Advertisement

Eutonia: The Cross (In)Between Science and Theology

  • Carmelo SantosEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Issues in Science and Religion: Publications of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology book series (ESSSAT)

Abstract

Antje Jackelén has proposed the concept of eutonia as an analogy for understanding a constructive relationship between science and theology. By eutonia she means a kind of helpful tension that should exist in the dialogue between scientists and theologians around issues of religious concern. Such tension could help avoid the coercion of one discipline by the other and create an epistemic space where each discipline can contribute to the other. This chapter examines Jackelen’s proposal and explores how eutonia could open up a similar fruitful dialogical space between the cognitive science of religion (CSR) and theology. CSR offers theology a powerful tool to examine the possible constraints and cognitive compulsions in its attempt to fathom the mystery of God. Theology in turn can offer CSR a reminder of the limits of its gaze and an invitation to the transcendent depths of reality. The ultimate goal is a deeper and richer understanding of what it means to be human and how religion and science can work together to find ways to bring healing to the world and transform it in wholesome ways.

Keywords

Eutonia Healthy tension Religion and Science dialogue Cognitive science of religion Theology Science Critical engagement Blind-spots Limits of knowledge Surplus of reality 

References

  1. Barbour, Ian. 1997. Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, Justin. 2001. How ordinary cognition informs petitionary prayer. Journal of Cognition and Culture 1(3): 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett, Justin. 2004. Why would anyone believe in god? Walnut Creek: AltaMira.Google Scholar
  4. Barrett, Justin. 2011. Cognitive science, religion and theology: From human minds to divine minds. Conshohocken: Templeton Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boyer, Pascal. 1994. The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cho, Francisca, and Richard K. Squier. 2008. He blinded me with science: Science Chauvinism in the study of religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76(2): 420–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam. 1959. “Review of B. F. Skinner”. Verbal behavior. Language 35: 26–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliade, Mircea. 1961. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Trans. Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
  9. Fox, Maggie. 2010. U.S. apologizes for syphilis experiment in Guatemala. Reuters, October 1 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/01/us-usa-guatemala-experiment-idUSTRE6903RZ20101001. Accessed on April 2015.
  10. Gazzaniga, Michael, Richard B. Ivry, and George R. Magnun. 2013. Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of mind, 4th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  11. Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Jackelén, Antje. 2001. From Drama to Disco: On the significance of relationality in science and religion. Philip Hefner: Created Co-Creator. Currents in Theology and Mission 28, nos. 3/4 (June–August): 229–237.Google Scholar
  13. Jackelén, Antje. 2004. The dialogue between science and religion: Challenges and future directions. Proceedings of the third annual Goshen conference on religion and science. Kitchener: Pandora Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jackelén, Antje. 2005. Time & Eternity: The Question of Time in Church, Science, and Theology. Trans. Barbara Harshaw. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  15. Jeeves, Malcom, and Warren S. Brown. 2009. Neuroscience, psychology and religion: Illusions, delusions, and realities about human nature. Conshohocken: Templeton Press.Google Scholar
  16. Keller, Catherine. 2014. Cloud of the impossible: Negative theology and planetary entanglement. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawson, E.T., and R.N. McCauley. 2002. The cognitive representation of religious ritual form: A theory of participants’ competence with religious ritual systems. In Current approaches in the cognitive science of religion, ed. Ilkka Pyysiäinen and Veikko Anttonen, 153–176. Landon/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Maduro, Otto. 2012. An(Other) invitation to epistemological humility: Notes toward a self-critical approach to counter-knowledges. In Decolonizing epistemologies: Latina/o theology and philosophy, 87–106. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Marion, Jean Luc. 2008. The visible and the revealed. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Murphy, Nancey. 2006. Bodies and souls, or spirited bodies? Current issues in theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen, Marie Vejrup. 2010. Knowing through narratives? Narrative understanding and the separation between the narrative and the non-narrative. In How do we know? Understanding in science and theology, ed. Dirk Evers, Antje Jackelén, and Taede A. Smedes, 173–186. London/New York: T&T Clark International.Google Scholar
  22. Norenzayan, Ara. 2013. Big gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Otto, Rudolf. 1926. The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-Rational Factor in the Idea of the Holy. Trans. John W. Harvey. London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Pyysiainen, Ilkka. 2003. How religion works: Toward a new cognitive science of religion. Leiden: Brill Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Pyysiäinen, Ilkka. 2015. Theism reconsidered: Belief in god and the existence of god. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 50, no 1(March): 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ricoeur, Paul. 1976. Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rivera, Mayra. 2007. The touch of transcendence: A postcolonial theology of god. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
  28. Santos, Carmelo. 2010. Symptoms of God’s spirit? A dialog between pneumatology and the cognitive sciences of religion. Ph.D. dissertation. Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago.Google Scholar
  29. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1893. On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Trans. with introduction by John Oman. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2006 [1999]. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Ninth impression. London/New York: Zed Books Ltd and Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Solberg, Mary M. 1997. Compelling knowledge: A feminist proposal for an epistemology of the cross. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  32. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1988. Can the subaltern speak? In Marxism and the interpretation of culture, ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–313. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stainton, Robert J. (ed.). 2006. Contemporary debates in cognitive science. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Teske, J.A. 2010. ‘Let me tell you a story’: Narrative and meaning in science and religion. In How do we know? Understanding in science and theology, ed. Dirk Evers, Antje Jackelén, and Taede A. Smedes, 187–199. London/New York: T&T Clark International.Google Scholar
  35. Thagard, Paul. 2005. Mind: Introduction to cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tillich, Paul. 1957. Dynamics of faith. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  37. Trelstad, Marit (ed.). 2006. Cross examinations: Readings on the meaning of the cross today. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  38. van Huyssteen, Wentzel. 1998. Duet or duel: Theology and science in a postmodern world. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  39. Van Slyke, James A. 2011. The cognitive science of religion. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  40. Westhelle, Vítor. 1995. Scientific sight and embodied knowledges: Social circumstances in science and theology. Modern Theology 11(3): 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Westhelle, Vítor. 2006. The scandalous god: The use and abuse of the cross. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  42. Xygalatas, Dimitris. 2014. Cognitive science of religion. In Encyclopedia of psychology and religion, 2nd ed, ed. David A. Leeming, 343–347. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Theology DepartmentGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations