Note: 

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

Translation problems arise because words and ways of constructing sentences that exist in one language often have no linguistic equivalents in another language. For this reason, the translation of the subject of faith has caused problems since ancient times, which can still be felt today in philosophical and theological questions. There are many examples of this in the book Credition: Fluid Faith (Angel 2022). However, a lack of equivalents also makes translations from German into English or from English into German, for example, a problem. In addition, English, as the global scientific language of the present day, can only express to a limited extent what is experienced in other cultures, especially when this is expressed in a non-Indo-European language.

Note: 

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

People express what they believe in their mother tongue or in a language they are familiar with. But beliefs are already the result of creations. This is why the relationship between belief processes (creditions), beliefs and language is one of the most important topics of our research. However, "credition" is a brain function that encompasses a number of different processes in the brain. The individual processes can be tested empirically, for example, by examining electrical potential changes or localisations in the brain. In the case of such neurophysiological processes, the results of empirical investigations do not depend on the language in which they are formulated - which is usually English. The situation is different when it comes to cognitive processes that are represented psychologically at the behavioural level, e.g. perception, evaluation, memory, learning or actions. Language becomes important here because it is used to articulate definitions, descriptions and interpretations of the results. It is therefore precisely the relationship between language and empiricism that makes the topic of language particularly important for credition research.

Note: 

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require 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 was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require 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:

In discourses on the topic of belief/faith which are held in English 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 credition. 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.

By the way: We've started collecting AI-generated translations of our publications. It's an entertaining treat full of quirks.

Note: 

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require 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 was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require 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 was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require 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.

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

-----

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[nûs], 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 .

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

-----

From around the 14th century, the supremacy of Latin was once again challenged. The era of the Renaissance [Re-Naissance (French): rebirth] began. The "mission statement" now favoured by scholars 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 distortions. It was precisely in its language-centred dimension that this rebirth became one of the most important influencing factors for the German Reformation of Luther's time. One of the polarising questions was: on what basis should the Bible be translated into German? There were two possibilities: (1) Should the Latin version, which had the greatest authority and had increasingly superseded other Latin translations, be used? This Latin translation of the Bible is called the Vulgate . The Vulgate had also increasingly become the exclusive basis for the texts used in worship. (2) Or should we refer to a Greek version? Although Greek was the original language in which the various texts of the New Testament were written, the original documents were no longer available. From the beginning, and even more so over the centuries, numerous copies had been produced. Inaccuracies or even errors had crept in. The original texts therefore had to be reconstructed. This was a particularly fascinating challenge for the scholars of the Renaissance. One of them, Erasmus of Rotterdam, had published a Bible that had been re-edited in this way. When it came to considering whether this newly reconstructed Greek text could be used as the basis for a translation into German, it had only been on the market as a printed edition for a few months. And above all, it had not yet undergone a broader evaluation process. For the time being, it remained to a certain extent a question of faith as to whether it could actually be categorised as trustworthy.

This created a problem for the question of translation that could not really be solved. With the gradual establishment of the "national languages" (from around the 13th/15th century), the highly explosive uncertainties arose that every interpreting and translation agency is still familiar with today: is the translation correct and who can certify it?

Now, when looking at the terminology of faith, it becomes even clearer how much the development of languages and their terminology was and is embedded in geographical contexts .

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require 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.

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require 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.

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

- - -

This question refers to a very hot topic and is the subject of intense scientific debate [e.g. Bennett & Hacker 2015]. For neurocognitive research into creditions, it is fundamentally about the philosophical foundations of cognitive neuroscience, or more generally about the relationship between neuroscience and philosophy. At this point, we enter the large and hotly debated area of the so-called "mind-body problem" and ultimately the fundamental questions of anthropology: How can we determine what and who a human being is?

Furthermore, the definition of the relationship between neuroscience and philosophy also has an impact on how the relationship between concept and empiricism is defined. We believe that "conceptual questions precede determinations of truth and falsity" [Bennett & Hacker 2015, p.2]. This is also a central challenge for cognitive neuroscience because the same terms are often used in psychology and neuroscience, but they do not necessarily have to be congruent. It is also significant for the topic of creditons that psychologically coloured terminology is primarily used in the humanities, religious studies and theology.

During a research project, "language" takes on a special significance in two phases. One is when formulating the hypotheses. The other is how the results are (linguistically) presented and interpreted.

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

- - -

Research projects and the associated hypotheses can only be formulated on a linguistic basis. Languages that are spoken in everyday life, such as English, are used. When certain words and terms are used, ideas and concepts associated with these words and terms are also incorporated into the hypotheses. This is called "implicit assumptions".

Mathematics and its symbolic language also play an important role in scientific research. Mathematical symbolic language is used, for example, to visualise changes of state or intervention effects. Statistical relationships are also represented mathematically.

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

- - -

Words influence perception and help to focus attention. Therefore, it is not meaningless which expressions and terms are used. The results are primarily valid within the research project constructed by the hypotheses. Even with high statistical significance, the results are probabilistic and can be confirmed or falsified by a replication study. However, the results of further research based on differently formulated hypotheses may differ from the initial results. The scientific task is then to describe these differences plausibly. This refers to the large area of methodological issues.

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

- - -

When constructing research paradigms, not only words from everyday language are used, but also specialised terms. They are usually defined precisely and are based on numerous assumptions. In everyday language, on the other hand, technical terms are hardly known. They are often downright incomprehensible. However, the results of research depend heavily on these specialised terms and can only be understood in their context. In order to make them known to a wider public, the results of such highly specialised research must also be "translated" to a certain extent: from technical language into everyday language. In this "translation process", the everyday language expressions used to express the research results in a "generally understandable" way play a central role. This is a source of many misunderstandings of scientific results. Unfortunately, they are often difficult to prevent.

This section was automatically translated using AI. It does not necessarily reflect English terminology and may require revision.

- - -

To a very high degree. "Faith" is a word that is widely used in general linguistic behaviour. It is used with above-average frequency in religious contexts in particular. However, "faith" is also frequently used in psychological and social science contexts - although not usually in a religious context. This gives the impression that faith is a well-known and familiar phenomenon that can easily be discussed on a linguistic basis. In contrast, "credition" as a brain function is the subject of highly specialised neuroscientific research. The terminology used here is hardly part of the general vocabulary. Anyone who is used to talking about "belief" in economic or psychological contexts, for example, must reckon with enormous access barriers when it comes to neuroscientific research. This applies all the more if "faith" is understood as a matter of course as "religious belief" and thus (exclusively) assigned to the context of "religions".

This is why neurocognitive creed research in particular is constantly faced with the challenge described above of translating scientific findings into a language that is generally understandable. However - and this can be particularly important for many areas of application - the communication model credition can be understood and applied without neuroscientific knowledge.