The Possibility of a Theology‐Engaged Science: A Response to Perry and Ritchie

Zygon 53 (4):1094-1105 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article provides a response to John Perry and Sarah Lane Ritchie's article, “Magnets Magic, and Other Anomalies: In Defense of Methodological Naturalism.” In so doing, it provides a defense of some of the arguments I made in my article, “Should a Christian Adopt Methodological Naturalism?” I begin by addressing some of the confusion about my position. However, it is not simply my intention to address confusions. There remain some fundamental differences between my position and Perry and Ritchie's. It is on these differences that I wish to focus––differences that enable me to maintain my critique of methodological naturalism without falling prey to the problems they raise. Constructively, I advance the argument that the Christian scientist should be open to the possibility of theology‐engaged science, as well as the science‐engaged theology that Perry and Ritchie advocate.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 94,726

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-11-22

Downloads
33 (#483,824)

6 months
14 (#256,467)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrew Torrance
University of St. Andrews

Citations of this work

Add more citations