Advertisement

Autonomous Self and Inter-Processual Self: Two Ways of Explaining How People “See” and Live Relationships and the Resulting Dialogue Between Science and Faith

  • José Víctor Orón
  • Kleio Akrivou
  • Germán Scalzo
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 48)

Abstract

The relationship between science and faith is not a given, nor is it objectively defined, but rather depends on personal ways of approaching this relationship. Accordingly, it can be lived as a conflict, i.e. as agency striving to master independent and separate domains or as a process of dialogue or an integral relationship. In this chapter, we suggest that adopting one stance or the other depends on factors that go beyond the rational assessment that a person makes of science or faith. To explain the perspective that people adopt, cross-disciplinary theoretical insights relevant to human beings and their development are decisive. Based on previous research consolidating several theoretical proposals across a diverse disciplinary orientation (mainly philosophy, psychology and neuroscience), we suggest that there are two contrasting paradigms for conceiving of the self and human development, namely, the autonomous self (AS) and the inter-processual self (IPS) (Akrivou K, Orón JV: Challenges of capitalism for virtue and the common good: Inter-disciplinary perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2016). We purport here that, depending on which of these two corresponding backgrounds characterises the person, people will ‘see’ and live the relationship—dialogue between science and faith—differently.

Bibliography

  1. Akrivou, K. (2009). Differentiation and integration in adult development: The role of self-complexity and integrative learning in self-integration. Munich: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2015). Educating integrated catalysts: Transforming business schools toward ethics and sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 222–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2011). Executive catalysts: Predicting sustainable performance amid complex demands. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 9951009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akrivou, K., & Orón, J. V. (2016). Two kinds of human integrity: Towards the ethics of inter-processual self (IPS). In K. Akrivou & A. J. G. Sison (Eds.), Challenges of capitalism for virtue and the common good: Inter-disciplinary perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akrivou, K., Bolade-Ogunfodun, O., & Adewale, A. A. (2016). Integrated habitus for the common good of the firm: A radically humanistic conception of organizational habitus with systemic human integrity orientation. In K. Akrivou & A. J. G. Sison (Eds.), Challenges of capitalism for virtue and the common good: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akrivou, K., Orón, J. V., & Scalzo, G. (2018). The inter-processual self. Towards a personalist virtue ethics proposal for human agency. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Altarejos, F., & Naval, C. (2000). Filosofía de La Educación. Tercera. Pamplona: EUNSA.Google Scholar
  8. Barbour, I. (1966). Issues in science and religion. Washington: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Barbour, I. (2000). When science meets religion: Enemies, strangers or partners. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  10. Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and religion: Some historical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Düsing, K. (2002). La Subjetividad En La Filosofia Clásica Alemana de Kant a Hegel. Una Panorámica a Modo de Programa. Azafea Revista de filosofia, 4, 97–121.Google Scholar
  12. Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the cycle of life: Selected papers. Psychological Issues, 1(1), 5–165.Google Scholar
  13. Erikson, E (1959. 1963). Childhodd and society. 2nd ed. New York: W.W: Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Erikson, E. (1959. 1997). El Ciclo Vital Completo. Española. Barcelona: Paidos.Google Scholar
  15. Harrison, P. (Ed.). (2010). The Cambridge companion to science and religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Haught, J. F. (2012). Science and faith: A new introduction. New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar
  17. Orón, J. V. (2014). Neurociencia y Fe : El Sistema de Creencias Como Lugar de Encuentro Interdisciplinar. Scientia et Fides, 2(2), 213–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Orón, J. V. (2015). Leonardo Polo’s integrative dynamic as a philosophical framework for understanding neuroscience. Journal of Polian Studies, 2, 109–133.Google Scholar
  19. Orón, J. V., & Sánchez-Cañizares, J. (2017). ¿Es Posible La Reducción Epistemológica? Todo Sistema Necesita Presupuestos Extra-Sistémicos. Anuario filosófico, 50(3), 601–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ratzinger, J. (1990). Retrieving the tradition. Concerning the notion of person in theology. Communio: International Catholic Review, 17(fall), 439–454.Google Scholar
  21. Stenmark, M. (2010). Ways of relating science and religion. In P. Harrison (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to science and religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Víctor Orón
    • 1
  • Kleio Akrivou
    • 2
    • 3
  • Germán Scalzo
    • 4
  1. 1.Mind-Brain Group: Biology and subjectivity in philosophy and contemporary neuroscienceInstitute for Culture and Society (ICS), University of NavarraNavarraSpain
  2. 2.Business Ethics & Organizational BehaviourUniversity of ReadingReadingUK
  3. 3.University of NavarraPamplonaSpain
  4. 4.School of Economics and BusinessUniversidad PanamericanaMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations