Dialogue between theology and science

This paper presents a philosophical argument for divine providence by Aquinas. I suggest that upon returning to Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics to prepare his commentaries on these texts, Aquinas recognized that his stock argument from natural teleology to divine providence (the fifth way and its versions) needed to be filled out. Arguments from natural teleology can prove that God’s
providence extends to what happens for the most part, but they cannot show that God’s providence also includes what happens for the least part. In order to prove the latter, Aquinas claims that one must argue from a higher science, which he then does with all characteristic clarity. This paper presents this argument, discusses what this means for his previous arguments from teleology, and discusses the argument’s relevance to the contemporary discussion about creation and evolution.

This article explores and seeks to appropriate theologically the African notion of vital force as a relational, non-reductionist ecological concept that would enrich the Christian doctrine of pneumatheology. The understanding that relational and pneumatological categories are viable within the theology–science dialogue is the broader framework within which this article is conceived. The relationship between natural theology and revelation provides an epistemological standpoint that does not divorce Spirit and reality.

This essay argues that philosophical naturalists who draw epistemic support from science for their worldview ought to set aside methodological naturalism in certain historical sciences. When linked to methodological naturalism, philosophical naturalism opens itself to several problems. Specifically, when joined with methodological naturalism, philosophical naturalism can never be scientifically disconfirmed but will nearly always be confirmed, no matter what the empirical evidence. Theistic-friendly “God hypotheses,” on the other hand, can never be scientifically confirmed—again, no matter what the evidence—but are routinely said to be disconfirmed. Methodological naturalism not only leads to this self-serving dynamic, but does not appear to serve a meaningful epistemic purpose in the contest between philosophical naturalism and theism and so, for these reasons, ought to be set aside.

The present paper discusses the ways in which philosophy initiates or could initiate a dialogue with theology on the ground of the reflection on apophatism. I will also study the possibility of a dialogue with science that could emerge from combining the philosophical and theological discourse. I will then describe the new perspectives generated by this dialogue. I will argue that philosophical apophatism could be a bridge between theological and scientific thinking. As concerns theological thinking, this bridging is made possible by the fact that philosophical apophatism could be seen as the previous stage to theological apophatism (the last stage the philosopher can reach in his meditation could correspond to the first stage of the theological apophatical thinking). As concerns scientific thinking, the bridging is based on the use of some philosophical concepts. One of them is “organic entanglement”, from Mihai Şora’s philosophy. This concept is directly related with Şora`s philosophical apophatism. The “organic entanglement” expresses the idea that cognitive relations cannot be separated from entitative relations and vice versa. Understanding such philosophical concepts could facilitate understanding and clarifying some problems of quantum interpretations regarding the relations between the epistemological level and the entitative (ontic) one. I will then explain the meaning of philosophical apophatism in Mihai Şora’s philosophy. I will also analyse the way in which apophatism is understood in the theological (orthodox) thinking of the Church Fathers. I will take into account especially the works of two authors: St. Gregory Palamas and St. Dionysios the Areopagite. I will show that the bridging philosophical apophatism realizes leads to a better communication between the theological and scientific way of approaching the Reality. I will argue that philosophical language could lead to a real and effective dialogue between the two paradigms of thinking. This could offer a more profound way of understanding Reality itself.

Encara que tracten temes radicalment diferents, l’objectiu últim, tant de la ciència com de la filosofia i de la teologia, és la intel·ligibilitat de la realitat veritable, més que la generació de dades observables. El diàleg entre elles hauria de ser, doncs, no només possible, sinó ben acollit. En aquest estudi defensem que la interacció d’aquestes disciplines, més que crear conflicte hauria de manifestar certa complementarietat, ja que ambdues s'interessen per la natura i el cosmos, una com a estructura regida per lleis i les altres en la seva relació amb Déu i la humanitat. El diàleg teologia-ciència arriba, doncs, als nostres dies ben viu, passant per èpoques millors o pitjors, però que avui dia esdevé ben actual i intens, a causa del context en què ens trobem: un enorme desenvolupament de la ciència i la
tècnica, que planteja qüestions, interrogants i, encara, conflictes ètics, filosòfics i teològics.

I think of Ian Barbour as the Dean of the burgeoning field, Religion and Science. By “dean” here I refer to a non-geographical university that was founded in 1966 and is now a worldwide collegium of scholars in the field of Religion and Science, sometimes called Theology and Science. The cornerstone of this invisible college was laid in 1966 with the publication of a crucial book by Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion. No one ever elected Dr. Barbour to his deanship. Barbour’s preeminent status has simply become a silent agreement adhered to by students and faculty for nearly a half century.

Resum:
L'obra recensionada a continuació és el fruit de les aportacions i discussions interdisciplinars realitza-des per diversos professors en diversos seminaris duts a terme a la Facultat de Teologia de Nàpols. Les reflexions que s'hi troben van des de les ciències a la filosofia i la teologia, en les seves diverses branques disciplinars. Cal destacar també l'èmfasi en la importància en la qüestió del mètode. L'obra té molt en compte la diferència de mètodes emprats en ciència, filosofia i teologia. Realment, intenta palesar el diàleg fe-ciència al llarg de tot el llibre, com a temàtica transversal, que intenta ser el fil conductor de la diversitat de temes desconnectats entre si.

Abstract:
The work here reviewed is the outcome of the interdisciplinary contributions and discussions of various members of the teaching faculty in different seminars held in the Faculty of Theology in Naples. The aspects covered range from science to philosophy to theology, within their diverse disciplinary fields. Attention must be drawn to the emphasis given to the question of method. Much importance is accorded to the methodological differences between the sciences, philosophy and theology. In truth, it