J. Wentzel van Huyssteen: Refiguring Rationality in the Postmodern Age

In his three books J. Wentzel van Huyssteen develops a complex and helpful notion of rationality, avoiding the extremes of foundationalism and postmodern relativism and deconstruction. Drawing from several postmodern philosophers of science and evolutionary epistemologists who seek to devise a usable notion of rationality, he weaves together a view that allows for a genuine duet betweenscience and theology. In the process he challenges much contemporary nonfoundationalist theology as well as the philosophical naïveté of some cosmologists and sociobiologists.     

On the current status of the evolutionary theory of behavior dynamics

The evolutionary theory of behavior dynamics is a complexity theory that instantiates the Darwinian principles of selection, reproduction, and mutation in a genetic algorithm. The algorithm is used to animate artificial organisms that behave continuously in time and can be placed in any experimental environment. The present paper is an update on the status of the theory. It includes a summary of the evidence supporting the theory, a list of the theory's untested predictions, and a discussion of how the algorithmic operations of the theory may correspond to material reality. Based on the evidence reviewed here, the evolutionary theory appears to be a strong candidate for a comprehensive theory of adaptive behavior.     

IN DEFENSE OF PUBLICS: PROJECTION,BIAS, AND CULTURAL NARRATIVES IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION DEBATES

John H. Evans's recent book Morals Not Knowledge is a timely argument to recognize broader social and cultural factors that might impact what U.S. religious publics think about the relationship between science and religion and their attitudes toward science and/or religion. While Evans's focus is primarily on what can be classed as moral issues, this response argues that there are other factors that sit within neither the older epistemic conflict model approach nor a moral conflict model approach that also merit further investigation. There is a significant need for further research that examines the social, psychological, (geo)political, and broader cultural factors shaping people's social identities in relation to science and religion debates. When undertaking such research, we need to be wary of creating a binary between scholarly and public space discourse. Social scientific research in this field should be led by public perceptions, attitudes, and views, not by concepts or frameworks that we project onto them.     

Pushing Archetypal Representational Systems Further

We revived Jung’s Archetypes to characterize what we see as an emerging confluence of evolutionary, embodied, and ecological responses to traditional cognitive models of mental representation. We propose that all humans possess archetypal representational systems that are (a) computationally grounded in perception and action, (b) shaped by learning and culture, and (c) biologically prepared by our ancestral past. Because these functionally modular systems arose in tandem with—and in response to—our increasingly complex social world, one implication is that even the most abstract issues studied in cognitive science may be, at least in part, scaffolded on more ancient social and emotional calculi.     

Moving Ahead on Southgate’s Compound Only-Way Evolutionary Theodicy

Southgate offers a remarkable evolutionary theodicy that includes six affirmations and arguments; together they form a unique and very persuasive proposal which he terms a “compound only-way evolutionary theodicy.” Here I summarize the arguments and offer critical reflections on them for further development, with an emphasis on the ambiguity in the goodness of creation; the role of thermodynamics in evolutionary biology; the challenge of horrendous evil in nature; and the theological response to theodicy in terms of eschatology, with its own severe challenge from cosmology. Using a text box, I suggest how the 6 arguments create a unique synthetic whole, and how the removal of any one of them would diminish the argument as a whole. I then suggest how Southgate’s treatment of the key question, “Why not just heaven?” adds a crucial seventh argument to produce an even more splendid and promising whole.     

Towards a multidisciplinary guideline religiousness,spirituality, and psychiatry: what do we need?

ABSTRACT

A multidisciplinary guideline on religion, spirituality (R/S), and psychiatry aims to address: (1) organising R/S consultation in mental health care, (2) categorising research findings, and (3) professionalism and education with respect to R/S. Contents are derived from brainstorm sessions with key participants in the field of R/S and psychiatry in the Netherlands, and from the position statements on R/S and psychiatry in the UK and by the World Psychiatric Association. The following chapters are proposed: (1) ethical and existential themes and R/S, (2) R/S in stages of mental health care practice, (3) R/S counselling, (4) collaboration, and (5) relationship to other guidelines. The core themes need verification by specialists in the field, nurses, therapists, counsellors, patient-practitioners, and psychiatrists. The author recommends to approach R/S in an easy way, to listen to matters of personal meaning, and to leave the task to others in case of a lack of affinity.     

Reflections on the WPA position statement on spirituality and religion

ABSTRACT

The WPA position statement on Spirituality and Religion in Psychiatry is a tremendous achievement. This is a field of research which has developed greatly in the last 25 years with increasing sophistication of methodology within the biomedical paradigm. However, I will argue that the reductionism necessary for quantitative scientific research flattens out the very particularity which makes the religions potent and active. There is a need to increase the use of qualitative research methods to give a fuller account of the health impact of the deep and rich lived experience within a faith community.     

Psychiatrists and community partners examine religion and spirituality

ABSTRACT

The commentary reflects on the definition of spirituality and religion and further implications for the practice of psychiatry. These include the possibilities to partner with spiritual and religious practitioners to support education and research, provide access to care for people with or at risk of mental ill health, and also consider how to the reduce the risks to the well-being of vulnerable people and families from some practices and settings. The World Psychiatric Association sees the possibilities for collaborating with its member societies and community partners including service users and family carers to develop resources on working with faith groups and spiritual healers in high- and low-income countries.     

The WPA position paper on spirituality and religion in psychiatry: a North American perspective

ABSTRACT

The WPA position statement is a clear challenge for psychiatrists to recognize how religion/spirituality (R/S) is relevant to their work. North American psychiatry has shown progress related to each principle articulated in the statement, especially in the areas of research and scholarship. However, most advances are yet to be widely implemented or coordinated, so that the statement offers valuable encouragement and direction in moving forward.     

Spirituality and religion in psychiatry: the impact of policy

ABSTRACT

Research and debate on the importance of spirituality and religion in psychiatry has led to a number of national and international policy initiatives, intended to clarify the boundaries of good practice and improve the way in which such matters are managed for the benefit of patients. Significant amongst these is the 2015 position statement of the World Psychiatric Association, the only such policy statement to date which has been internationally agreed. Preliminary evidence available suggests that this is having good effect in generating professional debate and further national policy initiatives in different countries. There is a need for further research on such policy initiatives to confirm whether or not they have the intended impact upon clinical practice and whether or not this in turn is beneficial for patients.