Public Theology as Practicing Theology from Below: Looking for the Right Sense of the ‘Human’ in Human Rights

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

72. Could provide references for “resourcement.”

101-116. You refer to “multidisciplinary” research and “frameworks” but do not reference works that follow the typology you set out. This would strengthen your argument.

In general, it would help your argument if you were to engage with the contributions being made in theology towards appraising the empirical research. For example, ecclesiology and ethnography, or Swinton’s work on research methods within theology, or the many works on Christian theology and human development, or even evaluations of social theory within theology.

While more could be done to strengthen your argument, I do believe the paper has merit and is consistently argued.

 

 

Author Response

72. Could provide references for “resourcement.”

I added the very comprehensive reference of Flynn, Gabriel and Paul D. Murray (Eds.) Ressourcement: A Movement for Renewal in Twentieth-Century Catholic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014

101-116. You refer to “multidisciplinary” research and “frameworks” but do not reference works that follow the typology you set out. This would strengthen your argument.

It would be somewhat burdensome to add many references in this field. I just added several that can be considered most significant:

Bellah, Robert N. 2011. Religion in Human Evolution: From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hemminger, Hansjörg. 2021. Evolutionary Processes in the Natural History of Religion Body, Brain, Belief. Cham: Springer.

Knight, Christopher C. 2020. ‘The Evolution of Religiosity: A Theologian’s View’, in The Evolution of Religion the Evolution of Religion Religiosity and Theology: A Multilevel and Multidisciplinary Approach. Edited by J. Feierman and L. Oviedo. London/New York: Routledge, 190–204.

In general, it would help your argument if you were to engage with the contributions being made in theology towards appraising the empirical research. For example, ecclesiology and ethnography, or Swinton’s work on research methods within theology, or the many works on Christian theology and human development, or even evaluations of social theory within theology.

I thank the reviewer for these suggestions. I confess that despite being quite active in the area of empirical theology in the last 20 years, I ignored the work of Swinton, which I am quoting now:

Swinton, John and Harriet Mowatt, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, London: SCM 2006

Obviously, there is much more published on empirical methods in theology; however, the aim of this article is not so much to refresh on those methods, but to apply an alternative approach in theology to the issues related to human rights and their development. In any way, towards the end of the article I try to better explain the sense of this program that resorts more to the empirical methods.

While more could be done to strengthen your argument, I do believe the paper has merit and is consistently argued.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript, the author proposes a new approach to Christian Anthropology that is empirical in nature as opposed to what the author calls a theoretical approach. According to him or her, the purpose for the new approach is in order to account for fourth generation human rights. While the endeavour is worthwhile, the author has not adequately shown the limitation of contemporary Christian Anthropology or engaged with any Christian anthropologist. Moreover, the author does not define some of the key terms - Christian anthropology, rights, etc. -  in the manuscript. He or she assumes that they clear and incontestable. 

Comments on some sections and passages of the manuscript:

Line 27: hardness should be changed to difficulty.

Line 151: The author needs to clearly articulate what is meant by Christian forms in order to avoid equivocation. Also, the author needs to clarify what she or he means by Christian version. Does he or she mean version of Christianity?

Line 155: The author writes: "... anthropology (humanism) that would 155 replace the previous one (deeply religious or Christian)"...

Comment

Equating anthropology with humanism or contrasting it with religious or Christian vision is at best simplistic. After all, there are various kinds of anthropology like social anthropology, cultural anthropology, philosophical anthropology, Christian or theological anthropology etc. The author needs to be clear and precise in the articulation.

Line 172: The author needs to be clear about what is meant by former works. Does he or she mean the aforementioned works in the previous paragraph?

Lines 187-190: The author writes: "The lesson to be learnt is that we need a better theology capable of discerning and guiding these interactions, beyond 188 political or conjunctural interests and strategies, or worse, nationalistic emotions that have often colluded with Christian sentiments and traditions, if real progress is to be sought and past mistakes avoided."

