Author: Smedes, Taede A.

Source: Zygon, Volume 43, Number 1, March 2008 , pp. 271-276(6)

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell

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.

Keywords: Ian Barbour; Justin Barrett; Paul Bloom; compatibil-ism; divine action; evolutionary explanations of religion; primary and secondary causality; theology

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x

Affiliations: 1: Junior Fellow at the Faculty of Theology of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. His address is Lodewijk van Deyssellaan 51, 2182 VN, Hillegom, the Netherlands;, Email: tasmedes@tasmedes.nl.

Publication date: 2008-03-01

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Religion
• By this author: Smedes, Taede A.

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