Lluis Oviedo

There is a renewed interest amongst scholars in the practice of pil- grimage. Over the past two decades, pilgrim numbers have risen significantly, whilst forms of ''implicit'' or ''alternative'' spirituality have gained visibility and now coexist with organised religions, sometimes sharing the same ritualistic space. There is probably no better place to look at the coexistence of old and new forms of ritual expression than in the Camino to Santiago. To better understand the meanings attributed to this pilgrimage, we undertook a survey with over 470 pilgrims at various locations along the Camino. The findings confirm that individuals with various, often contrasting, motivations and expectations walk side by side on this pilgrimage route. We suggest that the results cannot be read simplistically as either confirming a ''post-secularisation'' trend or a religious revival.

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.

The article chronicles the different panels devoted tothe cognitive science of religion at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) in Tampa, Florida, in November 2007. The aim is to verify the state of this subdiscipline and to check how much this work-in-progress affects the present state of the dialogue between science and religion. Several signs point to a positive development in this scientific branch and favor a sound reception in theology, which should not ignore the new research.

Abstract.The biological and cognitive approach to religion has matured somewhat and reveals interesting results. Nevertheless, some questions arise about its foundation and development. The essay offers a review of current research in the cognitive field, focusing on its conclusions, the internal discussions, and the problems that need more study or correction. Emphasis is placed on a more intricate account of the factors involved in religious experience, discussing the proper use of the discoveries of biocognitive research and the limits that should be placed on said conclusions.

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

Reviewing the last fifty years of interaction between religion and science in Catholicism in Southern Europe, common traits are clearly evident: a late awareness of the importance of this interaction and a theological reluctance to address science or to account for its progress. Early signs of the engagement between religion and science appear as a consequence of the work of the French anthropologist and theologian Teilhard de Chardin. In Italy and Spain in the last fifteen years, we see a substantive growth in the rise of research centers and academic activities devoted to exploring the common ground between science, philosophy, and theology. However, despite all these efforts and the many positive signs, there remains a long way to go for theology to consider science as a true challenge and an inspiration and to integrate it into the theological curriculum

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.

“Meaning” and “religion” appear as deeply interlinked concepts in modern thought. Theology has often discovered religious faith as a “source of meaning” against a background of “meaninglessness”, as the XX century existentialist philosophies would remark. Beyond such an apologetic stance, some philosophies of religion have tried to better describe such a link: hermeneutics, phenomenology and even systems theory, may be accounted as main attempts to tackle this very complex framework, and to show how religion provides meaning, or is built trough structures of meaning, or is a form of “meaning-construction”. Cognitive approach may add new perspectives to better explain this implication. Recent attempts combine scientific methods and philosophical analysis to show how meaning is built and works, and how religion provides a specific sort of meaning, distinct from other forms in which meaning displays itself: moral, aesthetic, or affective. Describing religion in terms of “meaning management” helps to better understand its specific role and function in the human mind, beyond the most reductivist programs, and offers a more balanced view on its cognitive dimensions. Different attempts to connect religion and meaning are reviewed in this paper in order to offer an alternative model to the new scientific study of religion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Free will is a very hot issue in several theoretical settings, but less in theology, or at least not as much as use to be in former times, when the discussions on sinfulness, grace and freedom were igniting a long season of controversies, especially in the Reformation time. Even in ecumenical dialogue apparently free will does not play a great role, since the reached consensus seems quite peaceful and agreement dominates over discussion. However, some theological insights, especially Karl Rahner reflections, are still worthy to consider and possibly theological anthropology should pay more attention to the current debate and its consequences for the way we understand human nature and its relationship with God.

Cognitive Science of Religion has developed for almost 20 years naturalisticNaturalism explanations on religious mind and behavior, opening that field to scientific scrutiny. Scholars used to study religion from a more humanistic tradition or a hermeneutic approach could feel surprised by the application of biological-evolutionary, cognitive and neurological means to better explain religion. Not too confident with the new approach, many traditional students of religion, like theologians, religion philosophers, phenomenologists, and even psychologists, were often dazzled by the exhibition of new terms, concepts and ways to understand religion, beyond the traditional frames. Time is ripe for an assessment on the plausibility that these new theories exhibit, taking into account their respective frameworks and the reported empirical evidence.

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.

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.

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.

Religion has been intensely studied in the last years inside an evolutionary frame, trying to discern to what extent it contributes to fitness or becomes an adaptive entity in its own. A similar heuristic can be tried regarding the opposite tendency: unbelief and atheism, since these cultural phenomena could help to better adapt to some social settings or become an adaptive socio-cultural niche on its own. The present paper examines some scenarios in which that question makes sense: the tradition of sociology of religion, with its different strands, including recent studies on ‘non-religious’; the cognitive; and the philosophical-theological reflection. The proposed venues show to what extent the evolutionary model might reveal neglected aspects in the study of unbelief, and at the same time its limits or the open questions that such application raise.

The possible scenario of a future human settlement on Mars invites reflection regarding the hypothetical conditions within which one could explore religion’s possible role. The issue is what might religion’s role be living a such a remote place and how religion might help to cope with extreme circumstances. The first question has to do with religious faith. The second has to do with what kind of religion or religious style would be more fitting in that highly unpredictable and threatening context. And third, what functions could religious beliefs and practices provide. The issue is serious in that it concerns the future of religious faith and its possible development and adaptation to very new contexts beyond the confines of the earth.