Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Clarifying the conception of consciousness: Lonergan, Chalmers, and confounded epistemology.Daniel A. Helminiak - 2015 - Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 8 (2):59-74.
    Applying Bernard Lonergan's (1957/1992, 1972) analysis of intentional consciousness and its concomitant epistemology, this paper highlights epistemological confusion in contemporary consciousness studies as exemplified mostly in David Chalmers's (1996) position. In ideal types, a first section outlines two epistemologies-sensate-modeled and intelligence-based-whose difference significantly explains the different positions. In subsequent sections, this paper documents the sensate-modeled epistemology in Chalmers's position and consciousness studies in general. Tellingly, this model of knowing is at odds with the formal-operational theorizing in twentieth-century science. This paper (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The problem of “god” in psychology of religion: Lonergan's “common sense” versus “theory”.Daniel A. Helminiak - 2017 - Zygon 52 (2):380-418.
    The emphasis on God in American psychology of religion generates the problem of explaining divine-versus-natural causality in “spiritual experiences.” Especially “theistic psychology” champions divine involvement. However, its argument exposes a methodological error: to pit popular religious opinions against technical scientific conclusions. Countering such homogenizing “postmodern agnosticism,” Bernard Lonergan explained these two as different modes of thinking: “common sense” and “theory”—which resolves the problem: When theoretical science is matched with theoretical theology, “the God-hypothesis” explains the existence of things whereas science explains (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The role of spirituality in formulating a theory of the psychology of religion.Daniel A. Helminiak - 2006 - Zygon 41 (1):197-224.
    . I challenge the psychology of religion to move beyond its merely descriptive status and, by focusing on spirituality as the essential dimension of religion, to approach the traditional ideal of science as explanation: a delineation of the necessary and sufficient to account for a phenomenon such as to articulate a general “law” relevant to every instance of the phenomenon. An explanatory psychology of spirituality would elucidate the scientific underpinnings of the psychology of religion as well as that of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations