The original text of this website was written in German. The English version of the website is AI-generated and has not yet been reviewed.
What is Credition?
Credition comes from credere, the Latin word for believe. The expression credition is formed in the same way as emotion or cognition. Credition [in the singular] refers to the central function of the brain that belief produces belief. Creditions [in the plural form] refers to the processes that give rise to belief. They primarily take place unconsciously (subliminally).
Here you will find
→ (1) Answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs)
→ (2) Notes on the complicated language of faith/belief/creds. It causes particularly serious translation problems in the field of credition research:
→ (2.1) Translation problems between English and German.
→ (2.2) Language barriers that have existed since ancient times and cause problems even nowadays.
But perhaps you are interested in something else first?
→ For example, what has happened here in the last few years? Then we invite you to visit our archive with its highlights.
→ Or are you looking for ideas on how to work with knowledge about Credition? Then come along to our workshop topics .
We look forward to your visit.
That is a problem. However, it is widespread for people to think of religion first when they think of faith or belief. This is the result of around two thousand years of European intellectual history and is therefore also linked to Christianity.
Creditions can be activated in different situations, e.g. in self-assessment or the assessment of unclear situations. They can occur in very different areas. In addition to those relating to religion, there are also belief processes in the context of politics, technology, climate change, business, leadership behaviour, financial investments - but also in connection with nutrition, health or partnership.
Yes, creditions are activated, for example, when you think about questions of meaning, such as the meaning of life or the importance you attach to your relationship with another person. Creditions influence what and for whom you want to live or what you want to commit yourself to. In addition, creditions play a role in the perception and judgement of other people, as well as in the assessment of one's own abilities. Creditions are also extremely important today because the flood of fake news is causing us to become uncertain and ask ourselves the question: What can we (still) believe?
The process of creditions begins outside of conscious perception. The resulting "preconscious ideas" are subliminal and are called primal beliefs . When the "threshold of consciousness" is crossed, we can consciously perceive the attitudes and behaviours generated by creditions. Now they can be recognised and expressed linguistically as "belief that..." or "belief in...". Although creditions are already effective in a subliminal phase, the results of our creditions - namely beliefs - have a lasting effect on our actions from the moment they become conscious and are verbalised.
It is not indifferent which beliefs and convictions we develop during the course of creditions. If they are stabilised through metacognitive reflection, they influence our own emotional state and mindset, but especially our actions and behaviour. However, the stability of belief-based convictions can change again due to new stimuli from the external or internal world. This is of particular importance when it comes to religious belief (see [10]).
Around two million years ago, hominids underwent a far-reaching evolutionary development. Their brain development made a huge leap from this point onwards (Iriki & Taoka 2012). It can even be assumed that brain development was also driven forward because the ability to believe emerged in the further course of evolution. For the ability to believe, the brain needed new resources. The emergence of creditions could thus become a driving force of brain development (Seitz & Angel 2020).
However, the topic of credition has only developed into an interdisciplinary field of research in the last decades. At The Structure of Credition conference of 2015 , which was organised at the University of Graz, neurologist Rüdiger J. Seitz postulated that credition is a brain function that plays a key role in the development of our beliefs. This means, among other things, that creditions cannot be switched off. It is therefore not possible to "not believe". This view was first published in 2016 (Angel & Seitz 2016).
The articles mentioned can also be found on this website → publications: Basic Research.
We often (but often unconsciously) have certain ideas in the back of our minds that influence our communication. Knowing these is a prerequisite for being able to recognise them when they occur. You can then deal with your own ideas - often referred to as basic beliefs - and, if necessary, work on changing them.
If you have access to the thought patterns that are at the back of your mind, you can also talk about them with others. To do this, it is helpful to refer to models. For example, if you often have the impression in conversations that the other person is pressurising you to do something, you can communicate this well using the so-called communication square ("four-ear model"). It makes communication easier if the other person also recognises the model.
Credition research has developed two models. One is called the neural credition model. It describes processes in the brain that are effective when we develop beliefs. The other is the credition communication model. It can be used in conversations. No neuroscientific knowledge is required to apply it. However, it does make communication easier if everyone involved in a conversation is familiar with the model.
Yes, the neural credition model helps to understand what is going on inside us as we form our beliefs and how this affects our actions. It can also help us understand that creditions can cause clinical disorders that lead to abnormal beliefs.
You can refer to the credition communication model if you have a lot to do with communication in your job and want to analyse and better understand your own and others' communication behaviour.
No. Creditions are biological processes. They occur very frequently and play a role in all types of belief (see [3] to [9]). Even if creditions have nothing to do with religion, their occurrence in connection with religious belief is particularly striking (see [10] to [15]).
Creditions are involved when religious beliefs arises. They have an influence on whether religious belief grows, declines or is completely lost. However, the word religious can be misleading.
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
Religious semantics is confusing.
(1) There are two SUBSTANTIVES that must be clearly distinguished from each other: Religion and religiosity.
Then there is the ADJECTIVE religious. It is bipolar because it can refer to both nouns. And it is a linking adjective that refers to the relationship of religion and religiosity. When you use the adjective religious, you should therefore express the fact that it both about religion as well as religiosity. Unfortunately, this distinction is not usually made in our culture.
(2) In general as well as in scientific usage, the adjective religious is rather "amputated" because it usually refers exclusively to religion . This mutilation has a negative effect because the religious semantics are now one-sided and wrongly weighted. Overall, the importance of religiosity is undervalued in our culture. However, this neglect can be downright dangerous, for example when we are talking about religious extremism and a religion is meant.
(3) Then there are other nouns such as esotericism, atheism, theism, mysticism, spirituality or piety as well as associated adjectives such as pious, mystical, spiritual, atheistic, agnostic, esoteric, holistic and others. Philosophy and psychology of religion are concerned with the meaning of such expressions. They analyse, for example, what is meant by phrases such as "spiritual, but not religious" or "religious, but not spiritual" and what experiences are meant by them.
(4) Religion(s) is about cultural systems. Religiosity is about persons or individuals. If the characterisation religious is applied to individuals, then it is about the "expression of religiosity". For example, you can analyse which religious behaviour goes hand in hand with the expression of religiosity .
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
In psychology, this refers to a personality trait. However, this is not stable. In the course of a person's life, the individual expression of their religiosity can change profoundly, for example because their approach to religion(s) changes or they adopt the beliefs of religions in new ways. In terms of developmental psychology and across the entire lifespan, many internal and external factors can play a role in the development of individual or collective religiosity . However, the word "religiosity" is not commonly used in our culture. It is most commonly used in science, for example in religious psychology, theology or religious education
But now comes something really crazy: there are a myriad of theoretical proposals on how to define religion . However, there are hardly any attempts to theoretically clarify what we mean by religiosity . What exactly is meant by religiosity therefore often remains unclear.
The lack of theoretical interest in this regard is all the more astonishing because there are a large number of empirical studies. There is also a whole range of suggestions as to which aspects of religiosity should be considered. Empirical studies and discussions in the literature focus, for example, on how central the world of religion is for individuals, which possible dimensions play a role in the expression of religiosity, or which characteristics are associated with religiosity: e.g. aggressiveness, anxiety or neuroticism.
The lack of interest in developing theories of religiosity and the associated conceptual ambiguity make it difficult to adequately grasp the role of creditions in the development of religiosity . But how can religiosity be defined?
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
If one tries to define religiosity, one moves on relatively unsecured terrain. One proposal is to understand religiosity as an extended homeostasis system that gives people support and stability despite all distress or uncertainty (Angel 2006, 69-91).
How does this view come about?
The starting point is a biological-bodily principle known as homeostasis . This keeps the organism in a balanced equilibrium and is essential for living beings. The biological homeostasis system enables the body to cope with changes such as temperature differences.
In a similar way, religiosity can also be understood as a balance system that extends beyond purely physical challenges. Religiosity as an extended balance system is able to react to mental-spiritual challenges, for example when previous answers to finding meaning or previous ideas about transcendence are shaken. The search for inner balance can be successful and lead to a more mature religious faith. However, the balancing of shattering experiences can also fail and individual religiosity can develop in a gloomy way or even become pathological.
Message to go: Religiosity can be understood as an extended balance system that extends beyond biological circumstances and can encompass transcendent experiences.
Terminology: The biological balance system can be described as homeostasis I. Religiosity as an extended and more comprehensive balancing ability can be described as homeostasis II .
Religiosity and credition : The concept of understanding religiosity as a kind of "balance system" was a decisive impulse for the beginning of credition research(Angel 2022).
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
Creditions play a central role in shaping human religiosity. They influence the way in which individuals relate to a religion and this has an impact on how they characterise their religiosity . The individual manifestations of religiosity (e.g. cosmopolitan, narrow-minded, patriarchal, reconciliatory, fundamentalist, etc.) can vary widely. This can even be the case when people refer to the same religion. However, the individual manifestations of religiosity can also be close to each other, even if people refer to different religions.
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
Religious semantics is confusing. If we make a clear distinction between religion and religiosity, we can recognise this: Religious belief can always arise when someone develops their own individual religiosity with reference to a religion (including its current social or political context).
People can be sensitive to religions in different ways. They can also deal with religions in different ways when developing their religiosity. For example, they can adopt all of the guidelines, but they can also reject individual components of religions. Creditions have an influence on whether and how this happens. Creditions therefore contribute to the fact that even within the same religion (or denomination) there are different forms of individual religiosity . If you want to understand why there are such big differences in religious behaviour within one and the same religion , it is helpful to understand creditions.
The same applies if you want to know why there are similarities in religious behaviour across the boundaries of religions . Here too, creditions are one of the decisive factors. Knowledge of creditions can therefore help to reduce the tension between religions and to deal constructively with their differences.
English - German: insoluble translation problems for "belief/faith" terminology
--- Note: This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision. ---
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
Credition research has German-speaking and English-speaking roots. For this reason, there is great sensitivity to the different ways of expression in the respective languages. There are considerable differences, especially for the lexeme <faith/belief> and for some other terms relevant to faith and belief. These are noticeable when translating from English into German and vice versa. This is particularly serious because for some of the central statements or observations there is no adequate translation or only approximate translations into the other language. Such translational challenges are a constant issue, especially in the production of scientific publications. The topic also frequently plays an important role in our congresses.
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
English has linguistic possibilities that German does not offer - and vice versa. This is well known. What is less well known is that this affects the topic of faith in a particularly pronounced way. Some of the resulting terminological problems cannot be solved. This has an irritating effect on research into creditions.
Examples of the lexical and grammatical incompatibilities:
Noun | Singular | English (2) | faith, belief | ||
German (1) | Faith | ||||
| plural | Englishto faith (0) | - - - | |||
Englishto belief (1) | beliefs | Often rendered as opinions in German | The plural "religious beliefs" , which is easily possible in English, cannot be rendered in German. | ||
German (0) | - - - | ||||
verb | present tense (positive) | Englishto faith (0) | - - - | ||
Englishto believe (1) | to believe | ||||
Germanto faith (1) | believe | ||||
progressive tense (positive) | Englishto faith (0) | - - - | |||
Englishto believe (1) | believing | Expresses a processual or ongoing activity. | "I am believing" is not very common, but grammatically correct. | ||
German (0) | - - - | This grammatical possibility does not exist in German. It is usually paraphrased by the adverbial addition "gerade". | "Ich glaube gerade" is an empty formula (Ernst Topitsch) that says nothing. This means that a central terminological point on the subject of credition is non-existent. | ||
present tense (negative) | English (1) | to disbelieve | Commonly used verbal construction | ||
present tense (negative) | German (0) | - - - | the negation is constructed using the adverbial "nicht". | "Ich unglaube" is not grammatically possible. The largely equivalent German construction is: "Ich glaube nicht". | |
Adjective | Positive
| English (0) | - - - | Is usually replaced by religious | This makes all the problems associated with the adjective religious relevant. |
German (1) | devout | Usually, but not exclusively, associated with the semantic field of religion . | |||
| Negative | English (~ 3 and more) | incredulous, infidel, faithless | It can also be irreligious can also be used. | This means that the semantics of faith without justification to the semantic field of religion without justification. This prevents access to the topic of creed. In addition, all problems associated with the adjective religious become relevant. | |
German (1) | unbelieving | Is almost exclusively related to the semantic field religion . | |||
Participle | English (1) | believing | Can also be used for the adjective "believing". | ||
German (~1) | believing | Is uncommon in everyday language | |||
Gerundive | English (1) | believing | Central term for the topic of credition: believing as process believing as brain function | Sounds as natural as learning , for example. The connection between "learning and believing (as a brain function)" can be articulated without difficulty, | |
German (0) | - - - | Belief as a brain function is terminologically difficult to convey in the German language context. | Process of believing sounds strange and is not very suitable for adequately expressing the process of believing. Process of believing is sometimes also used in the semantic context of the Islamic-legal term Sharia. |
In English-language discourses on the topic of faith, the linguistic and thus translational aspects are articulated in passing at best. The significance of the differences is rarely made sufficiently clear. This is one of the particularly serious challenges for the topic of creedalism. It also has a less obvious depth dimension: depending on whether English is the mother tongue or not, sensitivity to language-inherent challenges can vary. Sensitivity to linguistic idiosyncrasies can, however, become explicitly relevant when dealing with AI-generated translations. In the field of credition research, the quirks of AI-generated translation are downright treacherous. Misjudgements of research results in the field of credition research can therefore be pre-programmed.
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
The scientific language of the Credition Research Network is English and the scientific publications on Credition are also in English. However, this has consequences: Within those fields of knowledge in which English is the lingua franca the incompatible realities of English <"faith/belief">terminology and German <"Glaube">terminology can hardly be adequately addressed. This is the case for the natural and cognitive sciences as well as for the majority of epistemological debates in philosophy and psychology . Many, especially epistemological aspects of the topic of faith/belief are thus debated in language games (Ludwig Wittgenstein), which are predetermined by the syntactic and semantic possibilities of English. It is hardly surprising that the differences in the linguistic possibilities of articulation are also noticeable in the respective ways of thinking.
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
The original version of the University of Graz research website is in German. The English translation has been automatically generated by AI. It is not yet complete and has not yet been thoroughly checked.
However, due to the different lexical, grammatical and semantic features, the topic of faith/belief is generally difficult to translate from German into English or from English into German. The problems are inherent to the languages and cannot be completely eliminated from a linguistic point of view. They have to do with the languages themselves and their respective histories. The resulting bias in German-speaking and English-speaking thought patterns is also noticeable time and again.
By the way: We have started to collect AI-generated German translations of our English publications. An entertaining pleasure full of oddities.
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
The translation problems between English and German are only one (smaller) aspect of the problems that need to be taken into account in academic communication about creditions. If we leave the area of Indo-European languages and include, for example, the language cultures of Africa, India and Asia in the horizon of reflection, the difficulties increase exponentially. The global perspective makes it even clearer: "contents of belief/faith" - i.e. the results of internal creditive processes - are also interwoven with the terminology of those language cultures that are found in the environment. This applies to religious beliefs just as much as to those of a mundane-secular nature.
Knowledge of the translation problems that have accompanied the topic of faith from antiquity to the present day can help to linguistically anchor creditions in a global, non-WEIRD horizon. This makes "<faith, belief(s) and believing>" a fascinating topic once again, as it has been since antiquity, but now on a global horizon.
Insurmountable translation problems from antiquity to the present day
----- This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision. -----
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
(a) From antiquity to the Middle Ages:From antiquity to the Middle Ages:
It is no coincidence that the expressive possibilities of languages are so different. The differences and incompatibilities have arisen with the development of languages. In order to understand today's language-related problems in the area of faith, we have to go back a long way historically, because the roots, which are still effective today,lie in antiquity. From antiquity to the Middle Ages (ca. 4th century BC - ca. 11th/12th century AD), two languages in particular played a role in the development of the subject of faith: Ancient Greek and Latin. Hebrew played a somewhat special role.
The first difficult challenges arose when translating from Greek into Latin. This applies in particular to the Greek lexeme for <believe>. In Greek, a semantically broad network developed from the same word stem with the adjective πιστός [pistós: trustworthy], the verb πιστεύειν [pisteúein: to believe] and the noun πίστις [pístis: faith].
Such a compact unit does not exist in Latin, because there the nominal and verbal formulations already fall apart. The etymologically unclear verb credere [to believe] and the noun fides [faith] come from different word stems. Tensions were therefore inevitable. They are particularly noticeable in the translation of biblical texts written in Greek into Latin. However, they also came to the fore in the translation of Greek writings of early Christian philosophy, in which the topic of faith plays a central role. Gradually, texts on the subject of faith were also written in Latin and therefore had to use two different word stems for believe [credere] and faith [fides] from the outset.
One uncertainty always remained: Can what is meant by a Greek phrase actually be adequately expressed in Latin? There was often no clear answer to this question. But Latin became the language of science. And the subject of faith was also debated in Latin. Greek expressive possibilities began to fade and with them the knowledge that central Greek terms have an enormous semantic breadth. Many of them, such as λόγος [lógos], ἀρχή[archḗ] or νοῦς], could not be adequately translated into Latin. However, they were indispensable for the debates on the relationship between faith and knowledge, soul and mind - which were now increasingly conducted in Latin, often without any knowledge of the Greek background. The fading of the original semantic breadth of Greek was also noticeable in the theology now formulated in Latin.
From the 12th century onwards, Arabic also began to play a more important role in philosophical debates. Toledo became the centre of a lively philosophical and theological exchange involving Christian, Jewish and Arabic scholars. The languages used and related to each other were Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Arabic. This also signalled a change of direction that would come to fruition in the Renaissance with its renewed focus on Greek.
For the time being, however, it was important that the terms developed and used in this major cultural project were to a large extent derived from Aristotelian-Neoplatonic philosophy: in other words, the terms used also conveyed the ideas originating from Aristotelian-Neoplatonic philosophy. These also influenced, for example, medicine, which was now also flourishing. A number of the basic ideas adopted from antiquity continue to outline tensions between scientific and non-scientific medicine to this day - such as the principle of similia similibus curare [treating the same with the same] as a basic assumption of homeopathy.
But more seriously, the terms that were gradually developed and introduced into the scientific debates were always in tension with previously circulating expressions. Most of these "conventional" expressions were primarily Platonic in character. The use of the same expressions was therefore often associated with different meanings. The expressions used in the vehement scientific conflicts effectively influenced the understanding of faith and its significance for knowledge.
(b) Renaissance and modern times
The supremacy of Latin (from around the 14th century) was once again challenged during the Renaissance [Re-Naissance (French): rebirth]. The "mission statement" of the scholars of that era was: ad fontes [back to the sources]. This slogan also referred to the languages of antiquity, especially Greek. The return to the roots of antiquity once again provoked condemnation. And even for the German Reformation of Luther's time, this linguistically orientated rebirth was one of the most important influencing factors.
One of the polarizing questions was: On what basis should the Bible be translated into German? Two possibilities were considered: (1) Should the Latin version be used, which possessed the greatest authority and had increasingly displaced other Latin translations? This Latin translation of the Bible is called the Vulgate. Moreover, the Vulgate had increasingly become the exclusive basis for the texts used in church services. (2) Or should one refer to a Greek version? Although Greek was the original language in which the various texts of the New Testament were written, the original manuscripts no longer exist. From the beginning, and even more so over the centuries, numerous copies had been made. Inaccuracies or even errors had crept in. Therefore, the original texts had to be reconstructed. This posed a particularly fascinating challenge for Renaissance scholars. One of them, Erasmus of Rotterdam, had published a newly edited Bible of this kind. When it came to considering whether it could serve as the basis for a German translation, this Greek text had only been on the market in print for a few months. And, most importantly, it had not yet undergone a broader evaluation process. For the time being, it remained, to a certain extent, a matter of faith as to whether it could actually be considered trustworthy.
This created a truly insoluble problem regarding translation. With the gradual establishment of "national languages" (from around the 13th/15th century onward), the highly controversial issues that every interpreting and translation agency still faces today arose: Is the translation accurate, and who can certify this? Now it becomes even clearer how much the development of languages and their terminology was and is embedded in geographical contexts .
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
The geographical area originally relevant to the "translation theme" is a huge area that roughly encompassed the Roman Empire. In antiquity, it was known as ἡ οἰκουμένη [oikuméne] - i.e. "the inhabited earth"[οἰκέω: oikéō: inhabit] - designated. This area remained relevant to the topic of translation even after the collapse of the Roman Empire (from the 5th century onwards). However, the continuing Eastern Roman (Byzantine) part of the empire developed differently to the Western Roman part, which was overrun by the Huns and Germanic tribes. The fact that the cultural-geographical borders began to shift in connection with the Arab expansion (from the middle of the 7th century) was also significant for the subject of translation. Considerable parts of the former pan-Roman Empire, especially those to the south and east of the Mediterranean, now underwent a significantly different development under the influence of Islam. In the areas north and west of the Mediterranean, which were not or only briefly affected by the Arab conquest, the "centre of gravity" of cultural and political development shifted to the north and then also to the north-east. As a result, the modern Romance-influenced national languages gradually emerged in the western part of the former pan-Roman Empire (from around the 11th - 14th centuries); at around the same time, however, the non-Romance or only partially Romanceised languages that were also developing gained in importance: above all German and English. While scholars in the Romance language world continued to have a certain affinity with Latin, for scholars in the British Isles Latin was a new foreign language to be learnt. This was also the case in those parts of the Frankish Empire that were colonised by Germanic tribes.
The "translation question" became more explosive due to these geographical contrasts. For example, English scholars adopted the Latin noun fides , which is still part of the English language today as faith . However, from the very beginning, faith was still in competition with belief. Piquantly, the word stem of belief can also be found in the German word Glauben.
In the translation processes that dragged on for many decades, another aspect also became apparent as a hindrance:
The Germanic tribes could do next to nothing with the intellectual and linguistic capacity for abstraction that Latin possesses. The linguistic finesse this provided was alien to the Germanic mindset - a horror for any translation endeavours. As a result, the "translation question" was once again caught up in the maelstrom of mental differences that were woven into the individual languages and which also influenced their potential for development.
For the terms "faith/belief" in particular, as well as for other "faith/belief-related" expressions, this resulted in inconsistencies that are still noticeable today. They also make a scholarly approach to the topic of credition considerably more difficult.
Note:
This section is automatically translated with AI. It does not necessarily match with the English terminology and requires a revision.
-----
Faith/belief has to do with both knowledge and religion. In the scientific debate on faith/belief, the two areas (knowledge, religion) were closely intertwined until the High Middle Ages. From the modern era onwards, they began to develop further and further apart. Gradually, two separate scientific landscapes emerged. Today, immense volumes of scientific literature are generated in both. However, the overflowing literature of the two worlds hardly reveals any relationship between them. The topic of faith/belief is reflected differently in the context of knowledge (e.g. epistemology, cognitive science) than in the context of religion (e.g. religious studies, theology). In order to be able to structure the scientific literature, I use the formulation "faith/belief-knowledge complex" and "faith/belief-religion complex". The problems of language and translation are noticeable in both complexes - sometimes in different ways.
However, there is still a common thread that links the two complexes: Debates on the topic of faith/belief are to a large extent nominally grounded. This means that in the academic literature of both complexes, "faith/belief" is primarily used as a noun. This promotes the view that faith/belief is a static and stable entity. For this reason, the nominally grounded debates for both the "faith/belief-knowledge complex" and the "faith/belief-religion complex" make it difficult to access a processual-dynamic perspective which underpins the topic of credition.
In order to bridge this gap provisionally, it may initially be helpful (and only as a provisional auxiliary construction) to speak of two poles towards which the faith/belief process can move in its dynamics : the pole of faith/belief & knowledge and the pole of faith/belief & religion. Credition as the biological basis for faith/belief processes has to do with both poles.
Head of the Credition Research Project
| https://aljoschaneubauer.wordpress.com/ |
| https://www.tugraz.at/institute/ime/home |
| bit.ly/431NU0C |
Overall scientific planning
Academic biography:
1976 -1981 Studied Latin, theology, history in Regensburg and Paris
1982 - 1984 Teaching at the humanistic grammar school Leopoldinum in Passau and at the humanistic-new language grammar school in Kelheim
1984 - 1988 Doctorate in Religious Education at the University of Regensburg (Prof. Dr Wolfgang Nastainczyk): Topic: Science and technology in religious education
1988 - 1994 Habilitation in religious education at the University of Regensburg (Prof. Dr Wolfgang Nastainczyk): Topic: The religious person in times of catastrophe. Religious education perspectives on collective phenomena of misery
1994 - 1996 Private lecturer at the University of Regensburg
1996 - 1997 Professorship for Religious Education at the TU Dresden
1997 - 2023 Professorship for Catechetics and Religious Education at the Karl-Franzens University of Graz
2011 Scientific director of the Credition Research Project
2023 Professor emeritus of the Karl-Franzens University of Graz
https://religionspaedagogik.uni-graz.at/de/persoenlichkeiten/