Zygon 44 (3):533-542 (2009)
|Abstract||Although naturalistic perspectives are an important component of their accounts of divine action, most participants in the current dialogue between science and theology eschew a purely naturalistic model. They believe that certain events of divine providence require a special mode of divine action, over and above that inherent in naturalistic processes. The analogy of human providential action suggests, however, that a strong theistic naturalism can account for these events. This model does not depend on a particular notion of God's relationship to time and is not inherently implausible from a scientific perspective. Although it can be interpreted deistically, the model also is consonant with a nondeistic theology that may be described as involving a pansacramental or incarnational naturalism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Vance G. Morgan (1998). Cognitive Science, Naturalism, and Divine Prototypes. Philosophy and Theology 11 (1):25-46.
Seymour Feldman (2010). Gersonides: Judaism Within the Limits of Reason. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization.
Kile Jones (2010). Falsifiability and Traction in Theories of Divine Action. Zygon 45 (3):575-589.
Christopher J. Kosciuk, Human Freedom in a World Full of Providence: An Ockhamist-Molinist Account of the Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Creaturely Free Will.
John F. Haught (2010). Is Physics Fundamental? Robert Russell on Divine Action. Zygon 45 (1):213-220.
F. LeRon Shults, Nancey C. Murphy & Robert J. Russell (eds.) (2009). Philosophy, Science and Divine Action. Brill.
Morgan Luck (2010). On Polkinghorne's Unification of General Providence, Special Providence and Miracle. Sophia 49 (4):577-589.
Added to index2009-08-27
Total downloads39 ( #29,721 of 548,970 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,970 )
How can I increase my downloads?