In recent years, the concept of panentheism has become one of the most influential methodological frameworks among authors contributing to the science/theology debate in the Anglo-American context. However, a deep and well-weighed study... more
In recent years, the concept of panentheism has become one of the most influential methodological frameworks among authors contributing to the science/theology debate in the Anglo-American context. However, a deep and well-weighed study of its philosophical foundations is still lacking. Moreover, a more critical evaluation of its legitimacy within theological reflection in the context of natural science is needed. The aim of this article is twofold. First, I present an analysis of a critical shift in metaphysics and the philosophy of God: I trace the origin of modern panentheism, the trajectory from Spinoza to Hegel, from substance to subject, from ontologically independent to an evolving God. Secondly, I refer to Barbour, Peacocke and Clayton and try to reveal crucial problems that challenge their versions of panentheism, as well as the one presented by Hegel. I claim that they all fail to express properly God’s transcendence. I argue from the position of classical theism.
Divine Action and Emergence puts the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition in conversation with current philosophy and theology. As a middle path between classical theism and pantheism, the panentheistic turn in the twentieth... more
Divine Action and Emergence puts the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition in conversation with current philosophy and theology.
As a middle path between classical theism and pantheism, the panentheistic turn in the twentieth century has been described as a “quiet revolution.” Today, in fact, many theologians hold that the world is “in” God (who, at the same time, is more than the world). Panentheism has been especially influential in the dialogue between theology and the natural sciences. Many have seen panentheism as compatible with emergentism, and thus have brought the two together in developing models of divine action that do not abrogate the regularities of processes of the natural world. In Divine Action and Emergence, Mariusz Tabaczek argues that, as inspiring and intriguing as emergentist panentheism is, it requires deeper examination. He begins by looking at the wonder of emergence (which calls into question the overly reductionist attitude in natural science) and by reflecting philosophically on emergence theory in light of classical and new Aristotelianism. Moving in a theological direction, Tabaczek then offers a critical evaluation of emergentist panentheism and a constructive proposal for how to reinterpret the idea of divine action as inspired by the theory of emergence with reference to the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of God’s action in the universe.
Through a unique interdisciplinary approach that puts theology and the natural sciences into a dialogue through philosophy, Divine Action and Emergence offers a comprehensive evaluation of panentheism. It then puts forward an original reinterpretation of emergence theory, thus setting forth a constructive proposal for reinterpreting the concept of divine action that is currently espoused by emergence theory. It will appeal to scholars of theology and philosophy, those who work in the area of theology and science, those interested in emergence theory or panentheism, and finally those who are interested in the dialogue between the classical Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition and contemporary philosophy and theology.
A considerable group of contemporary philosophers and theologians-including those engaged in the science-theology dialogue, such as Barbour, Clayton, Davies, and Peacocke-support panentheism, i.e., a theistic position which assumes that... more
A considerable group of contemporary philosophers and theologians-including those engaged in the science-theology dialogue, such as Barbour, Clayton, Davies, and Peacocke-support panentheism, i.e., a theistic position which assumes that the world is in God, who is yet greater than everything he created. They see it as a balanced middle ground between the positions of classical theism and pantheism. In this article I offer a presentation and a critical evaluation of the most fundamental principles of panentheism from the point of view of classical theism. First, I list six main species of panentheism and the motivations of those who support it. In the second part I analyze the three main difficulties concerning its ontological and theological principles, i.e., (1) the meaning of the preposition "in" (en) in "panentheism"; (2) the accuracy of panentheistic definition of divine immanence, and (3) the question of whether panentheism is successful in protecting God's transcendence. I conclude that panentheism fails as a Christian theistic position. Nevertheless, it might still be valuable and play an important role in addressing the cognitive drama of the modern man, oftentimes seduced by secular (scientific) or spiritual naturalism, or pantheism.
‘Critical realism’ is to some extent an equivocal term, although its ambiguity has rarely been noticed. The reason for this ambiguity is that the term has constantly been reinvented. Nevertheless, the identity of the label and many family... more
‘Critical realism’ is to some extent an equivocal term, although its ambiguity has rarely been noticed. The reason for this ambiguity is that the term has constantly been reinvented. Nevertheless, the identity of the label and many family resemblances between its uses allowed for a transfer of thought between these different, although similar concepts, bearing the same name. The purpose of this article is to highlight the similarities and differences between the Barbour family of critical realism in science and religion and Roy Bhaskar's understanding of critical realism, and also to show the existing connections between both approaches.
