Article Previews

In comments to previous posts below, James and Josh asked for hints about two of the articles I am working on here in Langkawi...

The CSR (cognitive science of religion) paper is for the European Conference on Science and Theology in Edinburgh in April (see right sidebar).  It can only be 8 pages long and should be a "work in progress."  My title is "Knowing God without God Knowing."  I identify the challenges of CSR to the idea of God as a supernatural agent who "knows" in an anthropomorphic sense.  I argue that many proponents and opponents of the view that CSR offers a powerful critique of the idea of a personal God share some common assumptions that are not made explicit, including the very idea of supernatural agency as a relevant category for discussing ultimate reality and the idea that theism or a-theism exhaust the options.  I suggest that there are resources in many religious traditions (including Christianity) for affirming a real engagement with "the divine" without attributing finite human attributes like personality.  Of course, this will require (re)defining our terms carefully, which I do in five sections:

1. God "Knowing"?

2. "God" Knowing?

3. "Without"?

4. Knowing "God"?

5. "Knowing" God?

The Atonement paper is a chapter for a book that is being developed as part of a STARS project on ethics and exemplarity in theology and science.  My tentative title is "Ethics, Exemplarity and Atonement."  After a brief introduction of the issues, the chapter begins with a section on traditional moral example (ME) theories of atonement and their opponents.  One of the main objections to ME theories (from those who hold Christus Victor or penal substitutionary views especially) is that they are not objective but "only" or "merely" subjective.  This presupposes an early modern dichotomy between objective and subjective, which has driven the separation in most western Christian atonement theory that one first has to understand what Jesus did objectively in the past then later one applies this subjectively to moral issues in the present.  The next section traces the growing significance of ethics in atonement theory, especially among feminist and liberation theologians.  The next three sections argue that the desire to integrate ethics and atonement can be fostered by developments in the new sciences that deal with exemplarity (hence the order of terms in the title).  These developments are: the growing attention to empathy in social neuroscience, to emotions in moral psychology, and then to exemplarity in virtue ethics.  I identify two basic tasks in reconstructing a viable ME theory in late modernity: articulating a metaphysics of exemplarity (such that the latter is robustly objective and causally real) and explicating the way in which the dynamics of exemplarity across social relations (in time and space) can truly be "atoning."

I've written drafts of both papers, but won't be able to finish them up until I get back to Norway and have access to all my books, etc.

Comments or suggestions are welcome, but I've turned to working on a book, so I may not have time to respond in detail.

Comments

[Jørgen Rafn]

Sounds like two very interesting papers, LeRon. Personally I am very fascinated by the discussion on the dynamics between the subject(ive) and the object(ive). Who knows (and what is knowing anyway)? What separates the observer and the observed?

For inspiration on your papers; this might be something to read?

http://integrallife.com/editorial/kosmos-trilogy-vol-ii-excerpt-g-towards-comprehensive-theory-subtle-energies?page=0,0

Enjoy Langkawi (I was there a couple of weeks ago - spent a week at Koh Lipe)..

[Josh Rowley]

Thanks for the preview, LeRon. I'm glad to hear the ME theory of the atonement being taken seriously. Another objection to it that I often come across is that it does not take sin seriously enough.

[len hjalmarson]

Did you ever write that paper "Differentiating Religious Plurality?"

[LeRon]

Hi Len,

Yes, I did and it is currently under peer review at a journal. I also presented a paper on the theme at the Montreal AAR called "Transforming Religious Plurality: Anxiety and Difference in Religious Families of Origin."

Writing that article was important for me both professionally, because it marks a move into the scholarly debates on inter-religious dialogue, as well as personally, because it helped me come to terms with my own ambiguous relationship with my (evangelical) religious family of origin.

[len hjalmarson]

Ok, I will sit on the edge of my chair until I can get that one in hand.. did I mention my chair is uncomfortable... ;) Thanks for the work you do LeRon, as Thomas Merton said, it is only the particular that is truly universal.. oh.. the name of the journal?

[LeRon Shults]

Hi Len, I've submitted it to "Studies in Interreligious Dialogue"

http://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=journal&journal_code=SID

Usually takes a few months to hear back. I might try to post some sections on the blog later.

[Jvan8809]

The two papers look great! I'll be interested in the CSR one when you are done with it. I wish I could have gone to the ESSAT conference, I think it will be a good one. I think Craig is going?... My paper is more on Phil of Science issues and theology rather than a more strictly theological appraisal (rebuttal?) of some of CSRs assumptions, I would definitely like a copy when your done if your willing to share. The one for our shared STARS project looks great as well. As I've been reflecting on the project soteriology and theological anthropology in regard to human nature have become important topics to me. It looks like your tackling some stuff that is important for our overall project. P.S. So jealous of your time in Langkawi, the pictures look great!