Credition An Interdisciplinary Approach To The Nature Of Beliefs And Believing

The concept of credition represents an innovative research field at the interface of the natural sciences and the humanities addressing the nature of beliefs and believing. Credition signifies the integrative information processing that is brought about by neurophysiologically defined neural activity in the brain affording decision making. In analogy to cognition and emotion it is mediated by neural processes and constrains behavior by predictive coding. Three categories of beliefs have been defined on the background of evolutionary biology that can be differentiated linguistically. The goal of the collection of research papers is to provide an interdisciplinary discourse on an international level in the emerging field of credition. On this basis individual, group-specific and cultural narratives of secular and non-secular origin can become normative, in particular, when enhanced by ritual acts. Also, the recently defined belief categories can pave the way for novel approaches of empirical research on the formation of civilizations and cultures as well as for new perspectives on the psychopathological understanding of mental disorders. The disciplines of empirical research such as cognitive science, neurophysiology, neuropsychology, social neuroscience shall counteract with theoretical disciplines such as anthropology, philosophy, and theology in order to elaborate premises that are suited to bridge the scientific gap. The potential contributors will submit their abstracts such that they are available for the International meeting, Credition - An Interdisciplinary Challenge, that is going to take place in October 2021 in Hannover, Germany. Following the symposium, the participants shall elaborate their perspective concerning beliefs and believing, based on their expertise, and the information they have learned during the symposium. The authors are expected to submit a concise paper of 2000 words (C Type Article).

This volume answers the question: Why do we believe what we believe? It examines current research on the concept of beliefs, and the development in our understanding of the process of believing. It takes into account empirical findings in the field of neuroscience regarding the processes that underlie beliefs, and discusses the notion that beyond the interactive exploratory analysis of sensory information from the complex outside world, humans engage in an evaluative analysis by which they attribute personal meaning and relevance to the probabilistic representations of objects and events. Beliefs exert a strong influence on behaviour, decision-making, and identifying and solving problems. Despite their importance, beliefs have until recently not been at the centre of scientific interest. In fact, “belief” is an ill-defined phenomenon. From a transdisciplinary perspective the actual approaches to understanding belief seem incompatible as they attempt to highlight such different topics as “belief – religion”, “belief – spirituality”, “belief – faith”, “belief – knowledge”, “belief – attitude”, “belief – disbelief”, “belief – illusion”, and “believing – brain function”. This situation contradicts the idea that belief is close to pathological phenomena and that it should be eliminated from scientific discussions. Rather, believing is fundamental for understanding the many problems of every-day life. In fact, the book shows that beliefs are relevant for politics, international affairs, economy, law, or religions also in modern societies. This book presents the increasing scientific interest in beliefs and believing, and reflects the change in focus from the content aspect of belief towards the fluid nature of believing.

"To all who love the God with a 1000 names and respect science” In the last quarter century, the academic field of Science and Theology (Religion) has attracted scholars from a wide variety of disciplines. The question is, which disciplines are attracted and what do these disciplines have to contribute to the debate? In order to answer this question, the encyclopedia maps the (self)-identified disciplines and religious traditions that participate or might come to participate in the Science and Religion debate. This is done by letting each representative of a discipline and tradition answer specific chosen questions. They also need to identify the discipline in relation to the Science and Religion debate. Understandably representatives of several disciplines and traditions answered in the negative to this question. Nevertheless, they can still be important for the debate; indeed, scholars and scientists who work in the field of Science and Theology (Religion) may need knowledge beyond their own specific discipline. Therefore the encyclopedia also includes what are called general entries. Such entries may explain specific theories, methods, and topics. The general aim is to provide a starting point for new lines of inquiry. It is an invitation for fresh perspectives on the possibilities for engagement between and across sciences (again which includes the social and human sciences) and religions and theology. This encyclopedia is a comprehensive reference work for scholars interested in the topic of ‘Science and Religion.’ It covers the widest spectrum possible of academic disciplines and religious traditions worldwide, with the intent of laying bare similarities and differences that naturally emerge within and across disciplines and religions today. The A–Z format throughout affords easy and user-friendly access to relevant information. Additionally, a systematic question-answer format across all Sciences and Religions entries affords efficient identification of specific points of agreement, conflict, and disinterest across and between sciences and religions. The extensive cross-referencing between key words, phrases, and technical language used in the entries facilitates easy searches. We trust that all of the entries have something of value for any interested reader. Anne L.C. Runehov and Lluis Oviedo

This text will be stimulating to scholars in several academic fields. It ranges from cognitive, neurological and pathological perspectives on memory and belief, to memory and belief in autobiographical narratives.

This book addresses the challenge of understanding human life. It compares our life experience with the attempts to grasp it by astrologers, eugenicists, psychologists, neuroscientists, social scientists, and philosophers. The main opposition among these specialties lies between understanding and misunderstanding. The book also addresses the central methodological difficulty of capturing a human life. It is first examined how certain approaches may lead to a misunderstanding of human life. The book contrasts the example of astrology—an accepted practice in ancient civilizations, but now classified among the pseudosciences—with astronomy, a full-fledged science since Galileo’s time. Another, more recent approach regards human life as predetermined by genes: the methods used by eugenicists, and later by political regimes under the name of hereditarianism, came to compete with genetics. A broader analysis shows how astrology and eugenicism are not truly scientific approaches. Next, the book looks at the ways of capturing an imaginary or real human life story. A comprehensive approach will try to fully understand their complexity, while a more explanatory approach considers only certain specific phenomena of human life. For example, demography studies only births, deaths, and migration. Another crucial factor in the collection of life histories is memory and its transmission. Psychology and psychoanalysis have developed different schools to try to explain them. The book concludes with a detailed discussion of the concepts and tools that have been proposed in more recent times for understanding the various aspects of life stories: mechanisms, systems, hermeneutics, and autonomy.

A major problem of conventional economic theory as applied to long-run economic change is its unduly narrow and static character, which compromises its capacity to handle conceptually a social process inherently systemic, complex and dynamic. At the same time there is a growing realization in relevant government and industrial circles (reinforced by the example of Japan) that effective economic policy-making needs a strategic, and therefore a technological, content. Long-Run Economics suggests a more realistic conceptual framework for the analysis of economic and technological change. Borrowing from other disciplines, such as sociology, psychology and biology, the authors develop a model that is evolutionary and systemic in character. Special emphasis is given to the role of information flows in the innovative process, while the overall argument is illustrated by two case studies, photovoltaics and fuel ethanol. Finally, the book stresses the strategic importance of science and technology policy and the role of appropriate institutions in facilitating long-run economic change.

What do we expect when we say something to someone, and what do they expect when they hear it? When is a conversation successful? The book considers a wide set of two-person conversations, and a bit of game theory, to show how conversational statements and their interpretations are governed by beliefs. Thinking about beliefs is suitable for communication analysis because beliefs are well-defined and measurable, allowing to differentiate between successful understandings and their less successful counterparts: misunderstandings. The book describes the theoretical framework and empirical measurements of misunderstandings – written by an economist, but in simple words and using interdisciplinary concepts. The material will benefit students and researchers of behavioural economics and its neighbouring fields, and anyone interested in human language.

In recent years coherence theories of law and adjudication have been extremely influential in legal scholarship. These theories significantly advance the case for coherentism in law. Nonetheless, there remain a number of problems in the coherence theory in law. This ambitious new work makes the first concerted attempt to develop a coherence-based theory of legal reasoning, and in so doing addresses, or at least mitigates these problems. The book is organized in three parts. The first part provides a critical analysis of the main coherentist approaches to both normative and factual reasoning in law. The second part investigates the coherence theory in a number of fields that are relevant to law: coherence theories of epistemic justification, coherentist approaches to belief revision and theory-choice in science, coherence theories of practical and moral reasoning and coherence-based approaches to discourse interpretation. Taking this interdisciplinary analysis as a starting point, the third part develops a coherence-based model of legal reasoning. While this model builds upon the standard theory of legal reasoning, it also leads to rethinking some of the basic assumptions that characterize this theory, and suggests some lines along which it may be further developed. Thus, ultimately, the book not only improves upon the current state of coherence theory in law, but also contributes to the larger debate about how to articulate a theory of legal reasoning that results in better decision-making.