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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Zygon 2008-03, Vol.43 (1), p.271-276 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 276 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 271 |
| container_title | Zygon |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Smedes, Taede A. |
| description | .
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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_234213782</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1646612481</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-67c606851d1ffd429e50546e3014fb9e1db0d00454c61360c84133bbe92f73a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1r2zAYhcVoYWm7_yAKu7T36sOSXdiF62mOWWoV21lIb4TjyJAsazqrZem_n7yUXFc3Eug858CDECYQEn--bEPChQwSyXlIAeIQICE0PHxAk9PHGZpAlJCAsjj6iC6c2wKAkFJM0EOT_ijKHDdTpWc6X-K0_IbrrFBlpnCtqkLP69kSL4pmqucNztJG5bpa4rui9qSqb3CKK1Xf67JWuNG4SEt8m1a3el5dofO-3Tn76e2-RPPvqsmmgd8psnQWdBxiGgjZCRBxRNak79ecJjaCiAvLgPB-lViyXsEagEe8E4QJ6GJOGFutbEJ7yVrOLtH1sfdp2P95se7ZbPcvw6OfNJRxSpiMqQ_Fx1A37J0bbG-ehs3vdng1BMwo0mzN6MuMvswo0vwXaQ4e_fzW37qu3fVD-9ht3ImnQKS3OU58Peb-bnb29d395mGZa__yfHDkN-7ZHk58O_wyQjIZmUWZmymvft5lcWMW7B_No4v9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>234213782</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>TAKING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE SERIOUSLY WITHOUT CATEGORY MISTAKES: A RESPONSE TO IAN BARBOUR</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Smedes, Taede A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Smedes, Taede A.</creatorcontrib><description>.
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0591-2385</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-9744</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ZYGOA7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>Zygon, 2008-03, Vol.43 (1), p.271-276</ispartof><rights>2008 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-67c606851d1ffd429e50546e3014fb9e1db0d00454c61360c84133bbe92f73a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-67c606851d1ffd429e50546e3014fb9e1db0d00454c61360c84133bbe92f73a43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9744.2008.00912.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1467-9744.2008.00912.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20170062$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Smedes, Taede A.</creatorcontrib><title>TAKING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE SERIOUSLY WITHOUT CATEGORY MISTAKES: A RESPONSE TO IAN BARBOUR</title><title>Zygon</title><description>.
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.</description><subject>Anthropology</subject><subject>Barbour, Ian</subject><subject>compatibil-ism</subject><subject>divine action</subject><subject>evolutionary explanations of religion</subject><subject>General points</subject><subject>History of science and technology</subject><subject>History of science in relation to other disciplinary fields</subject><subject>Ian Barbour</subject><subject>Justin Barrett</subject><subject>Paul Bloom</subject><subject>primary and secondary causality</subject><subject>Religion</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Theology</subject><issn>0591-2385</issn><issn>1467-9744</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkF1r2zAYhcVoYWm7_yAKu7T36sOSXdiF62mOWWoV21lIb4TjyJAsazqrZem_n7yUXFc3Eug858CDECYQEn--bEPChQwSyXlIAeIQICE0PHxAk9PHGZpAlJCAsjj6iC6c2wKAkFJM0EOT_ijKHDdTpWc6X-K0_IbrrFBlpnCtqkLP69kSL4pmqucNztJG5bpa4rui9qSqb3CKK1Xf67JWuNG4SEt8m1a3el5dofO-3Tn76e2-RPPvqsmmgd8psnQWdBxiGgjZCRBxRNak79ecJjaCiAvLgPB-lViyXsEagEe8E4QJ6GJOGFutbEJ7yVrOLtH1sfdp2P95se7ZbPcvw6OfNJRxSpiMqQ_Fx1A37J0bbG-ehs3vdng1BMwo0mzN6MuMvswo0vwXaQ4e_fzW37qu3fVD-9ht3ImnQKS3OU58Peb-bnb29d395mGZa__yfHDkN-7ZHk58O_wyQjIZmUWZmymvft5lcWMW7B_No4v9</recordid><startdate>200803</startdate><enddate>200803</enddate><creator>Smedes, Taede A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200803</creationdate><title>TAKING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE SERIOUSLY WITHOUT CATEGORY MISTAKES: A RESPONSE TO IAN BARBOUR</title><author>Smedes, Taede A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4082-67c606851d1ffd429e50546e3014fb9e1db0d00454c61360c84133bbe92f73a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Anthropology</topic><topic>Barbour, Ian</topic><topic>compatibil-ism</topic><topic>divine action</topic><topic>evolutionary explanations of religion</topic><topic>General points</topic><topic>History of science and technology</topic><topic>History of science in relation to other disciplinary fields</topic><topic>Ian Barbour</topic><topic>Justin Barrett</topic><topic>Paul Bloom</topic><topic>primary and secondary causality</topic><topic>Religion</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Theology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Smedes, Taede A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Zygon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Smedes, Taede A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>TAKING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE SERIOUSLY WITHOUT CATEGORY MISTAKES: A RESPONSE TO IAN BARBOUR</atitle><jtitle>Zygon</jtitle><date>2008-03</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>271</spage><epage>276</epage><pages>271-276</pages><issn>0591-2385</issn><eissn>1467-9744</eissn><coden>ZYGOA7</coden><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.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0591-2385 |
| ispartof | Zygon, 2008-03, Vol.43 (1), p.271-276 |
| issn | 0591-2385 1467-9744 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_234213782 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| 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 |
| title | TAKING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE SERIOUSLY WITHOUT CATEGORY MISTAKES: A RESPONSE TO IAN BARBOUR |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T05%3A21%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=TAKING%20THEOLOGY%20AND%20SCIENCE%20SERIOUSLY%20WITHOUT%20CATEGORY%20MISTAKES:%20A%20RESPONSE%20TO%20IAN%20BARBOUR&rft.jtitle=Zygon&rft.au=Smedes,%20Taede%20A.&rft.date=2008-03&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=271&rft.epage=276&rft.pages=271-276&rft.issn=0591-2385&rft.eissn=1467-9744&rft.coden=ZYGOA7&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00912.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1646612481%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=234213782&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |