TAKING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE SERIOUSLY WITHOUT CATEGORY MISTAKES: A RESPONSE TO IAN BARBOUR

. 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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inZygon Vol. 43; no. 1; pp. 271 - 276
Main Author Smedes, Taede A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.03.2008
Blackwell
Subjects
Anthropology
Barbour, Ian
compatibil-ism
divine action
evolutionary explanations of religion
General points
History of science and technology
History of science in relation to other disciplinary fields
Ian Barbour
Justin Barrett
Paul Bloom
primary and secondary causality
Religion
Science
Theology
Paul Bloom
primary and secondary causality
Justin Barrett
lan Barbour
Religion
Science
compatibilism
Century 21
theology
divine action
evolutionary explanations of religion
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:. 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.
Bibliography:ArticleID:ZYGO912
ark:/67375/WNG-H4RVMC8T-W
istex:06C2975AE6C0A45675D78F17E829F860D65D3E23
ISSN:0591-2385
1467-9744
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x