Religion Explained? : A Philosophical Appraisal of the Cognitive Science of Religion

This study examines philosophically the main theories and methodological assumptions of the field known as the cognitive science of religion (CSR). The study makes a philosophically informed reconstruction of the methodological principles of the CSR, indicates problems with them, and examines possible solutions to these problems. The study focuses on several different CSR writers, namely, Scott Atran, Justin Barrett, Pascal Boyer and Dan Sperber. CSR theorising is done in the intersection between cognitive sciences, anthropology and evolutionary psychology. This multidisciplinary nature makes CSR a fertile ground for philosophical considerations coming from philosophy of psychology, philosophy of mind and philosophy of science. The study begins by spelling out the methodological assumptions and auxiliary theories of CSR writers by situating these theories and assumptions in the nexus of existing approaches to religion. The distinctive feature of CSR is its emphasis on information processing: CSR writers claim that contemporary cognitive sciences can inform anthropological theorising about the human mind and offer tools for producing causal explanations. Further, they claim to explain the prevalence and persistence of religion by cognitive systems that undergird religious thinking. I also examine the core theoretical contributions of the field focusing mainly on the (1) “minimally counter-intuitiveness hypothesis” and (2) the different ways in which supernatural agent representations activate our cognitive systems. Generally speaking, CSR writers argue for the naturalness of religion: religious ideas and practices are widespread and pervasive because human cognition operates in such a way that religious ideas are easy to acquire and transmit. The study raises two philosophical problems, namely, the “problem of scope” and the “problem of religious relevance”. The problem of scope is created by the insistence of several critics of the CSR that CSR explanations are mostly irrelevant for explaining religion. Most CSR writers themselves hold that cognitive explanations can answer most of our questions about religion. I argue that the problem of scope is created by differences in explanation-begging questions: the former group is interested in explaining different things than the latter group. I propose that we should not stick too rigidly to one set of methodological assumptions, but rather acknowledge that different assumptions might help us to answer different questions about religion. Instead of adhering to some robust metaphysics as some strongly naturalistic writers argue, we should adopt a pragmatic and explanatory pluralist approach which would allow different kinds of methodological presuppositions in the study of religion provided that they attempt to answer different kinds of why-questions, since religion appears to be a multi-faceted phenomenon that spans over a variety of fields of special sciences. The problem of religious relevance is created by the insistence of some writers that CSR theories show religious beliefs to be false or irrational, whereas others invoke CSR theories to defend certain religious ideas. The problem is interesting because it reveals the more general philosophical assumptions of those who make such interpretations. CSR theories can (and have been) interpreted in terms of three different philosophical frameworks: strict naturalism, broad naturalism and theism. I argue that CSR theories can be interpreted inside all three frameworks without doing violence to the theories and that these frameworks give different kinds of results regarding the religious relevance of CSR theories.

One Word, One Body, One Voice : Studies in Apophatic Theology and Christocentric Anthropology in Gregory of Nyssa

The thesis consists of five international congress papers and a summary with an introduction. The overarching aim of the studies and the summary is to examine the inner coherency of the theological and anthropological thinking of Gregory of Nyssa (331-395). To the issue is applied an "apophatic approach" with a "Christological focus". It is suggested that the coherency is to be found from the Christological concept of unity between "true God" and "true man" in the one person of Jesus Christ. Gregory is among the first to make a full recognition of two natures of Christ, and to use this recognition systematically in his writings. The aim of the studies is pursued by the method of "identification", a combination of the modern critical "problematic method" and Gregory's own aphairetic method of "following" (akolouthia). The preoccupation with issues relating to the so-called Hellenization of Christianity in the patristic era was strong in the twentieth-century Gregory scholarship. The most discussed questions have been the Greek influence in his thought and his philosophical sources. In the five articles of the thesis it is examined how Gregory's thinking stands in its own right. The manifestly apophatic character of his theological thinking is made a part of the method of examining his thought according to the principles of his own method of following. The basic issue concerning the relation of theology and anthropology is discussed in the contexts of his central Trinitarian, anhtropological, Christological and eschatological sources. In the summary the Christocentric integration of Gregory's thinking is discussed also in relation to the issue of the alledged Hellenization. The main conclusion of the thesis concerns the concept of theology in Gregory. It is not indebted to the classical concept of theology as metaphysics or human speculation of God. Instead, it is founded to the traditional Judeo-Christian idea of God who speaks with his people face to face. In Gregory, theologia connotes the oikonomia of God's self-revelation. It may be regarded as the state of constant expression of love between the Creator and his created image. In theology, the human person becomes an image of the Word by which the Father expresses his love to "man" whom he loves as his own Son. Eventually the whole humankind, as one, gives the divine Word a physical - audible and sensible - Body. Humankind then becomes what theology is. The whole humanity expresses divine love by manifesting Christ in words and deeds, singing in one voice to the glory of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Logic as the Universal Science : Bertrand Russell's Early Conception of Logic and Its Philosophical Context

Bertrand Russell (1872 1970) introduced the English-speaking philosophical world to modern, mathematical logic and foundational study of mathematics. The present study concerns the conception of logic that underlies his early logicist philosophy of mathematics, formulated in The Principles of Mathematics (1903). In 1967, Jean van Heijenoort published a paper, Logic as Language and Logic as Calculus, in which he argued that the early development of modern logic (roughly the period 1879 1930) can be understood, when considered in the light of a distinction between two essentially different perspectives on logic. According to the view of logic as language, logic constitutes the general framework for all rational discourse, or meaningful use of language, whereas the conception of logic as calculus regards logic more as a symbolism which is subject to reinterpretation. The calculus-view paves the way for systematic metatheory, where logic itself becomes a subject of mathematical study (model-theory). Several scholars have interpreted Russell s views on logic with the help of the interpretative tool introduced by van Heijenoort,. They have commonly argued that Russell s is a clear-cut case of the view of logic as language. In the present study a detailed reconstruction of the view and its implications is provided, and it is argued that the interpretation is seriously misleading as to what he really thought about logic. I argue that Russell s conception is best understood by setting it in its proper philosophical context. This is constituted by Immanuel Kant s theory of mathematics. Kant had argued that purely conceptual thought basically, the logical forms recognised in Aristotelian logic cannot capture the content of mathematical judgments and reasonings. Mathematical cognition is not grounded in logic but in space and time as the pure forms of intuition. As against this view, Russell argued that once logic is developed into a proper tool which can be applied to mathematical theories, Kant s views turn out to be completely wrong. In the present work the view is defended that Russell s logicist philosophy of mathematics, or the view that mathematics is really only logic, is based on what I term the Bolzanian account of logic . According to this conception, (i) the distinction between form and content is not explanatory in logic; (ii) the propositions of logic have genuine content; (iii) this content is conferred upon them by special entities, logical constants . The Bolzanian account, it is argued, is both historically important and throws genuine light on Russell s conception of logic.

Questions to Artificial Nature: A Philosophical Study of Interdisciplinary Models and their Functions in Scientific Practice

