The guidelines of _Scientia et Fides_ can be found on: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html or https://apcz.umk.pl/SetF/about/submissions.

The term theodicy was coined by the philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) and is inherent in the question of how evil can exist if an intrinsically good God guides everything. The publication of this oeuvre initiated intense philosophical and theological discourse in the subsequent centuries, during which many issues that bare upon human well-being were articulated. Also, Leibniz’s rational approach to the relationship between God and evil raised a number of issues related to the topic of belief. This topic has (...) entangled discourses on theodicy with a long-lasting debate on beliefs, which goes back to Antiquity. Recently, a paradigm-shift shed new light on the understanding of belief. Science has begun to address the neurophysiological mechanisms of the processes that underpin belief formation, modulation, and change. The term credition was coined in order to capture and reflect this new and innovative understanding of the fluidity of beliefs and believing. This paper presents various features of a pattern of interrelationships between well-being, theodicy, and credition. (shrink)

Dynamic Theodicy (DT) is a broad concept we bring up to designate some modern Philosophical Theology attempts to reconcile the necessary and perfect existence of God with the contingent characteristics of human life. In this paper we analyze such approaches and discuss how they have become incomprehensible because the metaphysical assumptions implicit in these explanations have lost their intrinsic relation to the natural human desire for salvation. In the first part we show Charles Hartshorne's DT-model, arising from the modal logic (...) of perfection, and the modern rational problems of this position in making infinite-necessary Being (God) and finite-contingent being (human) compatible. We note that at the heart of the contradictions in this DT account is a dialectical mode of thinking that makes it difficult to find a correct solution to this dichotomy, and to assume a human desire that could be considered related to lifelong goals. In the second part, supported by the proposal of Hans Urs von Balthasar's DT, we develop the concepts of bodily vulnerability, corporeal intentionality, and natural desire for salvation, which come from an Aristotelian-Thomistic thought. This theory is established in order to build an argument, following Alasdair MacIntyre’s ethical framework, on how to make possible the recovery of a metaphysical and anthropological desire that transcends natural aging and goes beyond death. We conclude that both human dependence and the virtues that arise naturally when human beings decide to seek the good of their transcendent condition, make it possible to recover the natural desire for salvation through divine and human love. (shrink)

The theory of biological evolution has often provoked disagreement, which has frequently been divisive and counterproductive. At other times this scientific paradigm has been discussed with an apologetic intent, to explain why the science of biology and the theology of creation cannot be seen to be mutually exclusive. This paper urges Christians to move decisively to a third type of discourse. The new field of comparative genetics has provided conclusive evidence that biological evolution has given rise to the diversity of (...) living forms, including human beings. Consequently, Christians should, with confidence, gladly accept the evolutionary paradigm and look upon evolution as a divinely ordained historical process that develops through random (stochastic, free) process, but that leads to a divinely purposed consummation. As a result, biological history in its freedom but directedness to God’s final purposes should elicit wonder. People who have come to faith in the God revealed redemptively in Jesus should uninhibitedly offer adoration and praise for evolutionary fruitfulness. Worship should characterise the human response to biological history.[1] [1] In appreciation of Professor Tom McLeish FRS, scientist, teacher, theologian. (shrink)

The philosopher Byung-Chul Han affirms that the present age reduces the human being to a performance-machine, and that, because of this reduction, the type of disease that characterizes it this age is neuronal. In the present article, I argue that Han’s analysis is correct but incomplete. Behind this reductionism, which leads to neuropathologies of different types, lies another type of pathology that the philosopher Eric Voegelin calls ‘pneumopathology’—disease of the spirit. The transhumanist view of human enhancement deepens this reduction and (...) shows that the pneumopathology that blights today’s society is in a process of unprecedented chronification. To justify this thesis, I first explain the connection between human enhancement and the achievement imperative denounced by Han; I then analyze the Voegelian category of pneumopathology to show its value for an ontological-historical understanding of human enhancement. (shrink)

The topic of pain and suffering is complex and requires a holistic vision. This article begins by clarifying concepts to understand pain as a biological, psychological, and social phenomenon that has an evolutionary history whose maximum expression arises in humans. Established this common ground, it explores altruism and animal cooperation as incipient phenomena of care for the other, though contextual. Then it points out that the difference with humans is that they perceive caring for the weak, innocent, and marginalized as (...) a moral duty and a path of personal flourishing. Finally, in the face of human weakness and from Christian theology, God shows with deeds a path of care for the weak by making himself weak, suffering and remaining innocent. (shrink)

Why do creationists persist in rejecting the evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution? This paper explores longstanding disagreements among Christians over the epistemic status of evolution. Like other studies that have tried to define the evidence for evolution, a recent analysis by Gijsbert van den Brink, Jeroen de Ridder, and René van Woudenberg does not adequately face up to antecedent commitments that play into any assessment of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution involves higher-level models that are associated with a (...) range of non-scientific factors, including theological judgments. In light of these realities, an emphasis on mutual dialogue and understanding offers promising opportunities for Christians trying to discover the truth about God’s creation. (shrink)

The text presents a transhumanist point of view on evolution. It focuses on the lack of clear and obvious evolutionary solutions to the issue of involuntary suffering. It poses difficult questions about the possibility of enhencement of human nature and respecting the laws of evolution. It reflects on the positive role of pain for the development of individual people and the entire human species. It considers the thesis that perhaps evolution “needs” pain for proper human development. It asks whether the (...) transition to a higher than evolutionary stage of human development, as proposed by transhumanists, will not lead to the extinction of our species? After all, it relates all this mosaic of thoughts and theories to God, who can be the answer to many posed questions. (shrink)

Evolutionary studies have provided several explanations about how pain and suffering can be fitted into that framework, which tries to make sense of every biological and human feature in terms of evolution, survival, and fitness. These explanations point usually to how such apparently negative aspects become useful and contribute to an evolution that after all has delivered good outcomes. Such an approach might eventually render the theodicy question less sharp and critical for believers who are trying to cope with the (...) scandal of so great suffering in our world and history. Theologically we can welcome such new insights, less noticed in former tradition, but at the same time we need to be cautious before a development which could render less clear the message of Christian salvation. In any case, the new data and knowledge clearly invite to revise and reformulate the Christian salvific message, to better answer before the mystery of evil and suffering. (shrink)

The scientific papers published in a special edition of the journal “Scientia et Fides” are the result of an international scientific project titled “The Dynamic Theodicy Model: Understanding God, Evil, and Evolution.” The project leaders are Prof. Piotr Roszak (Nicolaus Copernicus University) and Prof. Saša Horvat (University of Rijeka), under the auspices of the University of Oxford and the John Templeton Foundation. Other members of the project team include Grzegorz Karwasz, Michał Oleksowicz, Tomasz Huzarek, and Jan Wółkowski.

In this communication recent evidence from cognitive neuroscience is presented showing that believing is a fundamental brain function. It integrates the perception of information from the environment with personal perspective taking (“what does it mean to me?”) as the basis for predictive coding of action. Observing that another person becomes injured can make one believe that the pain in the injured person is similar to pain that oneself has experienced previously. This first-person perspective has been called empathy and includes primal (...) beliefs about potentially pain eliciting objects and painful events in the sense of “what does it mean to you?”. Furthermore, observing other people to suffer involves the conceptual belief that their condition is aversive and burdensome. Believing in love and peace involves the perspective of “what does it mean to us?”. Contradictory events may cause the sensation of pain and suffering in the afflicted individuals resulting in mutual distrust and eventually disruption of social bonds. In conclusion, beliefs play an important, though long underestimated role in cognitive neuroscience of pain and suffering and more generally for the cultural notions of deities and evil. (shrink)

Contrary to the commonly assumed opinion that Christianity sees pain as intrinsically evil – where evil is defined as the lack of something good – Aquinas defines pain not as a privation but rather a passion of the soul, i.e., an emotion that depends on sensual and/or intellective cognition of something evil, is good in itself, and may serve a purpose. This article offers a formalized version of the Thomistic definition of pain and related negative (unpleasant) emotions experienced by humans. (...) It also compares and contrasts this view with some contemporary scientific and philosophical models of pain. (shrink)

It is often claimed that our knowledge of the evolutionary process adds an extra dimension to the classical problem of natural evil and makes this problem worse. Especially the principle of natural selection is often portrayed as morally inappropriate or “unfitting” for a perfectly good God to use as a means for creating biological complexity. In this article, I argue that this common view is misconceived, and that natural selection is a wholly innocuous principle. The real source of evolutionary evils (...) is the fact that resources in nature are scarce – a fact that was known long before Darwin. The problem of natural and evolutionary evil, therefore, is best construed as a question about why God permits scarcity in nature. I argue that recent research about the interrelation between competition and cooperation in the evolutionary process provides resources for answering this perennial question in a more satisfactory way than could be done before the advent of evolutionary theory. (shrink)