Author: Barbour, Ian G.

Source: Zygon, Volume 43, Number 1, March 2008 , pp. 259-269(11)

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

Abstract:

.

In responding to Taede Smedes, I first examine his thesis that the recent dialogue between science and religion has been dominated by scientism and does not take theology seriously. I then consider his views on divine action, free will and determinism, and process philosophy. Finally I use the fourfold typology of Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration to discuss his proposal for the future of science and religion.

Keywords: Karl Barth; creationism; determinism; divine action; free will; linguistic philosophy; logical positivism; Arthur Peacocke; John Polkinghorne; process philosophy; scientism; Taede Smedes; Alfred North Whitehead

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00911.x

Affiliations: 1: Professor of Physics and Professor of Religion at Carleton College, 1 North College St., Northfield, MN 55057;, Email: ibarbour@carleton.edu.

Publication date: 2008-03-01

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Religion
• By this author: Barbour, Ian G.

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers