Sarah Lane Ritchie

Recent years have seen a shift in divine action debates. Turning from noninterventionist, incompatibilist causal joint models, representatives of a " theological turn " in divine action have questioned the metaphysical assumptions of approaches seeking indeterministic aspects of nature wherein God might act. Various versions of theistic naturalism (such as Thomism, panentheistic naturalism, and pneu-matological naturalism) offer specific theological frameworks that reimagine the basic God–world relationship. But do these explicitly theological approaches to divine action take scientific knowledge and methodology seriously enough? And do such approaches adequately address the problem of how uncreated, immaterial realities could affect physical, material processes? This article examines various features of the theological turn in divine action—recognizing it as a welcome step in science and religion, while challenging its current adequacy.

Are human beings special? If so, from where does this 'specialness' originate? What makes humans distinct from other creatures in relation to the cosmos, other organisms, and the divine – and to what extent is distinctiveness important? These are precisely the questions recently taken up by participants in ESSSAT's sixteenth conference on the study of science and theology (EXST XVI). Hosted by the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University (UKSW) in Warsaw, Poland, and largely taking place in the local theological seminary in the city of Łódź, this international conference explored the theme: 'Are We Special? – Science and Theology Questioning Human Uniqueness.' With five plenary lectures, more than sixty short papers, a full day spent in Warsaw, and spanning five days, EXST XVI proved to be rigorous in intellectual content and conversation, and remarkably vibrant and warm in tone. Moreover, the diversity of academic contexts, cultural backgrounds, and age and gender demographics ensured that explorations of the theme of human uniqueness were varied, robust, and generative of both stimulating ideas and points of contention. The question of what makes human beings special is an inherently interdisciplinary one, involving such apparently diverse fields as physics, biology, psychology, theology, and philosophy. It is thus fitting that the plenary speakers at EXST XVI included an astrophysicist, a psychologist, a theologian, a palaeontologist, and a philosopher of science – not to mention all the perspectives represented in the short paper sessions! In what follows, I will briefly articulate the content of the plenary lectures, as well as certain thematic trends identifiable in the short papers. After that, I will attempt to highlight apparent points of consensus and contention, as well as more intuitive observations of the conference as a whole. In the first plenary session, astrophysicist and theologian David Wilkinson explored the question of human life in the cosmic context, highlighting the remarkable fact that humans exist at all. Wilkinson offered an astrophysical tour de force, outlining the current cosmological picture and relating that not only to human life itself, but the intelligibility of this cosmological picture to humans. Beginning with an emphasis on the virtually unimaginable scale of the universe, Wilkinson went on to explore the 'Goldilocks Dilemma' – the question of how to think about human existence when so many physical constants and constraints of this vast universe happen to be 'just right' for human life and flourishing. Wilkinson is keen to emphasize that the physical universe is intelligible to us – not only do humans exist, but we can discover and understand the physical processes and mathematical formulations that make our very existence possible. This fact of intelligibility, Wilkinson argues, is something to take seriously. He goes on to discuss the end of the universe, and just how much we do not know about our universe: all that we can see, touch, and measure comprises only 5% of the universe. Whatever we can say theologically, we must also say that 'matter matters to God.' Finally, Wilkinson asks the question, 'Are we alone?' At the very least, it seems, there is a good possibility of life elsewhere in the planet – what does that say about being human? Do we need to be alone in order to be unique or special? Does human specialness lie in our difference? Wilkinson concludes that no, humans need not be at 'the centre of everything' in order to be special, for a 'gift of grace is the theological distinction of what is human.' Human uniqueness, for Wilkinson, is a theological designation, indicative of a divine gift given to human beings in relationship to God and each other. The second plenary lecture in Łódź was presented by Jonathan Jong, a psychologist whose research involves the psychology of religion and philosophical issues surrounding religious studies. Jong was keen to define what, exactly, human beings are; without defining what human beings are, how can we know if we are unique? Whether or not human beings are unique, Jong insists, is an empirical one – what humans are like is not. To that end, Jong took conference participants on a remarkably thorough exploration of various ways to define what human beings are in the first place; debating the relative merits and shortfalls of essentialist definitions and those based on human

This research piece addresses the question: Assuming the validity of both physicalism and at least some nonreductive human agency, to what extent and by what means might an individual be said to “choose” belief in God? strengthening and altering neural correlates to experiences. After discussing neuroplasticity in general, the paper explores the neurobiology of belief formation, emphasizing that felt religious belief is essentially learned, correlating with contextualized practices that require focused attention, repetition, and emotional engagement. realities, while still being dependent upon those wholly natural processes. While the choice to believe in God via self-directed neuroplasticity may or may not correspond to the actual existence of God, “learning” to experience a felt sense of belief does seem to be possible.