Ignacio Silva

his paper proposes a new methodological strategy within Thomism for engaging with the natural sciences, suggesting a dynamic framework inspired by recent developments in science-engaged theology. Through the analysis of historical and contemporary cases –including the works of Désiré Mercier, Édouard Hugon, and Joseph Gredt, as well as Thomas Aquinas’s own theological use of natural knowledge–the paper argues that Aquinas himself practiced a method of theology informed by the best scientific understanding of his time. This science-engaged Thomism not only recovers Aquinas’s methodological openness to natural philosophy but also offers a contemporary path for fruitful dialogue between theology and the natural sciences –one that avoids both subordination to science and isolation from it.

This paper discusses how Thomas Aquinas and some Neo-Thomists scholars (Juan José Urráburu, Joseph Hontheim, Édouard Hugon, and Joseph Gredt) analysed the metaphysical possibility of miracles. My main goal is to unpack the metaphysical toolbox that Aquinas uses to solve the basic question about the possibility of miracles and to compare how his late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century followers solved the issue themselves. The key feature to differentiate the two approaches will reside in their use of different notions to account for the possibility of miracles, namely obediential potency for Aquinas and the laws of nature for the Neo-Thomists. To show why neo-Thomist scholars source to this notion, I also briefly discuss how the notion of the laws of nature emerged in the seventeenth century.

The basic question of this article is whether Thomas Aquinas's doctrine of divine providence through his understanding of primary and secondary causation can be understood as a theological causal or non-causal explanation. To answer this question, I will consider some contemporary discussions about the nature of causal and non-causal explanations in philosophy of science and metaphysics, in order to integrate them into a theological discourse that appeals to the classical distinction between God as first cause and creatures as secondary causes to explain God's presence and providence in the created universe. My main argument will hold that, even if there are some philosophical models of explanation that seem to allow one to suggest that, at least partially, this doctrine could be seen as a non-causal theological explanation, there are other models that offer seemingly stronger reasons to see this doctrine in full as a causal theological explanation.

Florentino Ameghino was probably the most important naturalist in nineteenth-century Argentina, being a self-taught palaeontologist, whose theories rivalled the most advanced of the time in Europe and the United States. On top of his vast palaeontological discoveries, Ameghino’s fame came from his theory of the origin of the human species in the Argentine Pampas, published in 1880. The idea of Ameghino’s followers was to create a place of secular pilgrimage for the new Argentine nation to honour their own secular hero or saint, as Ingenieros had called him. A few accusations by the local Catholic Church were posed with Ameghino’s followers denying them. The education of the nation was one of the greatest concerns that Catholics had, and some saw in the positivist liberal position a rejection of the education on the virtues required for the building of a nationally educated society in Argentina for the twentieth century.

Science-engaged theology has emerged as a new way of conducting research within the vast field of science and religion, with the aim of, at least in one way of understanding it today, solving theological puzzles. In this article we suggest that an analysis of the diversity of approaches in which thirteenth-century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas engaged theological questions with the best knowledge of the natural world available at the time allows twenty-first century science-engaged theologians to move forward the discussion about the different ways of engaging theology with the contemporary natural sciences.

The main goal of this paper is to compare how Thomas Aquinas expressed his doctrine of providence through secondary causes, making use of both Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic principles, in the seventh article of the third question of his Quaestiones Disputatae De Potentia Dei and his Super Librum de Causis Expositio, in which he intends to solve the problem of the metaphysical mechanism by which God providentially guides creation. I will first present his arguments as they appear in the disputed questions, followed by a presentation of his thought on the matter in his commentary of the Liber de Causis, and concluding with my comparative analysis of Aquinas’ solution to the issue of God’s providential activity in nature.

Providence and Science in a World of Contingency offers a novel assessment of the contemporary debate over divine providential action and the natural sciences, suggesting a re-consideration of Thomas Aquinas' metaphysical doctrine of providence coupled with his account of natural contingency. By looking at the history of debates over providence and nature, the volume provides a set of criteria to evaluate providential divine action models, challenging the underlying theologically contentious assumptions of current discussions on divine providential action. Such assumptions include that God needs causally open spaces in the created world in order to act in it providentially, and the unfitting conclusion that if this is the case, then God is assumed to act as another cause among causes. In response to these shortcomings, the book presents a comprehensive account of Aquinas' metaphysics of natural causation, contingency, and their relation to divine providence. It offers a fresh and bold metaphysical narrative based on the thought of Thomas Aquinas for appreciating the relation between divine providence and natural contingency.

Joseph Hannon has expressed a most surprising objection to Aquinas scholar Prof William E. Carroll in his latest paper “Theological Objections to a Metaphysicalist Interpretation of Creation.” The main claim is that Prof. Carroll misunderstands Aquinas' doctrine of creatio ex nihilo by reducing it to a metaphysical notion, rather than considering it in its full theological sense. In this paper I show Hannon's misinterpretation of Carroll's and Thomas Aquinas' thought, particularly by stressing the dependence that the doctrine of providence through secondary causes has on the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.

The main goal of this paper is tocompare how Thomas Aquinas expressedhis doctrine of providence through second-ary causes, making use of both Aristotelianand Neo-Platonic principles, in the seventharticle of the third question of his Quaes-tiones Disputatae De Potentia Dei and his Super Librum de Causis Expositio , in whichhe intends to solve the problem of themetaphysical mechanism by which God providentially guides creation. I will rst present his arguments as they appear inthe disputed questions, followed by a pre-sentation of his thought on the matter inhis commentary of the Liber de Causis , andconcluding with my comparative analysisof Aquinas’ solution to the issue of God’sprovidential activity in nature.

The topic of divine providence is back on the theological agenda. Even a cursory review of the recent debates will reveal an increasing interest in this issue. A closer look at the literature of the last five or so decades indicates, however, that there is a considerable disagreement about the conceptualisation of providence and, consequently, how to approach the topic best. What does ‘providence’ in the theological context actually mean, and are there models available to help understand and appropriate the thus conceived doctrine of providence?

This chapter analyses how natural contingency refers both to the planning and the execution aspects of divine providence. For doing so, Silva contrasts the perspectives of some current trends within science and religion circles to find natural causal gaps in the created order to allow for God’s providence, with a typically Thomist approach within classical theistic circles. Silva suggests that classical theism offers a better understanding of the relation between natural contingency and divine providence than those who search for scientific spaces for God to guide creation towards its goals. In regards to the planning, Silva argues that God’s providence includes in its planning the achieving of the divine goals even by means of created, contingent in their action, natural things causing indeterministically. God’s goals include those contingent effects because they are ordered to new good things in creation. This is the Thomist idea to express that God, through not intended effects (be it contingent or even evil events), can bring about new good things to creation. In regards to the execution of that planning, Silva argues first that, contrary to some positions that see God acting in the a-causal indeterministic spaces provided by contemporary science, a causal understanding of indeterminism that distinguishes between causation and determinism, allows for truly contingent happenings within the created natural world. Then Silva shows how, by complementing these ideas with the doctrine of primary and secondary causation, at least as understood by Thomas Aquinas, one may offer an explanation of how God’s providence is involved in the whole of creation. Thus, even by means of created, indeterministic natural causes (that can be described as deficient instruments), God achieves his goals and intentions by causing them to cause indeterministically.

This volume offers an original perspective on divine providence by examining philosophical, psychological, and theological perspectives on human providence as exhibited in virtuous human behaviours. Divine providence is one of the most pressing issues in analytic theology and philosophy of religion today, especially in view of scientific evidence for a natural world full of indeterminacies and contingencies. Therefore, we need new ways to understand and explain the relations of divine providence and creaturely action. The volume is structured dynamically, going from chapters on human providence to those on divine providence, and back. Drawing on insights from virtue ethics, psychology and cognitive science, the philosophy of providence in the face of contingent events, and the theology of grace, each chapter contributes to an original overall perspective: that human providential action is a resource suited specifically to personal action and hence related to the purported providential action of a personal God. By putting forward a fresh take on divine providence, this book enters new territory on an age-old issue. It will therefore be of great interest to scholars of theology and philosophy.

On the face of it, the idea of divine action in nature brings challenges to the autonomy of nature, and thus to the foundation of the natural sciences. According to the contemporary scientific world view, nature does not need anything extra to bring about any event which happens in nature. Apparently contrasting with this view, the main monotheistic religions claim that God is capable of intervening in the universe to guide it to its end and completion, and does so. This dilemma has brought theologians to search for a way in which God could perform this activity without interfering with the natural processes. The indeterminism of quantum events seems to be a conceptual framework which provides the place where God could choose the outcome of any event, given its indeterminacy. This solution, however, raises several difficulties for the traditional understanding of God as omnipotent, omniscient, provident, and transcendent. In the end, God has to act as another natural cause. The root of this dilemma (God’s action against nature’s actions) is the notion of deterministic causality used in the debate, which remains unexplained, and the assumption that God depends upon the natural order to act. This project is to evaluate some modern approaches to the problem of divine action, and to consider Aquinas’ views on causality, with which it is possible to hold a non-deterministic interpretation of nature. Then, to see first how he applies this notion to God’s causality, to show how nature depends on God, and second how God acts providentially in all natural operations, as a first cause moving a secondary cause.

La Universidad de París en la Europa de finales del siglo XIII fue centro de acaloradas discusiones acerca del alma del hombre. La cuestión del alma es el punto doctrinal central y se muestra decisivo porque en la resolución de este único punto puede verse el trasfondo antropológico y metafísico de toda una cosmovisión filosófica e incluso teológica del universo. Una de las más problemáticas cuestiones que se plantearon acerca del alma es el problema de la unidad del intelecto para todos los hombres. Parecería contradictorio pensar que todos los hombres piensan con un único intelecto, pero a su vez suena absurdo afirmar que un principio espiritual, inmaterial, se una a un cuerpo por un tiempo determinado para luego separarse. Ambas posiciones surgen de la consideración de nuevos textos llegados a las manos de los pensadores parisinos a través de autores árabes: los textos del De anima de Aristóteles.

Latin America plays an increasingly important role in the development of modern Christianity yet it has been underrepresented in current scholarship on religion and science. In this first edited volume on the subject, contributors explore the different ways that religion and science relate to each other, how developments in natural science shaped religious views from the pre-Hispanic period until the nineteenth century and the current debates over evolution and creationism. It will appeal to those researching theology, divinity, philosophy, history of science and Latin American studies.

Thomas Aquinas’s engagement with newly received Arabic commentaries on Aristotle and Neoplatonic ideas shaped his distinct approach to God’s action in the world. Aquinas understood divine providence as encompassing God as first cause and contingent secondary created causes, contributing to a richer, more perfect world. This moderate indeterminism, based on the fourfold causes of Aristotle, lets Aquinas uphold a primary cause that, while causing secondary causes to cause contingently, causes their effects without determining their outcome. When Aristotelian philosophy, inspired in part by biological prototypes, was replaced by the mechanical philosophies during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the interplay between primary and secondary causes became problematic, resulting in occasionalist or deist positions.

I examine John Polkinghorne's account of how God acts in the world, focusing on how his ideas developed with the consideration of the notion of kenosis, and how this development was not a rejection of his previous ideas, but on the contrary a fulfilling of his own personal philosophical and theological insights. Polkinghorne's thought can be distinguished in three different periods:1) divine action as input of active information (1988-2000/2001);2) Polkinghorne's reception of the notion of kenosis (2000-2004);3) Polkinghorne's "thought experiment" approach to his ideas on divine action (2004- ). Finally, I consider the question of internal coherence of this theological development, focusing on the transition from the first to the second period, which I believe to be the most significant.

In this paper I suggest a reason why the Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine of providence is attractive to contemporary philosophers of religion in the English-speaking academy. The main argument states that there are at least four metaphysical principles that guided discussions on providence and divine action in the created world, namely divine omnipotence and transcendence, divine providential action, the autonomy of natural created causes, and the success of reason and natural science. Aquinas’ doctrine, I hold, is capable of affirming these four principles without rejecting any of them, as it is in the cases of other doctrines. In addition, I present and answer some objections raised against Aquinas’ thought, and briefly expand on how Aquinas’ ideas on providence are used today to tackle issues regarding contemporary science, such as evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, and big bang theory.

Attempts to solve the issue of divine action in nature have resulted in many innovative proposals seeking to explain how God can act within nature without disrupting the created order but introducing novelty in the history of the universe. My goal is to show how Aquinas' doctrine of providence, mainly as expressed in his De Potentia Dei, fulfils the criteria for an account of divine action: that God's action is providential in the sense that God is involved in the individual and particular here and now.

La presente voz introducirá al lector en las cuestiones básicas históricas y contemporáneas acerca del problema de cómo concebir la acción de Dios en el mundo, o lo que se llama ‘acción especial de Dios’. También se dice que Dios obra de modo general al crear el mundo, pero esto no será tema del presente texto. Se entiende teológicamente que la acción especial de Dios en el mundo creado puede dividirse, al menos, en cuatro modos: 1) milagros; 2) inspiración; 3) gracia; y 4) providencia. Los milagros son eventos extraordinarios que exceden el poder productivo de la naturaleza, siendo su ocurrencia, por definición, rara, dado que lo extraordinario presupone lo ordinario. La inspiración es una especie de entendimiento con un sentido de iluminación divina, generando comprensión, permitiendo ver las cosas que ya se conocen encajar de una nueva manera; es decir, rara vez sirve para adquirir nuevos conocimientos, sino una nueva comprensión de lo ya conocido. La gracia se identifica con un don o un favor inmerecido que Dios otorga al hombre, por el cual se participa de la vida divina. Por último, la providencia, es el ordenamiento y gobierno del mundo por parte de Dios, a través de las causas creadas hacia un fin. Esta voz estará dedicada a presentar las cuestiones básicas históricas y contemporáneas acerca de la providencia divina, dejando de lado los tres primeros modos de considerar la acción especial de Dios.

Las relaciones entre ciencia y religión son tema de amplio debate dentro de la filosofía, la teología y la historia. Desde una postura de conflicto hasta la complejidad histórica, pasando por una gran variedad de posibles tipos de relaciones, las opiniones acerca de las mismas intentan describirlas y sugerir cuál es la mejor forma en la que ciencia y religión deben relacionarse. La ciencia, en cuanto conocimiento de la naturaleza con vocación de universalidad, propone teorías que, tanto en la historia como en la actualidad, se han relacionado con el discurso teológico. Así, esta voz describirá algunas posibles relaciones entre los postulados, investigaciones, teorías y actividad científicos y los discursos religiosos y teológicos, sobre todo cristiano, pero también puntualizando relaciones en otras tradiciones religiosas. Analizando diversas perspectivas de las posibles relaciones entre ciencia y religión, se considerarán el campo académico interdisciplinar de ciencia y religión, las diversas propuestas de tipologías de relación y la crítica histórica a tales tipologías. Además, se tratarán diversas discusiones actuales concernientes a la cosmología y la microfísica, la biología, la antropología y las ciencias cognitivas, y la teología de la acción divina. Finalmente se analizará la interdisciplinariedad necesaria para este tipo de campo académico.

In this paper I offer a distinction between design and teleology, referring mostly to thehistory of these two terms, in order to suggest an alternative strategy for arguments thatintend to demonstrate the existence of the divine. I do not deal with the soundness ofeither design or teleological arguments. I rather emphasise the differences between thesetwo terms, and how these differences involve radically different arguments for the existence of the divine. I argue that the term „design‟ refers to an extrinsic feature that was in history understood to be imposed by God in nature, while one may argue for an internal tendency, what I call „teleology‟. I first offer a historical tour of design arguments and how the basic notion of design was understood in extrinsic terms. I then briefly present three kinds of objections available in history to these arguments: philosophical, scientific, and theological. I finally move to discussing an intrinsicunderstanding of teleology, and how this notion differs from that of extrinsic design. Iend the paper showing how this notion could be useful in interpreting processes innature, in particular the reproductive tendencies in living beings.