Physical Closure and Divine Action

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Philosophy of Religion, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Philosophy, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Prof. of Tehran University

3 Associate Professor of Tehran University

Abstract

In this paper, first, the conflict between Scientific worldview and Divine action from the historical point of view is explained, and then, different approaches to solving this problem are introduced. In the next step, Physical Closure, as an important metaphysical basis of modern Science is illustrated and would show that the most severe obstacle in front of divine action in the world is that. After the explanation, Plantinga's approach to solving this conflict is explained. Then the proposal of new Theologians and Scientists, who intend to accommodate divine action and indeterministic laws of nature would be discussed and evaluated. By this evaluation, it would be shown that none of these approaches would be successful enough in criticizing the Physical closure. However, each of these approaches has salient points, and especially Plantinga's approach is well in his basic view. Finally, the Conscious and Free Will of human is introduced for showing the actual possibility of violating the closure of natural laws and physical world.

Keywords

References

 
1. Barbour, Ian, (2013), Religion and Science, translated by Pirouz Fatoorehchi, Tehran: Islamic Thought and Culture.
 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.
5. Clayton, Philip, (2004), “Natural Law and Divine Action: The Search for an Expanded Theory of Causation” Zygon(r), 39 (3), Pp. 615–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2004.t01-1-00605.x.
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.
 
 
 
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics