{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018967334035827187, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.185667752442996, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Health and Human Flourishing

specifically with ecological reasoning. The so-called embodied alternative also has drawbacks, for we are left with a theology that seems to be tamed to a Darwinian hermeneutic of emergent symbolic, imaginative behaviour. His forays into palaeoanthropology make fascinating reading, but one begins to suspect that multidisciplinarity emerges, rather than the kind of ‘transversal’ approach he intends. He considers the emergence of language in humans is particularly important in the rise of moral and spiritual awareness. Yet it is here that his thesis suffers somewhat from its focus on palaeoanthropology, for ethnologists of animal behaviour would suggest that language, for example, as well as complex social behaviours, are not as unique to humans as we might suppose. His interpretation of cave paintings in terms of spiritual awareness also goes further than the scientific consensus and, inasmuch as it is speculative, works against his intention to be solidly grounded in concrete practical results. His belief in a religious consciousness, imago Dei, coming to birth at some stage in the early history of humans is more widely accepted, but does this necessarily help in the dialogue as such, except the implication that it is our religious capacities that are uniquely human? Although he claims to have reached interdisciplinarity at this point, one wonders if a humbled, emergent approach to human uniqueness is, after all, not just a consequence of evolutionary biology as such, the Darwinian paradigm left intact and, some might say, foundational, with theology left having little to say to the sciences with which it has engaged. In spite of these limitations this is a book that deserves to be read and widely appreciated, showing an originality that is necessary in order to keep the science and theology dialogue alive to its potential.