Anne L. C. Runehov

This book collects a multidisciplinary range of contributions focusing on the prolific and seminal work of Willem Drees in the fields of philosophy of religion, philosophy of the humanities, and science and theology/religion. Trained in both theoretical physics and theology/philosophy of religion, Drees holds doctoral degrees in both theology and in philosophy and, amongst other distinguished positions, held professorships at the University of Leiden and at the University of Tilburg. Drees was also Editor-in-Chief of Zygon, Journal of Religion & Science, between 2008 and 2018, and served as President of the European Society for the Study of Science and Theology (ESSSAT) between 2002 and 2008. In 2018, he was elected as member of the Royal Holland Society of Sciences and Humanities (KHMW). This contributed volume builds on Drees’ expansive and provocative scholarly contributions, notably around the concept and meaning of naturalism and the humanities to the fields of science and religion, as exemplified by his works Religion, Science and Naturalism (1996) and What Are the Humanities For? (2021). In a time where more and more young people across the globe are entering higher education such cross-disciplinary explorations and (re-)evaluations are vital to the field. Accordingly, by approaching his work from a variety of disciplines this collection illuminates the broad reach of Drees’ work and provides scholars from various fields with many new and rich opportunities avenues for research.

"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 book offers a philosophical analysis of what it is to be a human being in all her aspects. It analyses what is meant by the self and the I and how this feeling of a self or an I is connected to the brain. It studies specific cases of brain disorders, based on the idea that in order to understand the common, one has to study the specific. The book shows how the self is thought of as a three-fold emergent self, comprising a relationship between an objective neural segment, a subjective neural segment and a subjective transcendent segment. It explains that the self in the world tackles philosophical problems such as the problem of free will, the problem of evil, the problem of human uniqueness and empathy. It demonstrates how the problem of time also has its place here. For many people, the world includes ultimate reality; hence the book provides an analysis and evaluation of different relationships between human beings and Ultimate Reality (God). The book presents an answer to the philosophical problem of how one could understand divine action in the world.

This volume examines emotions and emotional well-being from a rich variety of theological, philosophical and scientific and therapeutic perspectives. To experience emotion is a part of being human; but what are emotions? How can theology, philosophy and the natural sciences unpack the nature and content of emotions? This volume is based on contributions to the 15th European Conference on Science and Theology held in Assisi, Italy. It brings together contributions from scholars of various academic backgrounds from around the world, whose individual insights are made all the richer by their juxtaposition with those from experts in other fields, leading to a unique exchange of ideas.

This book offers a penetrating analysis of issues raised by the perennial question, 'Are We Special?' It brings together scholars from a variety of disciplines, from astronomy and palaeontology to philosophy and theology, to explore this question. Contributors cover a wide variety of issues, including what makes humans distinct from other animals, the possibilities of artificial life and artificial intelligence, the likelihood of life on other planets, and the role of religious behavior. A variety of religious and scientific perspectives are brought to bear on these matters. As a whole, the book addresses whether the issue of human uniqueness is one to which sciences and religions necessarily offer differing responses.

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.

The present paper argues that neither the autophenomenological nor the heterophenomenological approach works in order to do justice to the reality of experiences, because neither approach escapes phenomenological scepticism. By regarding the potentials of neuroscience and transpersonal psychology in addition to analysing the epistemology of experiencing, it is argued that an interdisciplinary-transpersonal psychological method is preferable that covers first- second- and third-person accounts. Furthermore, it is argued that, in order to make such an approach fruitful for interdisciplinary research, a pragmatic view of reality that takes experiences seriously is needed

Darwin’s theory of evolution argued that the human race evolved from the same original cell as all other animals. Biological principles such as randomness, adaption and natural selection led to the evolution of different species including the human species. Based on this evolutionary sameness, Donald R. Griffin (1915-2003) challenged the behaviourist claim that animal communication is characterized as merely groans of pain. This paper argues that (1) all animals are embedded in a social system. (2) However, that does not mean that all animals are social animals. (3) That the human social ontology remains to be unique due to a gene-cultural co-evolution.

We cannot disregard that the neuroscientific research on religious phenomena such as religious experiences and rituals for example, has increased significantly the last years. Neuroscientists claim that neuroscience contributes considerably in the process of understanding religious experiences, because neuroscience is able to measure brain activity during religious experiences by way of brain‐imaging technologies. No doubt, those results of neuroscientific research on religious experiences are an important supplement to the understanding of some types of religious experiences. However, some conclusions drawn from neuroscientific research on religious experiences are arguable. For example, one such conclusion is that religious experiences are actually nothing but neural activity, i.e. there is nothing ‘religious’ to the experiences at all. Another such conclusion is that a person’s religious experiences actually derive from some ultimate reality, meaning that religious experiences are real. It is the latter assertion that will be analyzed in the present paper. The question is asked whether neuroscience alone is able to affirm that religious experiences are real or whether there are, besides neuroscientific issues, also cultural‐religious assumptions that underlie this conclusion.