This thesis presents an interdisciplinary analysis of how models and simulations function in the production of scientific knowledge. The work is informed by three scholarly traditions: studies on models and simulations in philosophy of science, so-called micro-sociological laboratory studies within science and technology studies, and cultural-historical activity theory. Methodologically, I adopt a naturalist epistemology and combine philosophical analysis with a qualitative, empirical case study of infectious-disease modelling. This study has a dual perspective throughout the analysis: it specifies the modelling practices and examines the models as objects of research. The research questions addressed in this study are: 1) How are models constructed and what functions do they have in the production of scientific knowledge? 2) What is interdisciplinarity in model construction? 3) How do models become a general research tool and why is this process problematic? The core argument is that the mediating models as investigative instruments (cf. Morgan and Morrison 1999) take questions as a starting point, and hence their construction is intentionally guided. This argument applies the interrogative model of inquiry (e.g., Sintonen 2005; Hintikka 1981), which conceives of all knowledge acquisition as process of seeking answers to questions. The first question addresses simulation models as Artificial Nature, which is manipulated in order to answer questions that initiated the model building. This account develops further the "epistemology of simulation" (cf. Winsberg 2003) by showing the interrelatedness of researchers and their objects in the process of modelling. The second question clarifies why interdisciplinary research collaboration is demanding and difficult to maintain. The nature of the impediments to disciplinary interaction are examined by introducing the idea of object-oriented interdisciplinarity, which provides an analytical framework to study the changes in the degree of interdisciplinarity, the tools and research practices developed to support the collaboration, and the mode of collaboration in relation to the historically mutable object of research. As my interest is in the models as interdisciplinary objects, the third research problem seeks to answer my question of how we might characterise these objects, what is typical for them, and what kind of changes happen in the process of modelling. Here I examine the tension between specified, question-oriented models and more general models, and suggest that the specified models form a group of their own. I call these Tailor-made models, in opposition to the process of building a simulation platform that aims at generalisability and utility for health-policy. This tension also underlines the challenge of applying research results (or methods and tools) to discuss and solve problems in decision-making processes.

The Mediated Immediacy : João Batista Libanio and the Question of Latin American Liberation Theology

This study is a systematic analysis of mediated immediacy in the production of the Brazilian professor of theology João Batista Libanio. He stresses both ethical mediation and the immediate character of the faith. Libanio has sought an answer to the problem of science and faith. He makes use of the neo-scholastic distinction between matter and form. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God cannot be known as a scientific object, but it is possible to predicate a formal theological content of other subject matter with the help of revelation. This viewpoint was emphasized in neo-Thomism and supported by the liberation theologians. For them, the material starting point was social science. It becomes a theologizable or revealable (revelabile) reality. This social science has its roots in Latin American Marxism which was influenced by the school of Louis Althusser and considered Marxism a science of history . The synthesis of Thomism and Marxism is a challenge Libanio faced, especially in his Teologia da libertação from 1987. He emphasized the need for a genuinely spiritual and ethical discernment, and was particularly critical of the ethical implications of class struggle. Libanio s thinking has a strong hermeneutic flavor. It is more important to understand than to explain. He does not deny the need for social scientific data, but that they cannot be the exclusive starting point of theology. There are different readings of the world, both scientific and theological. A holistic understanding of the nature of religious experience is needed. Libanio follows the interpretation given by H. C. de Lima Vaz, according to whom the Hegelian dialectic is a rational circulation between the totality and its parts. He also recalls Oscar Cullmann s idea of God s Kingdom that is already and not yet . In other words, there is a continuous mediation of grace into the natural world. This dialectic is reflected in ethics. Faith must be verified in good works. Libanio uses the Thomist fides caritate formata principle and the modern orthopraxis thinking represented by Edward Schillebeeckx. One needs both the ortho of good faith and the praxis of the right action. The mediation of praxis is the mediation of human and divine love. Libanio s theology has strong roots in the Jesuit spirituality that places the emphasis on contemplation in action.

Beatific Enjoyment in Scholastic Philosophy and Theology: 1240-1335

This dissertation examines the concept of beatific enjoyment (fruitio beatifica) in scholastic theology and philosophy in the thirteenth and early fourteenth century. The aim of the study is to explain what is enjoyment and to show why scholastic thinkers were interested in discussing it. The dissertation consists of five chapters. The first chapter deals with Aurelius Augustine's distinction between enjoyment and use and the place of enjoyment in the framework of Augustine's view of the passions and the human will. The first chapter also focuses upon the importance of Peter Lombard's Sentences for the transmission of Augustine's treatment of enjoyment in scholastic thought as well as upon Lombard's understanding of enjoyment. The second chapter treats thirteenth-century conceptions of the object and psychology of enjoyment. Material for this chapter is provided by the writings - mostly Sentences commentaries - of Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Tarentaise, Robert Kilwardby, William de la Mare, Giles of Rome, and Richard of Middleton. The third chapter inspects early fourteenth-century views of the object and psychology of enjoyment. The fourth chapter focuses upon discussions of the enjoyment of the Holy Trinity. The fifth chapter discusses the contingency of beatific enjoyment. The main writers studied in the third, fourth and fifth chapters are John Duns Scotus, Peter Aureoli, Durandus of Saint Pourçain, William of Ockham, Walter Chatton, Robert Holcot, and Adam Wodeham. Historians of medieval intellectual history have emphasized the significance of the concept of beatific enjoyment for understanding the character and aims of scholastic theology and philosophy. The concept of beatific enjoyment was developed by Augustine on the basis of the insight that only God can satisfy our heart's desire. The possibility of satisfying this desire requires a right ordering of the human mind and a detachment of the will from the relative goals of earthly existence. Augustine placed this insight at the very foundation of the notion of Christian learning and education in his treatise On Christian Doctrine. Following Augustine, the twelfth-century scholastic theologian Peter Lombard made the concept of enjoyment the first topic in his plan of systematic theology. The official inclusion of Lombard's Sentences in the curriculum of theological studies in the early universities stimulated vigorous discussions of enjoyment. Enjoyment was understood as a volition and was analyzed in relation to cognition and other psychic features such as rest and pleasure. This study shows that early fourteenth-century authors deepened the analysis of enjoyment by concentrating upon the relationship between enjoyment and mental pleasure, the relationship between cognition and volition, and the relationship between the will and the beatific object (i.e., the Holy Trinity). The study also demonstrates the way in which the idea of enjoyment was affected by changes in the method of theological analysis - the application of Aristotelian logic in a Trinitarian context and the shift from virtue ethics to normative ethics.

Kutsu kuuliaisuuteen : James I. Packerin liittonomistinen raamattukäsitys

This dissertation examines James I. Packer s view of the Bible as the book of God s revelation. However, this study could not be complete without discussion of his background ideas about God, man and the foundations of theology. The research method used in this dissertation is systematic analysis. I analyse key theological concepts in the data, such as inerrancy, God s word and the covenant of grace, and examine Packer s concepts primarily in the context of the reformed tradition that he represents. Although the dissertation presents the philosophical premises of Packer s thought, the focus is on an analysis of theological concepts. Packer claims to approach theological issues broadly and to reject legalism. However, he also considers Calvinist thinking to be best suited to theological work and emphasises the central role of law in his view of the Bible. My dissertation pays particular attention to the status of law in Packer s theology and especially in the covenant of grace. The dissertation shows that the fundamental theological structure of Packer s view of the Bible is based on Puritan covenant theology, which consists of the temporally successive covenant of works and covenant of grace. Covenant theology stresses the connection and friendship between God and man. Man s highest goal according to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) is to glorify the triune God and to rejoice in him for all eternity. After the fall of man, this friendship between God and man can only take place in the covenant of grace. For Packer, the covenant of grace encompasses not only the time of the Gospel, but also the time of the law before the Gospel. Consequently, the covenant of grace incorporates in its very essence the demand of obedience to God s law. Covenant theology forms the foundation for both his view of the Bible and his idea that a believer lives in a covenant of grace, the key aspects of which are God s commandments and man s works. Law and the Gospel are not considered fundamental opposites in the covenant of grace, unlike in justification. In the covenant of grace, man has become God s friend who obeys the law as the law of Christ in a way which differs from Luther s view of obedience to the faith . For Packer, covenant theology is a Puritan instrument to link predestination and sanctification. Works committed in obedience show that the believer belongs to the covenant of grace and will be among the saved. Although voluntary obedience to God s commandments is not a direct instrument to achieve salvation, it is a pivotal sign of predestination. God calls the predestined to salvation with an effectual calling, the reliable message of the Bible. In sanctification, God guides a believer living in the context of covenantal nomism. In that sense, the Bible is above all an instrument of law guided by reason. In man s obedience, God completes man s nature and restores the imago Dei in man.

Käytännöt ja ajattelu Michel Foucault'n filosofiassa

Practices and Thought in Michel Foucault s Philosophy The present thesis examines Michel Foucault s (1926-1984) notion of practice and argues that it is an essential concept in his philosophy, especially in his analysis of knowledge, power and ethics. The thesis reveals a previously neglected chronological and methodological unity in Foucault s work. The first chapter clarifies Foucault s philosophy by outlining it according to four central themes. First, the main philosophical goal of his historical studies is to analyse how human subjects have become objects of their own thinking. Second, this goal calls for methodological precaution to avoid all anthropological universals. Third, Foucault s studies are directed towards fields of practices. Fourth, the analysis of practices is executed along three axes: knowledge, power and ethics. The second chapter concerns the notion of practice in Foucault s archaeological method. Foucault s archaeological analysis is not directed towards objects and subjects as such, but to the way that the rules of discursive practice form them in the discourse. Many commentators have neglected Foucault s concept of practice when discussing his ideas concerning rules of discourse and limits of knowledge. I argue that Foucault s analysis concerning the limits of knowledge relates to local and contingent rules of discursive practice, not to transcendental rules of thinking in general. The third chapter deals with power relations and practices. I clarify Foucault s concept of dispositif by defining it as a functional ensemble of practices, and argue that this concept is crucial to his understanding of power relations. I stress a conceptual definition, which separates relations of power from the practices of government and show that the latter is based on the idea that power relations are integrated into practices. This conceptual clarification also helps in understanding Foucault s critique concerning modern practices of power. The fourth chapter examines Foucault s way of perceiving ethics as a practice. He separates three essential dimensions in morals: moral codes, moral behaviour and practices of self. His ethics concern practices of self and he studies how these practices have constituted different relations that subjects have to themselves, to others and to their societies. I argue that Foucault s own ethical views can be found in the ideas on the importance of practices of self in the modern world, and emphasize that these ideas should be connected to his views concerning the tradition of the Enlightenment, and to his own political action.

Mikä on ihme ja mitä ihmeistä voidaan tietää? : Keskustelu ihmeistä uusimmassa englanninkielisessä uskonnonfilosofiassa

What is a miracle and what can we know about miracles? A discussion of miracles in anglophone philosophy of religion literature since the late 1960s. The aim of this study is to systematically describe and philosophically examine the anglophone discussion on the subject of miracles since the latter half of the 1960s. The study focuses on two salient questions: firstly, what I will term the conceptual-ontological question of the extent to which we can understand miracles and, secondly, the epistemological question of what we can know about miracles. My main purpose in this study is to examine the various viewpoints that have been submitted in relation to these questions, how they have been argued and on what presuppositions these arguments have been based. In conducting the study, the most salient dimension of the various discussions was found to relate to epistemological questions. In this regard, there was a notable confrontation between those scholars who accept miracles and those who are sceptical of them. On the conceptual-ontological side I recognised several different ways of expressing the concept of miracle . I systematised the discussion by demonstrating the philosophical boundaries between these various opinions. The first and main boundary was related to ontological knowledge. On one side of this boundary I placed the views which were based on realism and objectivism. The proponents of this view assumed that miraculousness is a real property of a miraculous event regardless of how we can perceive it. On the other side I put the views which tried to define miraculousness in terms of subjectivity, contextuality and epistemicity. Another essential boundary which shed light on the conceptual-ontological discussion was drawn in relation to two main views of nature. The realistic-particularistic view regards nature as a certain part of reality. The adherents of this presupposition postulate a supernatural sphere alongside nature. Alternatively, the nominalist-universalist view understands nature without this kind of division. Nature is understood as the entire and infinite universe; the whole of reality. Other, less important boundaries which shed light on the conceptual-ontological discussion were noted in relation to views regarding the laws of nature, for example. I recognised that the most important differences between the epistemological approaches were in the different views of justification, rationality, truth and science. The epistemological discussion was divided into two sides, distinguished by their differing assumptions in relation to the need for evidence. Adherents of the first (and noticeably smaller) group did not see any epistemological need to reach a universal and common opinion about miracles. I discovered that these kinds of views, which I called non-objectivist, had subjectivist and so-called collectivist views of justification and a contextualist view of rationality. The second (and larger) group was mainly interested in discerning the grounds upon which to establish an objective and conclusive common view in relation to the epistemology of miracles. I called this kind of discussion an objectivist discussion and this kind of approach an evidentialist approach. Most of the evidentialists tried to defend miracles and the others attempted to offer evidence against miracles. Amongst both sides, there were many different variations according to emphasis and assumption over how they saw the possibilities to prove their own view. The common characteristic in all forms of evidentialism was a commitment to an objectivist notion of rationality and a universalistic notion of justification. Most evidentialists put their confidence in science in one way or another. Only a couple of philosophers represented the most moderate version of evidentialism; they tried to remove themselves from the apparent controversy and contextualised the different opinions in order to make some critical comments on them. I called this kind of approach a contextualising form of evidentialism. In the final part of the epistemological chapter, I examined the discussion about the evidential value of miracles, but nothing substantially new was discovered concerning the epistemological views of the authors.

Agreeable Agreement : An Examination into the Quest for a Solid Consensus in Light of Bilateral Doctrinal Dialogues among Anglicans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics

The purpose of this study is to analyse the development and understanding of the idea of consensus in bilateral dialogues among Anglicans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics. The source material consists of representative dialogue documents from the international, regional and national dialogues from the 1960s until 2006. In general, the dialogue documents argue for agreement/consensus based on commonality or compatibility. Each of the three dialogue processes has specific characteristics and formulates its argument in a unique way. The Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue has a particular interest in hermeneutical questions. In the early phases, the documents endeavoured to describe the interpretative principles that would allow the churches to together proclaim the Gospel and to identify the foundation on which the agreement in the church is based. This investigation ended up proposing a notion of basic consensus , which later developed into a form of consensus that seeks to embrace, not to dismiss differences (so-called differentiated consensus ). The Lutheran-Roman Catholic agreement is based on a perspectival understanding of doctrine. The Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue emphasises the correctness of interpretations. The documents consciously look towards a common future , not the separated past. The dialogue s primary interpretative concept is koinonia. The texts develop a hermeneutics of authoritative teaching that has been described as the rule of communion . The Anglican-Lutheran dialogue is characterised by an instrumental understanding of doctrine. Doctrinal agreement is facilitated by the ideas of coherence, continuity and substantial emphasis in doctrine. The Anglican-Lutheran dialogue proposes a form of sufficient consensus that considers a wide set of doctrinal statements and liturgical practices to determine whether an agreement has been reached to the degree that, although not complete , is sufficient for concrete steps towards unity. Chapter V discusses the current challenges of consensus as an ecumenically viable concept. In this part, I argue that the acceptability of consensus as an ecumenical goal is based not only the understanding of the church but more importantly on the understanding of the nature and function of the doctrine. The understanding of doctrine has undergone significant changes during the time of the ecumenical dialogues. The major shift has been from a modern paradigm towards a postmodern paradigm. I conclude with proposals towards a way to construct a form of consensus that would survive philosophical criticism, would be theologically valid and ecumenically acceptable.

