۱. باربور، ایان، (1392)، دین و علم، ترجمهی پیروز فطورچی، تهران: پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی.
2. Barbour, Ian, (2009), “Five Models Of God and Evolution” In: Philosophy, Science and Divine Action, F. LeRon Shults, Nancey C. Murphy, and Robert J. Russell (eds.). Philosophical Studies in Science and Religion, v. 1. Leiden; Boston: Brill.
3. Carroll, William E., (2008), “Divine Agency, Contemporary Physics and the Autonomy of Nature”, The Heythrop Journal, 49 (4), Pp. 582–602.
4. Chapp, Larry S, (2013), The God of Covenant and Creation: Scientific Naturalism and Its Challenge to the Christian Faith, London; New York: Bloomsbury.
6. Dardis, Anthony, (2008), Mental Causation: The Mind-Body Problem, New York: Columbia University Press.
7. Gibb, S. C., (2013), “Introduction”, In: Mental Causation and Ontology, S. C. Gibb, E. J. Lowe, and Rögnvaldur D. Ingthorsson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Jones, Kile, (2008), “The Causal Closure of Physics: An Explanation and Critique”, World Futures, 64 (3), Pp. 179–86, https://doi.org/10.1080/02604020701807400.
9. Kim, Jaegwon, (1997), “XIV-Does the Problem of Mental Causation Generalize?”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 97 (3), Pp. 281–97, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9264.00017.
10. Koperski, Jeffrey, (2015), The Physics of Theism: God, Physics, and the Philosophy of Science, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell.
11. Marcus, Eric, (2005), “Mental Causation in a Physical World”, Philosophical Studies, 122 (1), Pp. 27–50, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-2204-x.
12. Nelson, Jams S., (1995), “Divine Action: Is It Credible?”, Zygon, 30 (2), Pp. 267–80, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1995.tb00069.x.
13. Papineau, David, (2001), “The Rise of Physicalism”, In: Physicalism and Its Discontents, Carl Gillett and Barry Loewer (eds.). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. ———, (2009), “The Causal Closure of the Physical and Naturalism”, In: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind, Ansgar Beckerman, McLaughlin Brian, and Sven Walter (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199262618.003.0003.
15. ———, (2013), “Causation Is Macroscopic but Not Irreducible.” In: Mental Causation and Ontology, S. C. Gibb, E. J. Lowe, and Rögnvaldur D. Ingthorsson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Plantinga, Alvin, (2008), “What Is ‘Intervention’?”, Theology and Science, 6 (4), Pp. 369–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700802396106.
17. ———, (2011), Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, London: Oxford University Press.
18. Polkinghorne, John, (1998), Belief in God in the Age of Science, Yale: Yale University Press.
19. ———, (2000), “Science and Theology in the Twenty-First Century.” Zygon, 35 (4), Pp. 941–53.
20. ———, (2005), Science and Providence, Philadelphia and London: SPCK Templeton Foundation Press.
21. ———, (2007), “Space, Time and Causality”, Zygon, 41 (4), Pp. 975–84.
22. Russell, Robert J., (2000), “Introduction”, In: Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Nancey C. Murphy, A. R. Peacocke, and Robert J. Russell (eds.), 2nd ed., Series on Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory; Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.
23. Shults, F. LeRon, (2009), “A Philosophical Introduction to ‘Divine Action”, In: Philosophy, Science and Divine Action, Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and F. LeRon Shults (eds.), Philosophical Studies in Science and Religion, v. 1, Leiden; Boston: Brill.
24. Silva, Ignacio, (2011), “Thomas Aquinas Holds Fast: Objections to Aquinas within Today’s Debate on Divine Action: objections to Aquinas within today’s debate on divine action”, The Heythrop Journal, 54 (4), Pp. 1–10.
)