“Landscape Plotted and Pieced”: Exploring the Contours of Engagement Between (Neuro)science and Theology

Abstract

This article-the first of a linked set of three outlining the development and practice of a different approach to science/religion dialogue-begins with an overview of some persistent tensions in the field. Then, using a threefold heuristic of encounter, engagement, and expression, it explores the routes taken by James Ashbrook and Andrew Newberg to develop a dialogue between theology and neuroscience, discussing some of the problems associated with these and their implications for attempts to further develop neurotheology. Finally, it proposes a different way of thinking about this enterprise and points toward a new methodology for supporting this endeavor.

“Things Counter, Original, Spare, Strange”: Developing a Postfoundational Transversal Model for Science/Religion Dialogue

“…From the specific perspective of pursuing neurotheological dialogue, this also offers a solution to the problem identified with respect to Newberg of potential territorial vastness. Simultaneously, the standards of accountability inherent in postfoundational rationality provide a way of assessing the suitability of specific voices as potential dialogical partners at such intersections, thus opening a way to approach the dilemma of “which voices?” raised in the previous article (Bennett ).…”

“…Both shifts have implications for attempts to connect scientific and religious narratives and understandings. In the case of the first, its accompanying change in perception as to what constitutes “reliable knowledge” about the world brings into question the ability of, and extent to which, religious thinking can contribute to this, something which has heightened and reinforced the epistemological and ontological tensions outlined in the previous article (Bennett ). With the current shift, the challenge to the very heart of modernist assumptions about objective knowledge moves the focus of contention back to science, questioning its hegemonic claim to be the gatekeeper and arbiter of all “real” knowledge of the world.…”

“…In the previous article (Bennett ), I explored some of the enduring tensions which underlie science/religion dialogue and discussed the implications of these for attempts to bring together the discourses of theology and neuroscience in a coherent way. I also argued that the neurotheological projects of both James Ashbrook and Andrew Newberg – two leading figures in the field – run into difficulties because of, among other things, the lack of a suitable methodological strategy for negotiating these points of tension and difficulty.…”

“Áll Trádes, Their Gear and Tackle and Trim”: Theology, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Psychoneuroimmunology in Transversal Dialogue

“…However, given the complexity of PNI systems and the many and varied methodological challenges associated with studying these (e.g., controlling for a large number of potential confounding variables; standardization of collection and measurement; the gap between in vitro measurement at cellular level and in vivo function at systems level; potential discrepancies between statistics and clinical significance in readings, and so on), this is not necessarily something that can be investigated solely from within the discipline. As such it falls into one of the categories which I earlier suggested were suitable for transversal neurotheological explorations (Bennett ).…”

“…In the first of this set of articles (Bennett ), I explored some of the persistent tensions underlying the science/religion dialogue, looking particularly at how these affect attempts to develop a coherent interaction between theology and the neurosciences. I then discussed the neurotheological approaches adopted by James Ashbrook and Andrew Newberg, arguing that these foundered in part due to the absence of a robust methodology for negotiating the dialogical difficulties noted.…”