Theology, Science, and Postmodernism: Responding to Stanley Grenz

This article responds to Stanley J. Grenz's Templeton Lecture, “Why Do Theologians Need to Be Scientists?” published in the June 2000 issue of Zygon (Grenz 2000). In the first part I outline my reasons for finding the kind of theological reflections in which Grenz engages worthy of attention by noting my disagreement with the view that a sufficient response to theological issues can be formulated on the basis of an examination of our biological nature. I assert, in that connection, the autonomy of reason as a way of investigating and understanding the world. In the second part I respond directly to Grenz by explaining my disagreement with the postmodern critique of science upon which he relies and his adherence to Christian eschatology as an answer to the conundrums into which, he posits, we are drawn as a result of that critique. I note that I agree with Grenz, however, that the activity of valuing is necessarily a forward‐looking Godlike endeavor that is not derivable from science. In the third part I suggest that we must be open to the investigation of the possible existence of an objective realm of value and that, in any case, rejection of the postmodern critique of science in many cases pro‐vides a sound basis for the disciplined resolution of factual questions that frequently lie at the base of disagreements about values.     

The Consciousness (R)Evolution Paradigm

Consciousness represents the core of the new paradigm, the unitary, systemic vision, and comprehension that emerges in every field of science, culture, and spirituality. For centuries, consciousness has been divided from matter, the soul from the physical body. Now, in this historical beginning of globalization, we need a new holistic model, a global paradigm based on consciousness that can explain the unitary evolutionary process, the psychosomatic unity of human being, the neurophysiological roots of harmony between peoples and the way to personal and collective evolution of consciousness in order to realize a more conscious, peaceful, and sustainable planetary future. Consciousness is the key of human evolution.     

"状态改变:状态继续"与"做:不做"

检查了“做／不做”这对概念的不足后．本文用“状态改变／状态继续”来替代“做／不做”。在“状态改变-状态继续”框架基础上将事件分为“整体事件”和“分段事件”。研究证实“做／不做”只适合于“整体事件”而不适合“分段事件”。最后．该框架部分也解释了长期存在于实验研究与现场研究中的假设思想所表现出的差异。     

Images of the Abyss

Images of the abyss in traditional Christian theology and psychology are generally symbolic of hell, destruction, or death. Here, the notion of abyss is regarded afresh through the experiences of Jacob Boehme, the 17^th century German shoemaker and mystic, and Carl Jung, the 20^th century Swiss psychoanalyst. Boehme's pre-existent abyss, which he called the Ungrund, or un-ground, and saw as underlying all of creation, even God, relates to the unitary reality of Jung's Self. The Self is before the beginning of the individual human psyche and also its ultimate goal in terms of psychological life.     

组织行为学领域妒忌研究的不同视角、分歧和未来方向

妒忌他人是生活和工作中一种普遍的现象, 虽然宗教学、哲学和历史典籍等领域很久以前就有诸多有关妒忌的记录, 但是, 直到近来妒忌才引起组织行为学研究者的关注。尽管以往多学科和多视角的研究加深了研究者对妒忌的理解, 然而, 在组织行为学领域深入研究妒忌仍面临诸多挑战。为澄清妒忌研究中的挑战、明确分歧、推进妒忌研究, 首先从妒忌特有视角、妒忌分类视角和妒忌整体视角对妒忌研究进行总结分析, 然后重点从妒忌的性质、应对妒忌的策略、解释矛盾结论三方面分析以往三种妒忌研究视角之间的分歧。在此基础上, 建议未来研究可以进一步厘清妒忌内涵和测量、深入研究妒忌者和被妒忌者之间的二元关系、整合不同视角的妒忌研究。     

Aggression: Appetite or aversion?—An ethologist's viewpoint

The term “aggression” has been used to describe practically all situations in which an organism threatens, damages, or kills another-with the exception of certain predator-prey relationships. As a result, a great deal of confusion and controversy has arisen as to the causal factors and functions of aggression. The main ethological hypotheses concerning the nature of aggression are put forward. In order to illustrate the divergence in causal factors and functions, differences in motivational, physiological, and ecological bases of aggression in two closely related fish species are described. A basic division of aggression into “self-defensive” and “property-protective” behavior is suggested, together with the parameters separating these categories on behavioral, causal, and functional bases. Mechanisms which enable motivational changes from one category to another to take place during a single encounter are discussed, these being pain stimuli and physical or psychological “cornering.” The importance of learning effects on fighting behavior are emphasized, especially their negative and positive reinforcing effects in relation to self and property defense. The biological significance of aggressive conditioning for the animal and the role of aggression in species maintenance are discussed.     

The effects of varying the distribution of generalization stimuli within a constant range upon the bisection of a sound-intensity interval by rats

Two male, albino rats were trained on a two-valued, self-paced, discrete-trials auditory discrimination. In the presence of a high-intensity stimulus (90 decibels SPL, 4 kiloHertz), response A was reinforced; in the presence of a low-intensity stimulus (50 decibels SPL, 4 kiloHertz), response B was reinforced. When discrimination performance was asymptotic, stimuli intermediate in intensity were presented with the training stimuli in a maintained generalization paradigm. Generalization gradients were derived from the relative frequencies of response A in the presence of each stimulus. A relative frequency of 0.50 was then determined and used as the bisection point of the intensity interval defined by the 90- and 50-decibel stimuli. The bisection point varied with the distribution of the stimuli presented in generalization. This effect was similar to context effects seen in human psychophysics.     

后悔的“状态改变-状态继续”效应：一个概念框架

首先回顾了假设思维及后悔研究中的实验研究和现场研究的结果及相互之间的矛盾,总结先前研究对“做/不做”这对概念的界定。再探讨“做/不做”这对概念的不足后,作者用“状态改变/状态继续”来替代“做/不做”。在“状态改变－状态继续”框架基础上将事件分为“整体事件”和“分段事件”。研究证实“做/不做”只适合于“整体事件”而不适合“分段事件”。“状态改变-状态继续”效应的提出改变了先前研究思路,并扩大了标准理论的解释能力,将“做-不做”效应和“特例－常规”效应整合成“状态改变－状态继续”效应。同时,该框架部分地解释了长期存在于实验研究与现场研究中的假设思维所表现出的差异