Taking Theology and Science Seriously Without Category Mistakes: A Response to Ian Barbour
Abstract. In my response to Ian Barbour's criticisms, I first argue for the anthropological dimensions and contextuality of any theology. Next I examine and criticize Barbour's thesis that I am an in-compatibilist about divine action. Finally I illustrate the fact that I see genuine opport...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2008
|
| In: |
Zygon
Jahr: 2008, Band: 43, Heft: 1, Seiten: 271-276 |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Theology
B primary and secondary causality B Paul Bloom B Justin Barrett B Divine Action B compatibil-ism B Ian Barbour B evolutionary explanations of religion |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallele Ausgabe: | Nicht-Elektronisch
|
| Zusammenfassung: | Abstract. In my response to Ian Barbour's criticisms, I first argue for the anthropological dimensions and contextuality of any theology. Next I examine and criticize Barbour's thesis that I am an in-compatibilist about divine action. Finally I illustrate the fact that I see genuine opportunities for a dialogue between theologians and scientists without apologetics, category mistakes, or relegating theology to the fringes of science, by pointing to evolutionary explanations of religion. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9744 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x |