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.     

UNIQUENESS IN CONTEXT

Wentzel van Huyssteen's Gifford Lectures, published as Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, accomplish critical and constructive thinking about interdisciplinary reflection on science and religion and about the meaning of human uniqueness. One approach to discussion of van Huyssteen's text entails consideration of three issues: the contextual character of research on humans and animals, the difficult problem of defining uniqueness, and the important consequences of exploring human uniqueness. Evolutionary biology and primatology contribute specific scientific insights.     

MULTIDIMENSIONAL THINKING ABOUT FORCE ETHICS: A Matter of Method and Content

Analyses of religious and cultural perspectives on the use of force continue to receive criticism for questionable motives, for insufficient holism, and for exaggerating uniqueness. Claims of recurrent problems educe consideration of interdisciplinary proposals designed to resolve related challenges. Thought together, some suggest that a transversal research program into ethical orientations toward war can facilitate fair and rigorous exploration of crosscultural similarities and differences. Tentative findings emphasizing textual precepts indicate some resonance amid diversity across eleven ethical frameworks including Western just war thinking. Maximizing relevance depends upon expanding the range of orientations and practices studied. Future results might be integrated with knowledge about the influence of other variables to more completely capture the phenomenon of making judgments regarding the use of force in all its manifestations.     

PRIMATES,HOMINIDS, AND HUMANS—FROM SPECIES SPECIFICITY TO HUMAN UNIQUENESS? A RESPONSE TO BARBARA J. KING,GREGORY R. PETERSON,WESLEY J. WILDMAN,AND NANCY R. HOWELL

In this response to essays by Barbara J. King, Gregory R. Peterson, Wesley J. Wildman, and Nancy R. Howell, I present arguments to counter some of the exciting and challenging questions from my colleagues. I take the opportunity to restate my argument for an interdisciplinary public theology, and by further developing the notion of transversality I argue for the specificity of the emerging theological dialogue with paleoanthropology and primatology. By arguing for a hermeneutics of the body, I respond to criticism of my notion of human uniqueness and argue for strong evolutionary continuities, as well as significant discontinuities, between primates, humans, and other hominids. In addition, I answer critical questions about theological methodology and argue how the notion of human uniqueness, theologically restated as the image of God, is enriched by transversally appropriating scientific notions of species specificity and embodied personhood.     

From Publics to Practitioners: Invention Power and Open Technoscience

Abstract

In technoscientific conditions what counts as knowledge creation is not primarily the individual experimental achievement that gives coherence to scientific practice and separates science from its publics; rather, it is a form of dispersed experimentation in more than human worlds: distributed invention power. Distributed invention power is organised and regulated through the pervasive securitisation of technoscience: surveillance and control of technoscientific fields as well as financialisation of its activities and research outputs. The securitisation of science reorders the traditional split between the public sphere, the private sector and the commons. The folding of each one of these spheres into the other underlies a constant, often antagonistic, oscillation between big science and open science. What is constitutive of the diverse movements that sustain open technoscience is not that they challenge technoscience as such but that they experiment with technoscience to create alternative forms of life.