A recent legal ruling in the United States regarding ‘intelligent design’ (ID) argued that ID is not science because it invokes a supernatural agent. It therefore cannot be taught in public schools. But the important philosophical question is not whether ID invokes a supernatural agent; it is whether it meets the standards we expect of any explanation in the sciences. More generally, could any proposed theistic explanation – one that invokes the deity of classical theism – meet those standards? Could (...) it be both scientific and religious? The present paper sets out the factors to be taken into account when answering this question. (shrink)

Volume 12, Issue 1, January 2012, Page 56-60.

The reference to man as animal rationale has traditionally been used to highlight rationality as marking a qualitative gap between human beings and animals. This assumption has been questioned in a similar way by the approaches of Alasdair MacIntyre and John Dewey, who agree that before we can make adequate sense of man’s rationality, we have to draw attention to animality as the common trait of human and nonhuman living beings. However, while MacIntyre takes human dependence to show ‘why human (...) beings need the virtues,’ Dewey considers it as a starting point to argue for the necessity of what he calls ‘natural piety.’ In my paper I shall elaborate some implications of this di_erence, guided by the question whether Dewey’s answer contributes to a re-invention of religious categories into the naturalistic view on rationality and morality. (shrink)

Volume 12, Issue 1, January 2012, Page 1-3.

In his recent Ars Disputandi article, ‘Some Difficulties for Amos Yong’s Disability Theology of the Resurrection,’ Ryan Mullins argues that Yong’s proposals are fundamentally misguided by Stanley Hauerwas’ dictum – which states that to ‘eliminate the disability means to eliminate the subject’ – and that therefore Yong’s disability theology of the resurrection body encounters potentially insuperable difficulties or is not sufficiently justified in the face of more traditional accounts. In response to Mullins’ criticisms, clarifications are offered with regard to both (...) the role of Hauerwas’ notion in Yong’s theology and the theological basis for claims regarding the persistence of the marks of impairment in the resurrection body. (shrink)

In his recent Ars Disputandi article, ‘Some Difficulties for Amos Yong’s Disability Theology of the Resurrection,’ Ryan Mullins argues that Yong’s proposals are fundamentally misguided by Stanley Hauerwas’ dictum – which states that to ‘eliminate the disability means to eliminate the subject’ – and that therefore Yong’s disability theology of the resurrection body encounters potentially insuperable difficulties or is not sufficiently justified in the face of more traditional accounts. In response to Mullins’ criticisms, clarifications are offered with regard to both (...) the role of Hauerwas’ notion in Yong’s theology and the theological basis for claims regarding the persistence of the marks of impairment in the resurrection body. (shrink)