Search

How do we know that we can trust our viewpoints, our dogmatic principles and our religious convictions to constitute veracity, if not truth? Where can an arbiter be found for our deliberations to establish the trustworthiness of our viewpoints or belief systems, when we differ one from the other on religious matters, and in the context of religious conviction also differ in political and social endeavours? Van Huyssteen deserves commendation for his contribution to this discourse in developing the concept of a postfoundationalist epistemology in an attempt to justify theology’s integrity, and endorse theology’s public voice within our highly complex and challenging world. He suggests that the concept of human uniqueness might be the common denominator in the contributions of theology (in its specific understanding of the unique status of humans in God’s creation) and science (in its understanding of the unique stature of Homo sapiens in terms of biological evolution). However, the author, in this article, argues that given the radically diverse disciplines of science in our highly developed technological – and indeed within our current Covid-dominated context (on the one hand) and the pre-scientific context of religion (on the other hand), it becomes increasingly difficult to imagine how it can remain possible to find something like a common issue, a shared problem, a kind of mutual concern or even a shared overlapping research trajectory that might benefit precisely from this envisaged interdisciplinary dialogue. Is it possible that ‘alone in this world’ could mean something different than what Van Huyssteen suggests? Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: How do we know that we can trust our viewpoints, and our religious convictions to constitute truth? Van Huyssteen develops the concept of a postfoundationalist epistemology in an attempt to justify theology’s integrity within the discourse with science. However, the author in this article argues that it has become increasingly difficult for systematic theology to find a shared overlapping research trajectory that might benefit this interdisciplinary dialogue.

The author of the article has two aims. At first, he wants to inform theologians about the newest findings of paleogenetics, paleoanthropology and bioculturology relevant for the theology of creation, theological anthropology, moral theology and fundamental theology. In theology, it is necessary to find a clear borderline between not yet being human and being already human. Searching for this borderline is the second aim of the study. On the level of technology and communication, we can observe a continual development. Although there can be found some leaps, theologians are not able to find a clear borderline. According to the author, this line is marked by moral consciousness, which either exists or not. Human being is a creature able to sin. The time of crossing this Rubicon cannot be determined according to archaeological discoveries. It could be in the time of Homo heidelbergensis, but certainly in the time of classical Neanderthals and anatomically modern people.

Copyright of ABI Technik is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

With findings from cognitive science, neuroscience, information science, and paleoanthropology, an anthropologist and astronomer-priest team take a new look at the nature of morality, and suggest parameters that are often very different from the philosophical and theological literatures. They see morality as a biologically-based arbitration mechanism that works along a timeline with a valence of good to bad. It is rational, purposeful, social, and affected by emotion but not dominated by it. The authors examine the age and sex structure, family roles, environment, cognition, and lifeway of Homo erectus, an early hominin who arose 1.9 million years ago, and propose that he had a rudimentary moral system that his biology and culture enabled – but only after he learned to control fire. Hearths gave rise to an intense, social, emotional, experiential context where belief systems could be learned by youth before they achieved adult cognition.

Nous présentons les résultats préliminaires d'un projet Tuniso-Italien de collaboration scientifique dans le domaine des études environnementales et de la recherche préhistorique et anthropologique en Tunisie méridionale mené selon une approche interdisciplinaire qui comprend la géo-archéologie, la géochronologie, la géochimie, la palynologie, la paléoanthropologie et la génétique. La zone de recherche se trouve au sud du Chott el Jérid et ses environs. Il s’agit d’une zone caractérisée par la présence de l’un des méga lacs qui existaient dans le Sahara pendant les périodes humides à la fin du Quaternaire. La région est une zone charnière entre la Méditerranée et le Sahara, donc favorable à l’étude des diffusions culturelles et des déplacements humains à travers les différentes périodes et environnements.