected by religious freedom, are or must be treated politically as immune to argumentative assessment. A third alternative is here proposed: religious (...) freedom presupposes that religions or comprehensive assessments answer a rationalquestion, and democracy is constituted as a full and free political discourse among them in order that governing decisions might be consistent with a validunderstanding of the common good. (shrink)

Persisting discussion, in both the academy and the wider public, about how democracy properly relates to religion is confused. All agree that religious freedom is required, but each of its two principal interpretations, separationist and religionist, commends itself by disclosing the other’s problems. Debate between the two is a standoff because both commonly assume that religions, in the sense protected by religious freedom, are or must be treated politically as immune to argumentative assessment. A third alternative is here proposed: religious (...) freedom presupposes that religions or comprehensive assessments answer a rational question, and democracy is constituted as a full and free political discourse among them in order that governing decisions might be consistent with a valid understanding of the common good. (shrink)

On the assumption that Christian theism grounds all valid moral prescriptions in a divine purpose, Christian ethics is fundamentally challenged by the widespread consensus in contemporary democratic theory that justice should be separated from any comprehensive good. This essay responds to that challenge through a criticism of separationist theories of justice and a summary argument for democratic principles that depend on the divine good. Democratic justice is compound in character or includes a difference between formative principles, by which a political (...) discourse about the good is constituted, and substantive principles, which should be convincing within the democratic discussion and debate. I argue programmatically that a theory of justice as general emancipation is compound and specifies Christian ethics to politics. (shrink)

This was one of SCSS president and Franciscan University of Steubenville professor Stephen M. Krason’s “Neither Left Nor Right, but Catholic” columns that appeared initially in Crisismagazine.com on February 3, 2013. It discusses the ongoing assault by secularist groups to cleanse American public life of any vestiges of religion. This radical separationism, which had its roots in the post-Civil War period and essentially was embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court in its long line of establishment clause decisions, is completely (...) contrary to the thinking of the Founding Fathers and the predominant culture of earlier America. Krason calls for a renewed effort, at different levels, to reclaim America’s historically religious and Christian culture. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe common way of speaking of patristic thought is as theology. Disuse of the appellation ‘patristic philosophy’ is the result of separationist taxonomies in both philosophy and theology. Returning to the meanings of the terms theologia and philosophia in ancient and late ancient thought, this paper argues, with an eye toward Orthodox thought, for the reasonableness of speaking of patristic thought as philosophy.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Good and Bad Ways to Think about Religion and Politics by Robert Benne, and: The Way of Peace: Christian Life in the Face of Discord by James M. Childs Jr.Bruce P. RittenhouseGood and Bad Ways to Think about Religion and Politics Robert Benne Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. 127 pp. $14.00The Way of Peace: Christian Life in the Face of Discord James M. Childs Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, (...) 2008. 149 pp. $19.00A comparison of Robert Benne’s Good and Bad Ways to Think about Religion and Politics and James Childs’s The Way of Peace illustrates the current divisions in political theology in the US Lutheran tradition. Benne’s book is a polemic aimed at the leadership of the mainline Protestant denominations and their mode of engagement with the American political process. In Benne’s account, these denominations draw too direct and exclusive a line between Christian faith and liberal political commitments; conversely, he sees greater agreement between core Christian norms and conservative political concerns. By contrast, Childs’s book provides an exegetical development of Christian norms of peace and peacemaking, followed by direct applications of Christian norms to public issues of economic justice and war that parallel the positions of secular liberals.Benne seeks to explore anew the issue of how Christians should interact with the political process. Unlike H. Richard Niebuhr, who undertook a similar project in Christ and Culture, Benne engages contemporary secular interpretations and critiques of religious engagement in politics. Benne rejects the strict separationist positions of the new atheists such as Richard Dawkins and the fusionist positions he attributes to Paul Tillich and the leadership of the contemporary mainline denominations in favor of a critical engagement model based on the Lutheran two kingdoms doctrine. Benne’s passion is not matched by the strength of his arguments. There is a straw man quality to his characterization of his antagonists. For example, Benne describes Tillich as seeing no difference between the demands of the Christian faith and democratic socialism. But Tillich explicitly recognizes the limitations of democratic [End Page 195] socialism in expressing Christian ideals and makes clear that his preference for this form of government is conditioned on a historical situation in which the alternatives are laissez-faire capitalism, fascism, and communism. Benne displays epistemological hubris when he questions mainstream scientific judgments. For example, he mocks the “alleged global warming consensus” (35) without offering any evidence that he possesses the necessary evidence or expertise to judge that consensus. He adds questionable historical claims, exaggerating Nazi persecution of Christians and minimizing the religious motivation of the European wars following the Reformation.Childs’s treatment of the question of how Christians are to engage in the US political process is even more problematic than Benne’s. His political prescriptions are written as if the problem did not exist, as if there existed a unified Christian polity fully faithful to its ideals that could express those ideals directly in the nation’s public policies. In this, there is a lack of the moral realism that Lutherans traditionally express through the doctrine that Christians are simul justus et peccator (at the same time justified and sinner). It is telling that the only sins that Childs acknowledges in the church are those that correspond to secular liberal norms: “racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of discrimination” (110). Childs’s representations of the church as holy, a community of peacemakers, and a sign of peace are normative not descriptive, effacing the traditional Lutheran distinction between the visible and invisible church. Childs also demonstrates a lack of political realism with respect to the influence of Christians in the American political process. In proposing that public policy be directed by Christian ideals, Childs either presupposes a significant conversion of our pluralistic society or he imagines that those not presently acting in the political process according to Christian moral principles can be persuaded to selflessness without conversion. The former position is not an empirical reality, and the latter contradicts the traditional Lutheran understanding of original sin, which holds that in the absence of faith human beings are curvatus in se, curved in upon themselves.Benne makes a... (shrink)

