A PRESCRIPTION FOR GENERATING A NEW PARADIGM IN THE CONTEXT OF SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

Abstract. Many centers are now active in the study of the interaction between science on the one hand and theology on the other. Suggestions are made as to how such study might be furthered. The central proposal in this paper is based on the author's experience in founding and, over many years, operating the Neurosciences Research Program (NRP). The "faculty" of this group were highly competent in many fields of science and were able to deal with many of the major issues. It is here further suggested that if an NRP-like organization were established, capable of productively interacting with both science and theology, it might well generate new concepts and possibly a new paradigm in this context.     

PARADIGMS OF BELIEF, THEORY AND METATHEORY

Abstract. My account of the recent turnabout in the treatment of mental states in science and its basis in a modified concept of causal determinism and my claim that this opens the way for beliefs and values consistent with science are here reaffirmed in response to perceived weaknesses and "inherent incompleteness." Contested issues are reviewed to better clarify the main thesis. An inherent weakness in respect to deep spiritual needs is recognized and tentative remedial measures explored.     

DISCIPLINING RELATIVISM AND TRUTH

Abstract. Imre Lakatos's philosophy of science can provide helpful leads for theological methodology, but only when mediated by the disciplines that lie between the natural sciences and theology. The questions of relativism and truth are used as indices for comparing disciplines, and Lakatos's theory of natural science is taken as the starting point. Major modifications of Lakatos's work are demanded as one moves from the natural sciences, through economics, the interpretive social sciences, literary theory, and into theology. Although theology may consist of Lakatosian research programs, it also includes programs of interpretation and programs for living. This conclusion must influence our definition of theological truth and our assessment of theological relativism.     

Analysis of Religious Bias among Christian Students in Science

Christians are notably underrepresented in science in part due to long-standing public perceptions of science-religion incompatibility and antireligious bias in science. This research explores whether undergraduates at a Christian university perceive and impose anti-Christian cultural stigma in science. Survey results from 126 biology students revealed that though students generally perceived the culture of science to be anti-Christian, they perceived Christians to have equal opportunities for scientific achievement. Results from a quasi-experimental audit study, in which students evaluated one of two profiles for mock prospective Ph.D. applicants (Christian or undisclosed faith) showed that students did not project anti-Christian stereotypes in terms of competence, hireability, or likeability, but showed some evidence of pro-Christian favorability. Together, this study suggests that the affirmational community of a Christian University may alleviate some negative impacts of anti-Christian stereotypes in academic biology, even as students perceive discrimination against Christians in science and atheists as more scientifically competent.     

Empirical tests of scientific realism: A quantitative framework

The scientific realism debate in philosophy of science raises some intriguing methodological issues. Scientific realism posits a link between a scientific theory's observational and referential success. This opens the possibility of testing the thesis empirically, by searching for evidence of such a link in the record of theories put forward in the history of science. Many realist philosophers working today propose case study methodology as a way of carrying out such a test. This article argues that a qualitative method such as case study methodology is not adequate for this purpose, for two reasons: to test scientific realism is to pose an effects-of-causes question, and observational and referential success are quantities that theories possess to a greater or lesser degree. The article concludes that an empirical test of scientific realism requires a quantitative method.     

Centering culture in the treatment of opioid use disorder with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities: Contributions from a National Collaborative Board

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities are disproportionally impacted by the opioid overdose epidemic. There remains a dearth of research evaluating methods for effectively implementing treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) within these communities. We describe proceedings from a 2-day Collaborative Board (CB) meeting tasked with developing an implementation intervention for AI/AN clinical programs to improve the delivery of medications to treat OUD (MOUD). The CB was comprised of Elders, cultural leaders, providers, individuals with lived experience with OUD, and researchers from over 25 communities, organizations, and academic institutions. Conversations were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded by two academic researchers with interpretation oversight provided by the CB. These proceedings provided a foundation for ongoing CB work and a frame for developing the program-level implementation intervention using a strength-based and holistic model of OUD recovery and wellbeing. Topics of discussion posed to the CB included engagement and recovery strategies, integration of extended family traditions, and addressing stigma and building trust with providers and clients. Integration of traditional healing practices, ceremonies, and other cultural practices was recommended. The importance of centering AI/AN culture and involving family were highlighted as priorities for the intervention.     

A Model for Adapting Evidence-Based Interventions to Be LGBQ-Affirmative: Putting Minority Stress Principles and Case Conceptualization Into Clinical Research and Practice

The mental health field now possesses clinical trials attesting to the efficacy of affirmative practice with sexual minority individuals. With the goal of efficiently moving the results of these clinical trials into real-world clinical practice, this paper offers a model for adapting existing evidence-based practices originally developed for the general population to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ)-affirmative. The adaptation model presented here guides clinicians to incorporate six LGBQ-affirmative transtheoretical principles of change into practice. These principles facilitate raising awareness of the impact of minority stress on sexual minority clients’ mental health and on client self-evaluation while drawing upon sexual minority resilience and intersectional experiences to build empowering coping skills and validating relationships. The adaptation model also provides a transtheoretical approach to case conceptualization that directs clinicians to consider the role of early and ongoing minority stress on sexual minority clients’ cognitive, affective, motivational, behavioral, and self-evaluative experiences that maintain current distress. This case conceptualization approach highlights common associations among these experiences, suggesting clear routes of interventions for many sexual minority client presentations. Case examples from recent clinical trials of LGBQ-affirmative cognitive-behavioral therapy illustrate how these principles and this case conceptualization can be effectively utilized in practice. While the principles and case conceptualization are meant to be transtheoretical and therefore applicable across therapeutic techniques, to date they have been tested only in clinical trials for cognitive-behavioral treatments. Therefore, this paper concludes with a call for future research to determine the effectiveness of implementing this adaptation model across diverse therapeutic modalities and client presentations.     

“‘WE' AND ‘THEY'”: WHY MUST WE ENGAGE IN CROSS-CULTURAL CONVERSATION?

This article contains the principal ideas that I presented in four different sessions at the IRAS 2022 conference, on the theme “‘We' and ‘They’: Cross-Cultural Conversation on Identity.” Focusing on the central topic, the article begins with (i) the contents of my opening lecture; followed by (ii) a broad outline of the concerns discussed in my book, Cross-Cultural Conversation: A New Way of Learning, intertwined with glimpses of the intellectual journey that led me to CCC, delivered in the Book-discussion session; (iii) a summary of the main ideas about the importance of meeting of religions today, which formed the background for the CCC Panel discussion on religion, where I was in conversation with spokespersons of five world religions; and (iv) my comments on how science–religion dialogue can help promote a sense for human solidarity by combining knowledge with wisdom, in the concluding session.     

IS THERE A DISTINCTIVE QUANTUM THEOLOGY?

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a favorite area of physics to feature in “science and religion” discussions. We argue that this is at least partly because the arcane results of QM can be deployed to make big theological claims by the linguistic sleight of hand of “register switching”—sliding imperceptibly from technical into everyday language using the same vocabulary. We clarify the discussion by deploying the formal mapping of QM into classical statistical mechanics (CSM) via the mathematical device of “Wick rotation.” This equivalence between QM and CSM suggests caution in claiming distinctiveness for quantum theologizing. After outlining two areas in which quantum insights nevertheless resonate with longstanding themes in theological reflection (hiddenness and visualizability), we suggest that both QM and CSM point to a theology of science in which scientists participate in the divine gaze on creation as imago Dei.     

Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide

Reflexivity is the act of examining one's own assumption, belief, and judgement systems, and thinking carefully and critically about how these influence the research process. The practice of reflexivity confronts and questions who we are as researchers and how this guides our work. It is central in debates on objectivity, subjectivity, and the very foundations of social science research and generated knowledge. Incorporating reflexivity in the research process is traditionally recognized as one of the most notable differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Qualitative research centres and celebrates the participants' personal and unique lived experience. Therefore, qualitative researchers are readily encouraged to consider how their own unique positionalities inform the research process and this forms an important part of training within this paradigm. Quantitative methodologies in social and personality psychology, and more generally, on the other hand, have remained seemingly detached from this level of reflexivity and general reflective practice. In this commentary, we, three quantitative researchers who have grappled with the compatibility of reflexivity within our own research, argue that reflexivity has much to offer quantitative methodologists. The act of reflexivity prompts researchers to acknowledge and centre their own positionalities, encourages a more thoughtful engagement with every step of the research process, and thus, as we argue, contributes to the ongoing reappraisal of openness and transparency in psychology. In this paper, we make the case for integrating reflexivity across all research approaches, before providing a ‘beginner's guide’ for quantitative researchers wishing to engage reflexively with their own work, providing concrete recommendations, worked examples, and reflexive prompts.