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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Open Library of Humanities$s2024-
2008
|
In: |
Zygon
Year: 2008, Volume: 43, Issue: 1, Pages: 271-276 |
Further subjects: | 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 Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
Summary: | 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 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Zygon
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x |