Michael Walzer’s essay titled Secularism in US State and Society defends the American secular state. Walzer argues that the United States’ version of secularism is exemplary. The essay is divided into three parts, in which he describes a key element of separationist politics. The first is the law that no state can include any religious purpose within its programs (essentially the “wall” between church and state). The second element outlines that any civil religion sponsored by the state should remain civil, (...) and the third highlights the importance of religious tolerance, which is ingrained in the separation of church and state. Through these three points, Walzer proposes that American separationism is successful, and could be called “liberal separationism”. (shrink)

It is still a popular philosophical position to call for a strict “separationism” concerning the private and the public sphere when it comes to religious convictions. Richard Rorty is one prominent supporter of this claim. The traditional critique against this division is mostly built on a particular characterization of religion that is at odds with Rortian assumptions. In this article, however, Rorty is criticized on his own terms turning pragmatically the objection to a fully internal one. What Rorty values (...) most, namely a tolerant and ironic liberalism as the capacity to describe oneself in new and interesting ways is precisely the role, I argue, that religious faith could play under “neo-liberal” conditions. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 187 Later Medieval Philosophy (1150-1350): An Introduction. By JOHN MARENBON. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987. Pp. xi, 230. $35.00. Later Medieval Philosophy (LMP), the sequel to John Marenbon's 1983 Early Medieval Philosophy 480-1150 (EMP), aims to be not a historical account of later medieval philosophy but an " introduction... intended... to help " the reader " begin his own study of the subject (...) " (p. 1). To this end "Part One examines the organization of studies in medieval universities, the forms of writing and techniques of thought, the presuppositions and aims of thirteenth- and fourteenthcntury scholars. Part Two examines in detail the way in which some important later medieval thinkers discussed a difficult and central question : the nature of intellectual knowledge" (p. 1). Marenbon justifies his two-fold approach in the "Conclusion to Part One: What is Medieval Philosophy? " (pp. 83-90). Surveying three current approaches to medieval philosophy, Marenbon notes (1) a ' separationism ' between philosophy and theology provoked by ' rationalists ' like V. Cousin and B. Haureau and preserved in Catholic philosophical circles by such exponents as Fernand von Steenberghen; (2) a view that agrees " that it is right to consider the history of medieval philosophy as a separate subject from the history of medieval theology; but it is a philosophy which, nonetheless, depends on Christian revelation and cannot be understood in abstraction from certain funda· mental tenets of the faith," viz. that of Etienne Gilson who maintains the existence of a 'Christian philosophy'; and (3) the 'modern analytic approach' advocated by Norman Kretzmann and others in the Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy ("to end the era in which it has been studied in a philosophical ghetto"). The third ap· proach de-emphasizes " the theological context " of " the particular philosophical arguments they isolate " and " the origin and literary form of texts " (p. 87) to " concentrate on the philosophical problems which they believe they share with medieval scholars " and " to translate medieval texts so far as possible into modern terms..." (pp. 8687 ). The arguments for these three approaches, however, are "based, not on historical evidence about medieval attitudes to philosophy, hut on different conceptions of what philosophy should he" (p. 88). These hermeneutical presuppositions affect the selection and arrangement of evidence by the various sorts of historian. Marenhon offers a fourth approach: ' historical analysis ', which " aims both to bridge the distance between the interests and assumptions of a modern reader and 188 BOOK REVIEWS the writings of later medieval thinkers, and yet to take account of it " (p. 89). Two restrictions are involved; historical analysts must not make " anachronistic assumptions about the identity of the problems discussed in their texts" (p. 89) and must restrict the scope of their investigations " to a single topic (or a set of individual topics) " rather than" writing... comprehensive Histories" (p. 90). Marenhon seems to recognize that there may he " patronizing " ways to take account of the difference between " medieval scholars " and " ourselves " hut such " limitations " are inescapable " conditions of disciplined thought " (p. 191). Fortunately Marenhon has moved away from the parochial assumption governing his Early Medieval Philosophy "that any thinker who appeared to share the methods and interests of ·modern British philosophers was a philosopher, and that all other thinkers were theologians, mystics, poets, scientists or whatever, hut not philosophers." He now holds "that there is no single, identifiable subject-' philosophy'which has been studied from Plato's time to the present day" (EMP, 1988 rev. ed., p. vii). Thus, Marenhon does not explicitly entertain the grand thesis that all or the most important forms of medieval philosophy are actually superior to all or the most important kinds of modern philosophy to justify the importance of studying medieval philosophy today (cf. Leo Strauss, Philosophie und Gesetz). Instead Marenhon, noting that " philosophia has a wide range of reference " (LMP, p. 66) and tacitly assuming that philosophy is an important activity, focuses on the problem of intellectual knowledge. The selection of exactly this problem, however, is not incompatible with the view that the epistemological turn characteristic of modern philosophy is still taken as normative. Accordingly, Marenhon provokes in us such questions as, Is philosophy today as good as philosophy in the hands... (shrink)

Thick Evaluation, by KirchinSimon. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Pp. xi + 198.

This paper looks at the state of research on churchstate relations in post-communist Romania in order to provide an outline of the most important questions which need to be addressed in the coming years. The article consists of two parts. First, a survey of academic studies published over the past two decades on the relationship between the country’s churches and state after 1990. Secondly, a breakdown of pressing churchstate issues today, accompanied by short discussions of existing studies and suggestions as (...) to what future research should probe into. (shrink)