Divine Action And Modern Science

A radical critique of current attempts to reconcile natural sciences with the concept of divine action.

Provides a sustained account of how the thought of Aquinas may be used in conjunction with contemporary science to deepen our understanding of divine action and address such issues as creation, providence, prayer, and miracles.

Challenges theological models of divine action that locate God's activity in human mind. Emphasizes God's relationship with all of nature.

One of the most important and controversial themes in the contemporary dialogue among scientists and Christian theologians is the issue of "divine action" in the world. This volume brings together contributions from leading scholars on this topic, which emerged out of the Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action project, co-sponsored by the Vatican Observatory and the Center for Theology and Natural Science. This multi-year collaboration involved over 50 authors meeting at five international conferences. The essays collected here demonstrate the pervasive role of philosophy in this dialogue.

Theologian Harry Lee Poe and chemist Jimmy H. Davis argue that God's interaction with our world is a possibility affirmed equally by the Bible and the contemporary scientific record. Rather than confirming that the cosmos is closed to the actions of the divine, advancing scientific knowledge seems to indicate that the nature of the universe is actually open to the unique type of divine activity portrayed in the Bible.

A longstanding question at the intersection of science, philosophy, and theology is how God might act, or not, when governing the universe. Many believe that determinism would prevent God from acting at all, since to do so would require violating the laws of nature. However, when a robust view of these laws is coupled with the kind of determinism now used in dynamics, a new model of divine action emerges. This book presents a new approach to divine action beyond the current focus on quantum mechanics and esoteric gaps in the causal order. It bases this approach on two general points. First, that there are laws of nature is not merely a metaphor. Second, laws and physical determinism are now understood in mathematically precise ways that have important implications for metaphysics. The explication of these two claims shows not only that nonviolationist divine action is possible, but there is considerably more freedom available for God to act than current models allow. By bringing a philosophical perspective to an issue often dominated by theologians and scientists, this text redresses an imbalance in the discussion around divine action. It will, therefore, be of keen interest to scholars of Philosophy and Religion, the Philosophy of Science, and Theology.

Is a pentecostal-charismatic worldview defensible in light of contemporary science? In The Spirit of Creation Amos Yong demonstrates that pentecostal thought does indeed have merit in scientific contexts. What s more, he argues that pentecostal-charismatic views regarding the dynamic presence and activity of the Spirit of God and the pluralistic cosmology of many spirits have something important to add to the broad discussion now taking place at the crossroads of science and religion. Interacting with many scientific fields of study including psychology, sociology, evolutionary science, cosmology, and more Yong s Spirit of Creation demonstrates the significance of pentecostal ideas to the ongoing dialogue between theology and science.

In Christian theology, the belief that God is actively involved in earthly affairs is fundamental. Yet it is challenged by the contemporary scientific worldview. The author of this study argues that the current problems with divine action are a consequence of a culturally embedded and tacit scientism according to which science is authoritative in many areas of everyday life, including theology. This study focuses on theological models that use chaos theory (John Polkinghorne) and theories of self-organizing systems (Arthur Peacocke) to speak about divine action. These models are analyzed and critically assessed. The author concludes that they are problematic, since they do not take sufficiently into account that there is a difference between scientific and religious language. Speaking about divine action in scientific terms rests on a category mistake resulting from scientistic presuppositions. The author also points to alternative possibilities of talking about divine action that take serious the logic of religious language.