Philosophy, science and divine action

Zygon®, 2008

The topic of divine action has been central to the theology-and-science discussion over the last twenty years. Some tentative conclusions are currently being drawn in light of research initiatives that have been engaged on this topic. I review three recent books that have responded in some way to the ongoing discussion. These responses show that, notwithstanding the advances made in the conversation, much work remains to be done before a plausible theory of divine action emerges at the interface of theology and science.

Ars Disputandi, 2003

2024

Critical junctures in the historical development of science owe their origins to ideas, concepts, and theories that became definitive in the minds of leading scientists who lived in a more or less religious culture. Scientists are never solitary, but always internal to a network of scientific relationships and friendships. They have a well-attested genius, nurtured not only by their scientific training but also by ideas and stimuli received from the cultural and social contexts in which they lived. In particular, metaphysical and theological aspirations guided the genesis of many scientific ideas. This book offers twelve examples of the development of scientific ideas that were shaped by religious factors and which changed the course of science itself. The interwoven nature of science, philosophy, theology, and culture is pervasive in these cases, thus demonstrating that throughout the modern era, natural philosophy enjoyed a deep coherence with theology. That entanglement lingers in the minds of scientists into the contemporary period, and it continues to nourish scientific creativity in subtle and profound ways. New explanations of the world have emerged through illuminative, revolutionary and, one might say, divined ways.

European Journal for Philosophy of Religion

A number of modern theologians have concluded that the rise of natural science makes it necessary to give up the idea that God acts in particular ways to affect the course of events in the world. I reply to this claim, taking up the challenge to explain what might be meant by a ‘special’ act of God. There are several ways to conceive of such acts, including the possibility that God might determine what is left determinable in the structures of nature, e.g., at the quantum level. I address objections to this view, and consider metaphysical puzzles that it presents.

Faith and Philosophy, 2000

Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies, 2017

The idea of inevitable and perpetual conflict between science and religion is known among historians as the “conflict thesis.” It exploded in popularity in the late nineteenth century with the rise of the Victorian scientific naturalists to positions of leadership in prominent scientific institutions. A common misperception exists concerning the two authors most central to the widespread dissemination and lasting popularity of the conflict thesis: John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. This misperception assumes that because Draper and White pitted science and religion at odds, they were not themselves theologically engaged. On the contrary, Draper and White held very specific theological views and championed them in their written works. Like others at the time, they shaped their theology to conform to their vision of science, a vision articulated by scientific naturalism, with its commitments to inviolable natural laws and nature as a closed system of physical causes. They viewed their theologies as the solutions that would bring peace in the conflict between science and religion. Since the commitments shared by the Victorian scientific naturalists remain central in science as it is conceived to the present day, the theological adjustments to accommodate them also continue. To understand the work of Draper, White, and other leading Victorian scientific naturalists offers valuable insight into the nexus of philosophy of science, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion both in the late nineteenth century and in the ongoing scholarly discussion of divine action today.

Palgrave Communications

Traditionally, analytic philosophy of religion has focused almost solely on specifically philosophical questions about religion. These include the existence of God and divine attributes, religious language, and the justification of religious beliefs, just to mention a few. Recently, many scholars in the field have begun to engage more directly with scientific results. We suggest that this is a promising direction for philosophy of religion to take. Nevertheless, we want to warn philosophy of religion against the excessive focus on methodology that has preoccupied the "science and religion dialogue" in theology. Instead of attempting to formulate a general methodology for all possible engagements between philosophy of religion and the sciences, philosophers of religion would do well to focus on local and particular themes. Since there is no single method in philosophy and since scientific disciplines that have religious relevance vary in their methods as well, progress can be made only if philosophical tools are employed to analyse particular and clearly demarcated questions.

Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences

The paper discusses the philosophical difficulties in conducting the dialogue between science and theology. It is argued that theology deals with the event-like phenomena which cannot be presented in phenomenality of objects (what happens in science). Correspondingly, in order to incorporate the givens of theology (the "data" of religious experience) into a philosophical framework one needs to extend philosophy beyond its metaphysical and transcendental setting. This extension inevitably leads to the recognition of the fact that the foundation of both science and theology originates in human beings, having an ambiguous position in the universe which cannot be explicated on metaphysical grounds. The phenomenon of man remains inexplicable to man himself thus creating an ultimate reference point of the contingent facticity of both science and theology. The so called dialogue between science and theology demonstrates that the difference in hermeneutics of representation of the world in the phenomenality of objects and the inaugural events of human life and religious experience pertains to the basic characteristic of the human condition and that the intended overcoming of this difference under the disguise of the "dialogue" represents, in fact, an existentially untenable enterprise. Discussions on the differences in experience of the world and experience of God are profoundly timely for further articulation of the sense of the human condition, but not for its change.

Roczniki Filozoficzne, 2021

The aim of the paper is to try to find a solution to the problem of divine hiddenness, which in the context of science takes the form of the question of why, if God exists, science can completely ignore Him and yet explain away so much. We formulate the “argument from hiddenness in the context of science” modelled on the “argument from hiddenness” proposed by J. L. Schellenberg and show possible ways to refute this argument. We also propose a refutation in the form of “explanatory absconditheism,” the best expression of which is the thesis of “articulation” of scientific and theological ways of explaining the world. We also argue that the thesis of “explanatory absconditheism” can be extended to the entire discussion of divine hiddenness, providing possible response to the “argument from hiddenness.”

New Directions in Theology and Science: Beyond Dialogue, 2022

This book sets out a new agenda for science-theology interactions. It explores how science-theology discussions can constructively change as a result of recent developments in the history of science, the sociology of religion, and theology. The contributions take seriously the historically conditioned nature of the categories "science" and "religion" and consider the ways in which these categories are reinforced in the public sphere. Reflecting on the balance of power between theology and the sciences, the authors demonstrate a commitment to moving beyond scientistic dialogue and seek to give theology a more active role in determining the interdisciplinary agenda.