Ideological notions in public health care rationing : Case studies from Oregon, New Zealand and Finland

The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze and explicate the ideological content, which is often implicit, in the health care rationing discussion. The phrase "ideological content" refers to viewpoints and assumptions expressed in the rationing discussion that may be widespread and accepted, but without clear evidential support. The study method is philosophical text analysis. The study begins by exploring the literature from the 1970s that affects the present-day rationing discussion. Since ideological contents may have different emphases in realm of health care, three representative cases were studied. The first was a case study of the first and best-known rationing experiment in the American state of Oregon, namely, an experimental rationing plan within the public health program Medicaid, which is designed to provide care for the poor and underprivileged. The second was a study of the only national-level public priority setting that has been conducted in New Zealand. The third examined the Finnish Care Guarantee plan introduced in March 2005. The findings show that several problematic and scientifically mostly unproven concepts have remained largely uncontested in the debate about public health care rationing. Some of these notions already originated decades ago in studies that relied on outdated data or research paradigms. The problematic ideological contents have also been taken up from one publication into another, thereby affecting the rationing debate. The study suggests that before any new public health care rationing experiments are undertaken, these ideological factors should be properly examined, especially in order to avoid repetitious research and perhaps erroneous rationing decisions.

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context : Brevard S. Childs' Methodology of Biblical Theology

Modern Christian theology has been at pain with the schism between the Bible and theology, and between biblical studies and systematic theology. Brevard Springs Childs is one of biblical scholars who attempt to dismiss this “iron curtain” separating the two disciplines. The present thesis aims at analyzing Childs’ concept of theological exegesis in the canonical context. In the present study I employ the method of systematic analysis. The thesis consists of seven chapters. Introduction is the first chapter. The second chapter attempts to find out the most important elements which exercise influence on Childs’ methodology of biblical theology by sketching his academic development during his career. The third chapter attempts to deal with the crucial question why and how the concept of the canon is so important for Childs’ methodology of biblical theology. In chapter four I analyze why and how Childs is dissatisfied with historical-critical scholarship and I point out the differences and similarities between his canonical approach and historical criticism. The fifth chapter attempts at discussing Childs’ central concepts of theological exegesis by investigating whether a Christocentric approach is an appropriate way of creating a unified biblical theology. In the sixth chapter I present a critical evaluation and methodological reflection of Childs’ theological exegesis in the canonical context. The final chapter sums up the key points of Childs’ methodology of biblical theology. The basic results of this thesis are as follows: First, the fundamental elements of Childs’ theological thinking are rooted in Reformed theological tradition and in modern theological neo-orthodoxy and in its most prominent theologian, Karl Barth. The American Biblical Theological Movement and the controversy between Protestant liberalism and conservatism in the modern American context cultivate his theological sensitivity and position. Second, Childs attempts to dismiss negative influences of the historical-critical method by establishing canon-based theological exegesis leading into confessional biblical theology. Childs employs terminology such as canonical intentionality, the wholeness of the canon, the canon as the most appropriate context for doing a biblical theology, and the continuity of the two Testaments, in order to put into effect his canonical program. Childs demonstrates forcefully the inadequacies of the historical-critical method in creating biblical theology in biblical hermeneutics, doctrinal theology, and pastoral practice. His canonical approach endeavors to establish and create post-critical Christian biblical theology, and works within the traditional framework of faith seeking understanding. Third, Childs’ biblical theology has a double task: descriptive and constructive, the former connects biblical theology with exegesis, the later with dogmatic theology. He attempts to use a comprehensive model, which combines a thematic investigation of the essential theological contents of the Bible with a systematic analysis of the contents of the Christian faith. Childs also attempts to unite Old Testament theology and New Testament theology into one unified biblical theology. Fourth, some problematic points of Childs’ thinking need to be mentioned. For instance, his emphasis on the final form of the text of the biblical canon is highly controversial, yet Childs firmly believes in it, he even regards it as the corner stone of his biblical theology. The relationship between the canon and the doctrine of biblical inspiration is weak. He does not clearly define whether Scripture is God’s word or whether it only “witnesses” to it. Childs’ concepts of “the word of God” and “divine revelation” remain unclear, and their ontological status is ambiguous. Childs’ theological exegesis in the canonical context is a new attempt in the modern history of Christian theology. It expresses his sincere effort to create a path for doing biblical theology. Certainly, it was just a modest beginning of a long process.

Conrad Summenhart's theory of individual rights and its medieval background

This study focuses on the theory of individual rights that the German theologian Conrad Summenhart (1455-1502) explicated in his massive work Opus septipartitum de contractibus pro foro conscientiae et theologico. The central question to be studied is: How does Summenhart understand the concept of an individual right and its immediate implications? The basic premiss of this study is that in Opus septipartitum Summenhart composed a comprehensive theory of individual rights as a contribution to the on-going medieval discourse on rights. With this rationale, the first part of the study concentrates on earlier discussions on rights as the background for Summenhart s theory. Special attention is paid to language in which right was defined in terms of power . In the fourteenth century writers like Hervaeus Natalis and William Ockham maintained that right signifies power by which the right-holder can to use material things licitly. It will also be shown how the attempts to describe what is meant by the term right became more specified and cultivated. Gerson followed the implications that the term power had in natural philosophy and attributed rights to animals and other creatures. To secure right as a normative concept, Gerson utilized the ancient ius suum cuique-principle of justice and introduced a definition in which right was seen as derived from justice. The latter part of this study makes effort to reconstructing Summenhart s theory of individual rights in three sections. The first section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the right of the individual or the concept of an individual right. Summenhart specified Gerson s description of right as power, taking further use of the language of natural philosophy. In this respect, Summenhart s theory managed to bring an end to a particular continuity of thought that was centered upon a view in which right was understood to signify power to licit action. Perhaps the most significant feature of Summenhart s discussion was the way he explicated the implication of liberty that was present in Gerson s language of rights. Summenhart assimilated libertas with the self-mastery or dominion that in the economic context of discussion took the form of (a moderate) self-ownership. Summenhart discussion also introduced two apparent extensions to Gerson s terminology. First, Summenhart classified right as relation, and second, he equated right with dominion. It is distinctive of Summenhart s view that he took action as the primary determinant of right: Everyone has as much rights or dominion in regard to a thing, as much actions it is licit for him to exercise in regard to the thing. The second section elaborates Summenhart s discussion of the species dominion, which delivered an answer to the question of what kind of rights exist, and clarified thereby the implications of the concept of an individual right. The central feature in Summenhart s discussion was his conscious effort to systematize Gerson s language by combining classifications of dominion into a coherent whole. In this respect, his treatement of the natural dominion is emblematic. Summenhart constructed the concept of natural dominion by making use of the concepts of foundation (founded on a natural gift) and law (according to the natural law). In defining natural dominion as dominion founded on a natural gift, Summenhart attributed natural dominion to animals and even to heavenly bodies. In discussing man s natural dominion, Summenhart pointed out that the natural dominion is not sufficiently identified by its foundation, but requires further specification, which Summenhart finds in the idea that natural dominion is appropriate to the subject according to the natural law. This characterization lead him to treat God s dominion as natural dominion. Partly, this was due to Summenhart s specific understanding of the natural law, which made reasonableness as the primary criterion for the natural dominion at the expense of any metaphysical considerations. The third section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the property rights defined by the positive human law. By delivering an account on juridical property rights Summenhart connected his philosophical and theological theory on rights to the juridical language of his times, and demonstrated that his own language of rights was compatible with current juridical terminology. Summenhart prepared his discussion of property rights with an account of the justification for private property, which gave private property a direct and strong natural law-based justification. Summenhart s discussion of the four property rights usus, usufructus, proprietas, and possession aimed at delivering a detailed report of the usage of these concepts in juridical discourse. His discussion was characterized by extensive use of the juridical source texts, which was more direct and verbal the more his discussion became entangled with the details of juridical doctrine. At the same time he promoted his own language on rights, especially by applying the idea of right as relation. He also showed recognizable effort towards systematizing juridical language related to property rights.