Comment

While the author's remark is interesting, she or he needs to answer the question posed by the session. Otherwise, she or he should adjust the title of the section. If the session is framed as a question, a reader expects an answer from the author.

Lines 193-194: The author writes: "It is important to ascertain the extent to which the development of Christian views about human person is deeply rooted in a rather empirical - as opposed to theoretical or 194 a priori - understanding of the human condition, through constant testing and correction." 

Comment

The author needs to be clear about what she or he means by empirical and theoretical or a priori understanding of the human person. The employment of Kantian terminologies here seems superfluous. What exactly is an a priori understanding of the human condition? Is such understanding possible?

Lines 234-236: The author writes: "This can only be done as an exercise in "theology from below", and therefore one that takes greater account of empirical data. This point is even more pressing in any attempt to do a "theology of human rights"."

Comment

Theology from below cannot be a substitute for theology from above. If theology from above is incomplete, it implies that theology from below is also incomplete. So instead of substituting one for the other, a more balanced approached should be used. Anthropology can be approached from different perspectives, social, cultural, philosophical, medical, Christian or theological. The Christian in Christian anthropology is not superficial or decorative. So it is not clear what empirical Christian anthropology is or should be.  The author needs to critically explore contemporary Christian anthropology and show what its limitations are before proposing another approach. Secondly, the author needs to convincingly show that there is no empirical dimension in the contemporary approach to Christian anthropology.

Lines 247-249: The author writes: "The question is open with regard to more recent cultural sensitivities rooted in the experiences - both negative and positive - of minorities who have been misunderstood and mistreated and who are now demanding social and cultural recognition."

Comment

Is that the problem of Christian anthropology or cultural and social anthropology?

Lines 259-268 require citation or reference. Without citation, the paragraph seems to be more of speculation than factual.

Lines 285-287: the author writes: "This is an issue that requires more reflection, study and discernment based on data and assessment of practical consequences".  

Comment

To what kind of data is the author referring? How can data resolve this issue?

 Lines 321-324: The author writes: "Second, do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in a sense similar to the utilitarian tradition, but which can be adopted in theological terms:  human rights as an instrument for improving the human condition and maximising happiness or well-being for all."

Comment

This is not as simple as the author seems to portray. What happens when there is conflict of interest? Can one or two persons suffer in order for the greatest number to be happy?

Lines 342-344 are not clearly expressed.

Lines 359-360: The author writes: "provided that it becomes a more "bottom-up" exercise, and thus based on empirical observation and analysis of what is going on, what is working..."

Comment

Every observation is theory laden. There is no such thing as an observation in a vacuum. Hence, the proposed empirical approach with regard to human rights creates more problem and it tends to solve. Any observation presupposes that one knows what human rights are.

Lastly, the author needs to outline how an empirical approach to Christian anthropology will work. Besides, the author needs to show what role the adjective "Christian" will play in the empirical approach. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

In the manuscript, the author proposes a new approach to Christian Anthropology that is empirical in nature as opposed to what the author calls a theoretical approach. According to him or her, the purpose for the new approach is in order to account for fourth generation human rights. While the endeavour is worthwhile, the author has not adequately shown the limitation of contemporary Christian Anthropology or engaged with any Christian anthropologist. Moreover, the author does not define some of the key terms - Christian anthropology, rights, etc. - in the manuscript. He or she assumes that they clear and incontestable. 

In my article I try to argue for an alternative approach to human rights from a renewed perspective of Christian anthropology. I apologise if these terms are poorly defined in the text, as I take them for granted for an informed reader. In any case, my aim is not so much to 'account for the fourth generation of human rights' as to understand the changes and adaptations that theology has had to make in order to engage with this issue, and that it still has to make in order to re-grade current debates about new rights.

Comments on some sections and passages of the manuscript:

Line 27: hardness should be changed to difficulty.

Done

Line 151: The author needs to clearly articulate what is meant by Christian forms in order to avoid equivocation. Also, the author needs to clarify what she or he means by Christian version. Does he or she mean version of Christianity?

It is about the unavoidable pluralism of Christian styles or interpretations of Christian revelation, as exemplified in the classical typology of Richard Niebuhr in Christ and Culture. I changed in the text “forms” by “confessions or styles”; not every Christian expression has had the same social or cultural impact.

Line 155: The author writes: "... anthropology (humanism) that would replace the previous one (deeply religious or Christian)"...

Comment

Equating anthropology with humanism or contrasting it with religious or Christian vision is at best simplistic. After all, there are various kinds of anthropology like social anthropology, cultural anthropology, philosophical anthropology, Christian or theological anthropology etc. The author needs to be clear and precise in the articulation.

Yes, I agree with the suggestion: the sentence makes reference to “humanism” as a new anthropological model; indeed, anthropology was born in that modern times, or even, a Foucault claimed, they invented the idea of “human”. I replaced “anthropology” by “a new understanding of human beings”

Line 172: The author needs to be clear about what is meant by former works. Does he or she mean the aforementioned works in the previous paragraph?

Yes, I added: “just quoted”

Lines 187-190: The author writes: "The lesson to be learnt is that we need a better theology capable of discerning and guiding these interactions, beyond political or conjunctural interests and strategies, or worse, nationalistic emotions that have often colluded with Christian sentiments and traditions, if real progress is to be sought and past mistakes avoided."

Comment

While the author's remark is interesting, she or he needs to answer the question posed by the section. Otherwise, she or he should adjust the title of the section. If the session is framed as a question, a reader expects an answer from the author.

The answer to the question posed by the title of this section cannot be clear and straightforward; there are many ambiguities and setbacks in modern history, and these paragraphs have tried to make clear that this influence is quite complex and difficult to identify in purely positive terms.

Lines 193-194: The author writes: "It is important to ascertain the extent to which the development of Christian views about human person is deeply rooted in a rather empirical - as opposed to theoretical or a priori - understanding of the human condition, through constant testing and correction." 

Comment

The author needs to be clear about what she or he means by empirical and theoretical or a priori understanding of the human person. The employment of Kantian terminologies here seems superfluous. What exactly is an a priori understanding of the human condition? Is such understanding possible?

Being quite acquainted with contemporary production in Theological Anthropology, and the long discussions we register since the times of Reformation and inside Catholic modern discussions (De Auxiliis), my perception is that anthropology in theology has been dealt more from a theoretical or aprioristic view, even if in the background the theologians have in mind personal experiences, like failures, miseries, or stories of sanctity. It is hard to determine to what extent the current debates on how to judge human nature, its sinfulness and the effects of grace, were more or less informed by inherited traditions; biases link to immediate perceptions or negative memories; or data from lived experience. The “a priory” approach is not understood in this case in Kantian terms, but rather as an approach that build on previously held beliefs, founded on sacred texts or traditions. I add some lines to better explain these issues.

Lines 234-236: The author writes: "This can only be done as an exercise in "theology from below", and therefore one that takes greater account of empirical data. This point is even more pressing in any attempt to do a "theology of human rights".

Comment

Theology from below cannot be a substitute for theology from above. If theology from above is incomplete, it implies that theology from below is also incomplete. So instead of substituting one for the other, a more balanced approached should be used. Anthropology can be approached from different perspectives, social, cultural, philosophical, medical, Christian or theological. The Christian in Christian anthropology is not superficial or decorative. So it is not clear what empirical Christian anthropology is or should be.  The author needs to critically explore contemporary Christian anthropology and show what its limitations are before proposing another approach. Secondly, the author needs to convincingly show that there is no empirical dimension in the contemporary approach to Christian anthropology.

I am grateful for these comments, as they help to make the case for the alternative approach proposed in these pages more explicit. First, I clearly agree that the proposed 'from below' method is not a substitute for the commonly used 'from above' method, but a complement to it; I need to explain this point better. Secondly, the theological or Christian dimension gives new light and meaning to other anthropological attempts to make sense of human nature and behaviour, and so, it is a theoretical framework capable of providing meaning, coping and hope; it can only work "from above". However, this theological exercise can be enriched and given more content through a conscious interaction with data and experiences lived at each historical stage and in each cultural context. Otherwise, we run the risk of repeating the great mistakes of the past, such as when a flawed theology was unable to prevent slavery or human abuses in the context of totalitarian regimes. This is the danger of developing Christian anthropology only from above. Thirdly, as far as I know, most treatises and handbooks of theological anthropology work within the classical top-down approach, and in any case it is not the purpose of this paper to correct this dominant model, but to explore an alternative that could help to better deal with the issue of human rights and its theological reception. I try to make these points clearer in the new version of my paper.        

Lines 247-249: The author writes: "The question is open with regard to more recent cultural sensitivities rooted in the experiences - both negative and positive - of minorities who have been misunderstood and mistreated and who are now demanding social and cultural recognition."

Comment

Is that the problem of Christian anthropology or cultural and social anthropology?

Well, I confess that I had not considered this extreme, or for whom it is a problem. Actually, for most theological anthropology this is not a problem at all - I mean the demands for recognition of minorities. My point is simply that theology should not ignore these issues and demands, and should help to discern - without becoming too woke - what rights can emerge from such demands.

Lines 259-268 require citation or reference. Without citation, the paragraph seems to be more of speculation than factual.

I agree and so I added the references to the studies of Villa-Vicencio, Witte and Wolterstorff.

Lines 285-287: the author writes: "This is an issue that requires more reflection, study and discernment based on data and assessment of practical consequences".  

Comment

To what kind of data is the author referring? How can data resolve this issue?

This is an interesting point that applies to several cases of new rights: only studies based on data can help to clarify to what extent the recognition of some rights, such as the determination of one's sex or gender, is healthy. There is an important debate going on about the consequences - purely from a health point of view - of accepting early treatment for gender reassignment. I admit that this point needs to be clarified.

 Lines 321-324: The author writes: "Second, do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in a sense similar to the utilitarian tradition, but which can be adopted in theological terms:  human rights as an instrument for improving the human condition and maximising happiness or well-being for all."

Comment

This is not as simple as the author seems to portray. What happens when there is conflict of interest? Can one or two persons suffer in order for the greatest number to be happy?

I admit that the application of utilitarian ideas is far from simple, especially in case of conflicting interests, as happen between minorities and the rest of a society. However, the general principle holds, provided that we are aware of these nuances, the need to respect minority rights, and to negotiate between competing interests. I need to clarify this point.

Lines 342-344 are not clearly expressed.

New redaction: “The task of theology can be understood as assisting in the formation of beliefs, from a normative point of view, to educate how to believe in the right way so as to avoid doing harm.”    

Lines 359-360: The author writes: "provided that it becomes a more "bottom-up" exercise, and thus based on empirical observation and analysis of what is going on, what is working..."

Comment

Every observation is theory laden. There is no such thing as an observation in a vacuum. Hence, the proposed empirical approach with regard to human rights creates more problem and it tends to solve. Any observation presupposes that one knows what human rights are.

I agree with the problem of a "hermeneutic circle" that arises in the interaction between the theoretical representation of human rights and their application in concrete situations. My point is that in trying to avoid the mistakes of the past and to help discern new rights, we need to take into account the experiences and outcomes of current practices and regulations. This means observing "from a Christian point of view" what is helpful and what is harmful in this practice, what rights enable effective flourishing, personally and socially, and what hinders human growth and well-being; this can only be assessed in an empirical way. I will clarify this point later.

Lastly, the author needs to outline how an empirical approach to Christian anthropology will work. Besides, the author needs to show what role the adjective "Christian" will play in the empirical approach. 

