ABSTRACT
This chapter concludes the study with a summary of the main conclusions of transversal reasoning (TR) between Jonathan Sacks and the economists Bart Nooteboom, Samuel Bowles, Dan Ariely and John Kay & Mervyn King. The relevance of TR is that it presents and deepens alternative critical assumptions for the ones underlying conventional economic modelling, in particular the social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA), in order to develop more properly a social response to radical uncertainty in the context of climate change. The study shows that Wentzel van Huyssteen’s postfoundational approach allows a rather successful conversation between theology and economics. To conclude the postfoundational approach, the chapter answers the question of what both disciplines can learn from TR employed here. Finally, limitations and recommendations for further research are presented.
