Lluis Oviedo

Natural disasters present a significant challenge to engaged theology, particularly following the decline of traditional explanations that relied on the model of divine punishment. The ongoing occurrence of such catastrophes has become a scandal and is frequently used as a critique of divine providence and goodness. In response, theology has moved beyond earlier models to develop more nuanced answers, drawing on alternative frameworks that offer greater flexibility and depth, after considering merits and flaws of available theodicies. This article reviews contemporary theological approaches to the problem of natural disasters and explores new opportunities provided by research on the function of religion, religious coping mechanisms, and the processes of belief.

Evolutionary studies have provided several explanations about how pain and suffering can be fitted into that framework, which tries to make sense of every biological and human feature in terms of evolution, survival, and fitness. These explanations point usually to how such apparently negative aspects become useful and contribute to an evolution that after all has delivered good outcomes. Such an approach might eventually render the theodicy question less sharp and critical for believers who are trying to cope with the scandal of so great suffering in our world and history. Theologically we can welcome such new insights, less noticed in former tradition, but at the same time we need to be cautious before a development which could render less clear the message of Christian salvation. In any case, the new data and knowledge clearly invite to revise and reformulate the Christian salvific message, to better answer before the mystery of evil and suffering.

Eschatological beliefs have matured alongside both biblical composition and Christian history. This evolution can be traced using cultural evolutionary studies. The process reflects attempts to adapt to new conditions and challenges—sometimes giving place to more focused views, but also sometimes to failures and dysfunctional forms or fruitless variations. It becomes a theological duty to assess this evolution better. The key element is the reception of these eschatological beliefs, to discern what expressions of them are more helpful in encouraging Christian fidelity, coping with distress, and engaging with individual and societal challenges. In this article, we outline a research programme that links eschatology to anthropology, and that tries to analyse beliefs according to state‐of‐the‐art methods, such as evolutionary cultural studies and research on the believing process. We also contribute a case study based on the concept of hell to test the proposed approach.

"To all who love the God with a 1000 names and respect science” In the last quarter century, the academic field of Science and Theology (Religion) has attracted scholars from a wide variety of disciplines. The question is, which disciplines are attracted and what do these disciplines have to contribute to the debate? In order to answer this question, the encyclopedia maps the (self)-identified disciplines and religious traditions that participate or might come to participate in the Science and Religion debate. This is done by letting each representative of a discipline and tradition answer specific chosen questions. They also need to identify the discipline in relation to the Science and Religion debate. Understandably representatives of several disciplines and traditions answered in the negative to this question. Nevertheless, they can still be important for the debate; indeed, scholars and scientists who work in the field of Science and Theology (Religion) may need knowledge beyond their own specific discipline. Therefore the encyclopedia also includes what are called general entries. Such entries may explain specific theories, methods, and topics. The general aim is to provide a starting point for new lines of inquiry. It is an invitation for fresh perspectives on the possibilities for engagement between and across sciences (again which includes the social and human sciences) and religions and theology. This encyclopedia is a comprehensive reference work for scholars interested in the topic of ‘Science and Religion.’ It covers the widest spectrum possible of academic disciplines and religious traditions worldwide, with the intent of laying bare similarities and differences that naturally emerge within and across disciplines and religions today. The A–Z format throughout affords easy and user-friendly access to relevant information. Additionally, a systematic question-answer format across all Sciences and Religions entries affords efficient identification of specific points of agreement, conflict, and disinterest across and between sciences and religions. The extensive cross-referencing between key words, phrases, and technical language used in the entries facilitates easy searches. We trust that all of the entries have something of value for any interested reader. Anne L.C. Runehov and Lluis Oviedo.

This volume answers the question: Why do we believe what we believe? It examines current research on the concept of beliefs, and the development in our understanding of the process of believing. It takes into account empirical findings in the field of neuroscience regarding the processes that underlie beliefs, and discusses the notion that beyond the interactive exploratory analysis of sensory information from the complex outside world, humans engage in an evaluative analysis by which they attribute personal meaning and relevance to the probabilistic representations of objects and events. Beliefs exert a strong influence on behaviour, decision-making, and identifying and solving problems. Despite their importance, beliefs have until recently not been at the centre of scientific interest. In fact, "belief" is an ill-defined phenomenon. From a transdisciplinary perspective the actual approaches to understanding belief seem incompatible as they attempt to highlight such different topics as "belief - religion", "belief - spirituality", "belief - faith", "belief - knowledge", "belief - attitude", "belief - disbelief", "belief - illusion", and "believing - brain function". This situation contradicts the idea that belief is close to pathological phenomena and that it should be eliminated from scientific discussions. Rather, believing is fundamental for understanding the many problems of every-day life. In fact, the book shows that beliefs are relevant for politics, international affairs, economy, law, or religions also in modern societies. This book presents the increasing scientific interest in beliefs and believing, and reflects the change in focus from the content aspect of belief towards the fluid nature of believing.

Theology and other human sciences present concerns against artificial intelligence (AI) that are often limited to ethical issues, as they appear as the most pressing problems and challenges derived from these new technologies. However, by reviewing the published literature, the article shows that theologians have ventured into broader areas, with a specific focus on the anthropological consequences of current technological advances. New developments and achievements in AI invite further exploration from a theological perspective, and they offer some opportunities and useful applications for theologians. The article moves from the ethical territory toward the more neutral but highly engaging dialogue between science, technology, and religion, their interactions and mutual enrichment. Within this transdisciplinary area, new insights are gained about the role a more committed theology can play in issues like designing the best approaches between religious faith and intelligent systems to achieve a sustainable and equitable future.

Sustainability is the result of a complex combination of factors. Social, cultural and personal elements are key for the pursuit of a sustainable future. Beyond the existing, very broad program on sustainability studies, additional research should contribute to specify how those social and human factors affect sustainability indices. General beliefs, values, attitudes, habits, assumed lifestyles or even meaning systems projecting purpose on one’s own life have an impact on sustainability as well. Our aim in this paper is to describe these factors, which we group under the label of ‘sustainability human factors’. This task requires a multidisciplinary effort involving anthropology, psychology and social sciences, covering cognitive, emotional or cultural dimensions. First, we set the stage describing the expected network of features and traits that could describe the human factor. Second, we propose a model which can help to assess it through multiple scales and surveying instruments. These instruments can provide valuable data that could expand the current indices. It is important to connect our program with the ongoing research in this field and to develop a broad model that highlights the human factor and its central role when planning for a sustainable future

The study of belief is expanding and involves a growing set of disciplines and research areas. These research programs attempt to shed light on the process of believing, understood as a central human cognitive function. Computational systems and, in particular, what we commonly understand as Artificial Intelligence (AI), can provide some insights on how beliefs work as either a linear process or as a complex system. However, the computational approach has undergone some scrutiny, in particular about the differences between what is distinctively human and what can be inferred from AI systems. The present article investigates to what extent recent developments in AI provide new elements to the debate and clarify the process of belief acquisition, consolidation, and recalibration. The article analyses and debates current issues and topics of investigation such as: different models to understand belief, the exploration of belief in an automated reasoning environment, the case of religious beliefs, and future directions of research.

En este escrito están en juego dos modelos teológicos: uno está más en sintonía con las teologías de la encarnación que identifican todo lo que es bueno como relacionado con Dios o que participa de lo divino; el otro está arraigado en una teología de la redención y siente que la mayoría de las realidades humanas y sociales están corrompidas y necesitan ser rescatadas y restauradas, de forma sólo sobrenatural. La dualidad descrita justifica un pluralismo inevitable y un discernimiento que no se puede completar a priori, ya que depende profundamente de las creencias y valores que se albergan. Quizás debamos asumir una actitud de «esperar y ver» y confiar más en los resultados, para juzgar después de evaluar hasta qué punto un desarrollo refleja claramente el plan de Dios o se aleja definitivamente del mismo. Por esta razón, no creo que sea el mejor planteamiento teológico sea uno que traza «líneas rojas» y rechaza cualquier desarrollo en ese campo, pero al mismo tiempo eso no justifica una actitud fácil e ingenua hacia esos intentos, que podrían traer —a pesar de su aparente buena voluntad— consecuencias catastróficas. La teología puede ilustrar el camino y ofrecer buenos criterios, pero difícilmente puede ayudar a tomar las decisiones necesarias o establecer una línea de acción de manera irrefutable. La teología tiene el derecho de equivocarse y el deber de evaluar sus errores y corregirlos.

Fundamental Theology has undergone a slow evolution, as many other theological disciplines, since its inception in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council. The lapsed time invites us to reflect about the current situation in this field and to what extent that theological section is pursuing its main objectives, especially for its teaching at different levels. After examining several issues that could have influenced that development, some suggestions for advancing the field and its teaching will also be given. Indeed, both the internal and external contexts have changed quite a lot in the last 60 years, and this probably will influence a treaty that should be more contextually sensitive and very bound to developments in religious education.

A question arises regarding theology and its functions when trying to cope with the coronavirus pandemic. Surely Christian faith – along with other religions – can play a role in helping to deal with this crisis, both for individuals and collectively. Theology connects with the effort religious faith and Churches perform and provides models and ideas to highlight the Christian sense of what is happening, that is, in reference to a saving God. Four keys, rooted in the Christian tradition, are proposed that allow us to understand these difficult times in a meaningful way, that is, as revealing “signs of the times” for believers, assisting them in their struggle to cope with these challenging circumstances.

New scientific approaches to religion have delivered a considerable number of theories aimed at explaining it, despite its cognitive and adaptive oddities. These efforts were built on available theoretical frameworks, including those from cognitive science, biology, and anthropology. Many voices have raised criticism against several aspects in the cognitive and evolutionist program, even if recognizing their legitimacy and the fruits collected to date. A pressing issue is whether the problem with the new scientific study of religion is related, to some extent, to the use of outdated views on human evolution, mind, and behavior. If this is the case, then a deep revision concerning current models is required. The new direction proposed should account for more complex aspects of human nature following multilevel models, and a specific human feature—language—that could better explain religion as a meaning system. Understanding religion as a language might open an alternative path inside cognitive studies that is closer to how it is lived by believers

Forty years after the end of the Second Vatican Council, contrasting opinions dispute the range of its reception and its real effects as the Catholic Church struggles in a changing world of secularization and pluralism. The present paper tries to throw new light on the historical significance of that event, mobilizing different methods and applying some new ‘hermeneutical lenses’. Four topics will serve for this task: the ‘neo‐Enlightened’ mood that affected a fair amount of its reception; the evolutive process of variations and selections associated with it; the forms of ‘rationalization’ and ‘expansion’, which the Council promoted; and the theological challenge of discerning the ‘signs of the time’. In conclusion, the historical judgment on the Council should keep in mind the complexity of the entire process of modernization it assumed.