I agree that this is a new theological programme that needs further elaboration, justification and even testing. I have been working on such a project for several years and am close to publishing an initial proposal and basis for this approach. I have already said that this is not the aim of the present article. In any case, some further explanation would no doubt be helpful. The central question of how to render "Christian" an approach that could give normative character to empirical data is very pressing, since this perspective could denaturalise the Christian faith, which cannot depend on contingent data and human interests. However, the many errors we have noted in the past counsel a greater commitment to the empirical level in order to avoid the errors of an overly idealistic attitude. "Empirical" is understood here as a corrective, as a way of assessing the validity or suitability of theological interpretations, and as a way of giving more content to some central tenets of Christian anthropology. For example, when we claim that "Christ saves us", we can draw on a body of recent research on "religious coping" that testifies to such a positive effect of Christian faith.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has attempted to respond to the issues and questions raised but he or she has not sufficiently addressed them. In some cases, he or she change some words without really attending to the bone of contention.  Some comments on the revised manuscript are: 

Line 156: 

Replacing anthropology with “understanding of human beings” does not solve the problem. Neither anthropology nor understanding of human beings is equivalent with humanism. The author needs to be clear about what he or she want to express. There are different perspectives in which the human person could be understood.

Lines 193-196: 

The author's concluding remark is form of escapism from take a position. What is required is the position of the author if the manuscript is to have a epistemic relevance. If the author has no position on the matter then he or she should consider rephrasing the title of the section.

Line 201: 

Changing the word a priori to aprioristic does not address the issue raised. The issue in a question is whether past or / and Christian view about the human person is a priori so as to warrant the quest for empirical view.

Lines 248-257: 

This does not seem to be consistent with the author's view point in line 245, where he claims "This can only be done as an exercise in "theology from below"". In fact, apart from making claims about theology from above  or Christian anthropology from above, the author has not careful engaged with any work that he or she considers as Christian anthropology from above. Besides, he did not name an example of what he or she refers to as "a flawed theology".

Line 273: 

The author has not shown that past and contemporary Theology in general and Christian Anthropology do not explore the mentioned phenomena and conditions. He or she should engage with some twenty and twenty-first theologians like Karl Rahner, Josef Ratzinger, Hans Kuhn, Lonergan, etc.

Lines 312-315: 

What is the ontology of data according to the author? What number of instances is sufficient for data to be reliable? What data is the gender issue based? There are definitely contrary views.

Lines 357-360: 

The situation is not as simple as the author seems to think. The utilitarianism is highly contested. Deontological ethics opposes the position of utilitarianism. In fact, if the author's claim is taken to a logical consequence, then his or her view on human right and dignity is undermined because he seems to claim that some people are more human than others.

Lines 374-375: 

This seems to be a simplistic conception of theology.

Lines 409-410: 

Empirical refers to that which is observable through sense perception. To claim that it is a corrective is debatable.

 Lastly, the great epistemic potential of the manuscript if the author thinks through the raised questions and responds to scholarly.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer issues, second round

The author has attempted to respond to the issues and questions raised but he or she has not sufficiently addressed them. In some cases, he or she change some words without really attending to the bone of contention.  Some comments on the revised manuscript are: 

Line 156: 

Replacing anthropology with “understanding of human beings” does not solve the problem. Neither anthropology nor understanding of human beings is equivalent with humanism. The author needs to be clear about what he or she want to express. There are different perspectives in which the human person could be understood.

I did rewrite the entire fragment to try to make clear the point

Lines 193-196: 

The author's concluding remark is form of escapism from take a position. What is required is the position of the author if the manuscript is to have a epistemic relevance. If the author has no position on the matter then he or she should consider rephrasing the title of the section.

I added a more elaborate conclusion to this section

Line 201: 

Changing the word a priori to aprioristic does not address the issue raised. The issue in a question is whether past or / and Christian view about the human person is a priori so as to warrant the quest for empirical view.

