FALLIBILISM,FAITH AND THEOLOGY: PUTTING NICHOLAS RESCHER TO THEOLOGICAL WORK1

This essay explores the possible theological relevance of Nicholas Rescher's pragmatic‐idealist account of human reason. An initial case is made for the prospective hospitality of Christian theology to Rescher's thought, contrary to his early misgivings. The intrinsic relationship between Christian faith and a fallibilist self‐regard is then explored. Next Rescher's more recent constructive reflections are considered and their limitations identified. Finally the lineaments of a thoroughgoing Trinitarian appropriation of Rescher's thought are traced together with its implications for the character of Christian theology and ecclesial reality.     

RADICAL ORTHODOXY AND THE NEW CULTURE OF OBSCURANTISM

Centering around a careful, sustained critique of John Milbank's polemic against Kant, this essay connects the growing anti‐philosophical sentiments in theology to a wider anti‐rational trend in the human sciences generally. What most visibly unifies these new obscurantist outlooks is their reliance on free‐floating, unapologetically self‐perpetuating ideological historiographies, which are advanced via a kind of “co‐opt‐and‐plunder” approach to historical texts. However, the rejection of rational integrity also entails a rejection of the traditional intellectual virtues—attentiveness, consistency, modesty, charity etc.—virtues which any theological claim to orthodoxy cannot do without. Radical Orthodoxy therefore risks a worrying slide into new forms of esoteric gnosticism.     

A META-ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONAL REASONING TESTS OF AGGRESSION

James et al. (2005) reported an estimate of criterion-related validity (corrected only for dichotomization of criteria) of r = .44 across 11 conditional reasoning test of aggression (CRT-Aggression) validity studies. This meta-analysis incorporated a total sample size more than twice that of James et al. Our comparable validity estimate for CRT-Aggression scales predicting counterproductive work behaviors was r = .16. Validity for the current, commercially marketed test version (CRT-A) was lower (r = .10). These validity estimates increased somewhat (into the .24–.26 range) if studies using dichotomous criteria with low base rates were excluded from the meta-analysis. CRT-Aggression scales were correlated r = .14 with measures of job performance. As we differed with James et al. in some of our coding decisions, we reran all analyses using James et al.'s coding decisions and arrived at extremely similar results.