K. Helmut Reich’s research while affiliated with University of Fribourg and other places

This essay evolves around three concepts: (i) brain, (ii) religion, and (iii) relationship. Much of current misunderstandings and disputes result from using these concepts in differing ways without making the differences clear. Therefore, the stage is set with the corresponding definitions and a brief summary of the present state of affairs as understood here. That will also indicate the comparatively narrow content-related limits of the present considerations, which, from an enlarged perspective, are embedded in much wider concerns. Having thus situated the area under discussion here, two current major issues will be dealt with: “Is the brain the generator of religion,” and “Is the brain sufficient as a guide for living a satisfactory life?” Present answers are, respectively “Scientifically speaking, more data are needed before coming to a definite conclusion,” and “No.” In making the relevant arguments and statements, I partly draw on my earlier work.

There is no consensus as to whether, and if so, in which regard and to what extent science and religion is needed for human survival. Here a circumscribed domain is taken up: the sovereignty and sufficiency of the human brain in this context. Several of its shortcomings are pointed out. Religion and other aspects of culture are needed for remedial action. To determine such an action, a broad-based dialogue is required, based on the most promising ontology and epistemology as well as on appropriate logics. Il n’existe pas de consensus, et si c’est le cas, sur la manière et dans quelle mesure la science et la religion sont nécessaires à la survie des êtres humains. C’est dans ce contexte que seront évoqués des travaux qui soutiennent que l’esprit humain est souverain et, en quelque sorte, adapté à la réalisation de ce projet. Certaines limites de cette position seront présentées. La religion et certains autres aspects de la culture doivent êtres convoqués dans la perspective où il y a possibilité de rémédiation de l’action. Pour que celle-ci soit possible, elle doit s’inscrire dans le cadre d’un dialogue élargi qui s’appuie sur une ontologie et une épistémologie qui s’ouvre sur des possibles, de même que sur une logique appropriée.

In recent years the science-and-religion/spirituality/theology dialogue has flourished, but the impact on the minds of the general public, on society as a whole, has been less impressive. Also, religious believers and outspoken atheists face each other without progressing toward a common understanding. The view taken here is that achieving a more marked impact of the dialogue would be beneficial for a peaceful survival of humanity. I aim to argue the why and how of that task by analyzing three possible purposes of the dialogue and their logical interdependence, suggest conceivable improvements of the quality and extent of the current efforts toward a negotiated action plan, and consider an enlargement of the circle of the actors involved. The dialogue that has been carried on between science and religion/spirituality/theology could be expanded and usefully applied to some major problems in the present world.

In the current scientific age there exists in academia a certain reservation regarding, even a fear of contact with, controversial issues such as faith healing or shamanism or even spiritual transformation. Although classical medicine, neurobiology, and possibly even social circumstances and forces are recognized, researching the controversial issues evoked may be frowned upon and even be risky for one's academic career. Fortunately, Joan Koss-Chioino, Philip Hefner, and their colleagues (anthropologists, artists, neuroscientists, physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, theologians, and others) have not shrunk from doing so. The result, reviewed here in some detail, goes beyond what is common knowledge and points the way to further beneficial insights via open-minded interdisciplinary research.

Complementarity reasoning helps dissolve perceived contradictions that otherwise might adversely affect religious development.

Donald MacKay has suggested that the logical concept of complementarity is needed to relate scientific and theological thinking. According to Ian Barbour, this concept should only be used within, not between, disciplines. This article therefore attempts to clarify that contrast from the standpoint of cognitive process. Thinking in terms of complementarity is explicated within a structuralist-genetic, interactive-constructivist, developmental theory of the neo- and post-Piagetian kind, and its role in religious development is indicated. Adolescents'complementary views on Creation and on the corresponding scientific accounts serve as an illustration. After further analysis of parallel and circular complementarity, it is shown under which conditions complementarity of science and theology can be better justified and may be potentially more fruitful than is apparent from Barbour's or even MacKay's considerations.

A strategy for deeding systematically with such complex relationships as those between science and theology is presented after a brief overview of the historical record and illustrated in terms of the concept of divinity. The application of that strategy to the title relationships yields a multilogical/multilevel solution which presents certain analogies to or isomorphisms with the doctrine of the Trinity. These concern mainly the multilogical/multilevel character of both conceptualizations and the relational and contextual reasoning required to conceive them. Furthermore, certain characteristics of the doctrine facilitate the dialogue between theologians and scientists on account of their similarity with such scientific concepts as diversity in unity, multiplicity of relationships, nonseparability, and nonclassical logic.

We argue that reconnecting science and spirituality yields the best rational understanding of the world. Spirituality is seen as the core of many religions. Distinctions are drawn between science and scientism and between spirituality and religion. A historical analysis provides a partial explanation of scientists' aversion to religion. A thought experiment illustrates that spirituality could not only be a legitimate research topic of science but also inform science by offering certain insights. Specifically, science could and should more freely study spirituality in its beneficial impact on individuals' attempts to attain personal wholeness, overcome substance abuse, achieve a more communal society, and safeguard the environment.

This is a report from a longitudinal study of chronic drug and alcohol addicts in treatment at Beit T'shuvah Synagogue's recovery centre in California. The research asks: How does it work? What works for whom? What does spirituality have to do with it? A basic assumption is that addicts suffer from one (or more) structural splits: a split between affect and logic or a split between self and context. Effective treatment is construed as recovering integrity, mending the split(s). The study reports an analysis of 28 semi-clinical interviews with male and female chronic drug addicts, mean age 34 (range 20–78). We analysed the interviews in terms of (i) structural splits, (ii) relational and contextual reasoning (RCR): recognising, reconciling and transcending apparently con-tradictory views and experiences; (iii) experiences of spiritual awakening. In terms of the trajectory from (i) to (ii) and (iii), we classified respondents as either 'stuck in the split' (chronic disintegration); or integrity recovered. Finally, based on the analysis of these data, we provide a theoretical roadmap from divided self to recovered integrity.