I try to clarify this point, and changed “aprioristic” for “traditional”, in a separate section I explain better the suggested program

Lines 248-257: 

This does not seem to be consistent with the author's view point in line 245, where he claims "This can only be done as an exercise in "theology from below"". In fact, apart from making claims about theology from above  or Christian anthropology from above, the author has not careful engaged with any work that he or she considers as Christian anthropology from above. Besides, he did not name an example of what he or she refers to as "a flawed theology".

I have added a new section that tries to address all these issues

Line 273: 

The author has not shown that past and contemporary Theology in general and Christian Anthropology do not explore the mentioned phenomena and conditions. He or she should engage with some twenty and twenty-first theologians like Karl Rahner, Josef Ratzinger, Hans Kuhn, Lonergan, etc.

I have added a new section that tries to address all these issues: several authors and references have been added.

Lines 312-315: 

What is the ontology of data according to the author? What number of instances is sufficient for data to be reliable? What data is the gender issue based? There are definitely contrary views.

I have added a new section that tries to address all these issues

Lines 357-360: 

The situation is not as simple as the author seems to think. The utilitarianism is highly contested. Deontological ethics opposes the position of utilitarianism. In fact, if the author's claim is taken to a logical consequence, then his or her view on human right and dignity is undermined because he seems to claim that some people are more human than others.

I certainly would avoid such a negative conclusion, and indeed my proposed utilitarian model is more nuanced and tries to avoid such discrimination.

Lines 374-375: 

This seems to be a simplistic conception of theology.

I have added a new section that tries to address all these issues

Lines 409-410: 

Empirical refers to that which is observable through sense perception. To claim that it is a corrective is debatable.

 Lastly, the great epistemic potential of the manuscript if the author thinks through the raised questions and responds to scholarly.

I have added a new section that tries to address all these issues

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While it is obvious that the author has made some revisions after the second review, I still think that he or she has not sufficiently addressed the issues raised. In a sense, he has not even addressed the main contention which is what exactly is an empirical theology. The author needs at least to state what he or she means by theology and what distinguishes theology from other disciplines.

Comments

Lines 156-159:

To traditional models of what is the author referring? Is it models of human rights? If that is the case, claiming that the Christian models were replaced is debatable. In fact, the debate between Karl Loewith and Hans Blumenberg in the next paragraph shows that the situation is not as simple as the author claims. 

Secondly, there is not textual evidence to support the author's claim of replacement of traditional models.

Lines 196-197:

The question is whether it is played a role in human rights not whether Christian faith is solely responsible for the development of human rights.

Lines 203-207:It seems the author is not very familiar with the distinction between the empirical and pure or a priori knowledge according to Immanuel Kant.  

Theoretical is not a contrast or contrary of empirical. The contrast of empirical is pure or a priori, and that of theoretical is practical, while that of traditional is modern. So it is important that the author is clear about what he or she is opining. 

Secondly, the main contention is that empirical theology or empirical Christian anthropology is contradiction in terms. The adjective Christian or theological accentuates the light through which the human person is studied. So Christian anthropology cannot be founded on the empirical. Christian anthropology refers to Christian or theological understanding of the human person. It is the adjective Christian or theological that distinguishes it from other anthropologies like philosophical, cultural, social, etc. The author needs to be clear that it is Christian anthropology and not religious sociology that he or she is advocating for.

Line 214: What is theology of human beings?

Line 215: That is what makes that branch of anthropology, Christian or theological.

Lines 273-281:

The concept of empirical theological is at best a contradiction in terms. A thinker who is Christian can engage in any discussion in a secularised world. However, the fact that a Christian does engage in a discussion, does not make the discussion theological. Besides, a theologian can engage in discussions from various fields without making them theological discourses. It seems that the writer's epistemological standpoint is naive realist. I recommend that she or he  should read the transcendental or generalised empirical method by Bernard Lonergan ( See Chapter one of Method in Theology  or chapters nine to eleven of Insight).

Lines 289-291:

It is unlikely that any theological discipline would be justified inductively. It is important that the author calls to mind the age-old problem of induction in philosophy. Over reliance on induction led to the extinction of logical positivism and logical empiricism.

Line 294: This is a very trivialised conception of original sin.

Lines 295 -296: What the author intends to express is not clear.

297-298:

It does not add anything to Christian view of the effects of grace. Rather such studies only confirm that Christian teaching about prayer and rituals are true.

Lines 299-302:

The same data can be interpreted differently depending on each person's assumptions.

Lines 315-316 are just claims without any supporting evidence.

Line 324:

What are the new rights and why are they said to be new? There is no unanimous agreement about them.

Lines 338-343:

The author's comment shows that the author is not  familiar with the works of the theologians mentioned.

Lines 344-347:

What are the limitations? You have not engaged with any of the authors? 

Author Response

Reviewer round 3 Theology and Human Rights

While it is obvious that the author has made some revisions after the second review, I still think that he or she has not sufficiently addressed the issues raised. In a sense, he has not even addressed the main contention which is what exactly is an empirical theology. The author needs at least to state what he or she means by theology and what distinguishes theology from other disciplines.

Comments

Comment 1

Lines 156-159:

To traditional models of what is the author referring? Is it models of human rights? If that is the case, claiming that the Christian models were replaced is debatable. In fact, the debate between Karl Loewith and Hans Blumenberg in the next paragraph shows that the situation is not as simple as the author claims. 

Secondly, there is not textual evidence to support the author's claim of replacement of traditional models.

Response 1

I know this is debatable, the issue of “replacement” or as Taylor says “subtraction” of religion; however, a big amount of analysis of secularization process point in that direction: religion and its values are later assumed to some extent by secular views and institutions.

Comment 2

Lines 196-197:

The question is whether it is played a role in human rights not whether Christian faith is solely responsible for the development of human rights.

Response 2

I agree, and this issue is clear: Christian faith has played a big role on this development, besides other factors or ideas have contributed too.

Comment 3

Lines 203-207: It seems the author is not very familiar with the distinction between the empirical and pure or a priori knowledge according to Immanuel Kant.  

Theoretical is not a contrast or contrary of empirical. The contrast of empirical is pure or a priori, and that of theoretical is practical, while that of traditional is modern. So it is important that the author is clear about what he or she is opining. 

Response 3

I am quite acquainted with Kant’s anthropology, but this is not a relevant question in this context, I am afraid.

Secondly, the main contention is that empirical theology or empirical Christian anthropology is contradiction in terms. The adjective Christian or theological accentuates the light through which the human person is studied. So Christian anthropology cannot be founded on the empirical. Christian anthropology refers to Christian or theological understanding of the human person. It is the adjective Christian or theological that distinguishes it from other anthropologies like philosophical, cultural, social, etc. The author needs to be clear that it is Christian anthropology and not religious sociology that he or she is advocating for.

Response 3b

I insist and disagree with the reviewer: Theological or Christian anthropology is not just an adjective, but a framework or model for building a focused knowledge of human beings that has great normative consequences. Obviously this framework is above all a set of claims about what it means for Christians to be human, i.e., to be created, fallen and redeemed by grace. But it cannot be just a set of doctrines if we overlook the difficult question of their interpretation at each stage of history and in each socio-cultural context. The key issue is how to prevent, detect and correct misinterpretations or misapplications of such doctrines. For example, in the move towards the rejection of slavery, after a long theological tradition based on great Christian masters that legitimised such a terrible practice. Another more recent example is what we now see as a mistaken anthropology, based mostly on fear to condemnation, the one that presided over the rigorous strictures of sexual morality in the decades after the Second World War, and which should be corrected. Charles Taylor's denunciations in this regard are very significant. The question is how we can correct interpretations of applications of these principles that have gone wrong or become clearly inappropriate, other than by empirical contrast or experience.

Comment 4

Line 214: What is theology of human beings?

Response 4

Is the same as Theological Anthropology

Comment 5

Line 215: That is what makes that branch of anthropology, Christian or theological.

Comment 6

Lines 273-281:

The concept of empirical theological is at best a contradiction in terms. A thinker who is Christian can engage in any discussion in a secularised world. However, the fact that a Christian does engage in a discussion, does not make the discussion theological. Besides, a theologian can engage in discussions from various fields without making them theological discourses. It seems that the writer's epistemological standpoint is naive realist. I recommend that she or he should read the transcendental or generalised empirical method by Bernard Lonergan (See Chapter one of Method in Theology or chapters nine to eleven of Insight).

Response 6

I thank the reviewer for the advice, which I am following. I do not see anything in Lonergan method that can help to address the issue of how theology can integrate empirical data. Actually, his method is rather transcendental and based in interiorization (“Insight”), while empirical approaches are clearly external. I hope the reviewer can admit that the Catholic theology of “signs of time” (Gaudium et Spes 4, 11, 44) makes sense in this context: how can we develop a theology able to read and discern the signs of time without a focused attention to the empirical data and the lived experiences?

Comment 7

Lines 289-291:

It is unlikely that any theological discipline would be justified inductively. It is important that the author calls to mind the age-old problem of induction in philosophy. Over reliance on induction led to the extinction of logical positivism and logical empiricism.

Response 7

I recall my former explanation: the inductive approach is needed to correct bad or wrong interpretations; it is assisting the hermeneutic task in theology, it is a way to develop a theology of the “signs of time”.

Comment 8

Line 294: This is a very trivialised conception of original sin.

Response 8

Obviously original sin is much more than selfishness, but this concept helps to give some content to the traditional doctrine; see, for instance Daryl P. Domning and Monika K. Hellwig, Original Selfishness: Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution, Ashgate, Aldershot, Burlington-Vt. 2006. I have worked and published some studies on original sin and the impact of scientific knowledge of humans, and I am aware of that complexity, but here it is not the case to discuss that issue, but to assume that the scientific knowledge can help to better update the contents of Christian doctrine.

Comment 9

Lines 295 -296: What the author intends to express is not clear.

Response 9

In my opinion it is clear: this research on love and religion and health assist theology in “adding necessary content and nuance to Christian ideas about human nature”

Comment 10

297-298:

It does not add anything to Christian view of the effects of grace. Rather such studies only confirm that Christian teaching about prayer and rituals are true. Response 10

I disagree with the reviewer: we need such studies to confirm that such announcement of salvation is true; is there another means to offer such a confirmation beyond experience and testimony?

Comment 11

Lines 299-302:

The same data can be interpreted differently depending on each person's assumptions.

Response 11

Yes, and for that reason the role of theology is so important, to introduce a different light and views.

Comment 12

Lines 315-316 are just claims without any supporting evidence.

Response 12

In my opinion this is a too obvious point: several ways to interpret Christian faith have been a big failure. One evident is a quite broad strand of Liberal Theology, which have performed very poorly.

Comment 13

Line 324:

What are the new rights and why are they said to be new? There is no unanimous agreement about them.

Response 13

But there is some consensus regarding new charts of Human Rights, as those called under the labels of “third” and “fourth generation” of rights.

Comment 14

Lines 338-343:

The author's comment shows that the author is not familiar with the works of the theologians mentioned.

Response 14

Just the opposite: because I know them quite well, I am aware of how much they failed to take into account the empirical dimension. A good example was their inability to understand the secularization trends, because of their difficulties to approach studies in sociology of religion warning on the incoming dangers. This is an important lesson on a clear failure of contemporary theology that was unable to pay attention to the analysis from auxiliar sciences observing real process, i.e. how churches were emptying.

Comment 15

Lines 344-347:

What are the limitations? You have not engaged with any of the authors?

Response 15

I am afraid this is beyond the scope of this article. In any case, these authors have clearly developed a theology and anthropology from above; this is clear from their own methodological choices. I have not been able to see in them and in their works an approach from below, and therefore less able to deal with current challenges. Or even to consider and correct past mistakes, and not too inclined to take into account current research in the sciences that seek to understand human nature and behaviour.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx