Ignacio Silva

Contemporary debates on divine action tend to focus on finding a space in nature where there would be no natural causes, where nature offers indeterminacy, openness, and potentiality, to place God’s action. These places are found through the natural sciences, in particular quantum mechanics. God’s action is then located in those ontological ”causal-gaps’ offered by certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. In this view, God would determine what is left underdetermined in nature without disrupting the laws of nature. These contemporary proposals evidence at least two unexamined assumptions, which frame the discussion in such a way that they portray God as acting as a secondary cause or a ”cause among causes’. God is somewhat required to act within these ”gaps’, binding God to the laws of nature, and placing God’s action at the level of secondary causes. I suggest that understanding God’s action, following Thomas Aquinas, in terms of primary and secondary causation could help dissolve this difficulty. Aquinas moves away from this objection by suggesting to speak of an analogical notion of cause, allowing for an analogical understanding of God’s causality in nature. With a radically different understanding of the interplay between secondary causes and God, Aquinas manages to avoid conceiving God as a cause among causes, keeping the distinctive transcendent character of God’s causality safe from objections.

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.

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.

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.

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 present and analyse the theological reasons given by contemporary authors such as Robert J. Russell, Thomas Tracy and John Polkinghorne, as well as thirteenth‑century scholar Thomas Aquinas, to admit that the created universe requires being intrinsically contingent in its causing, in particular referring to their doctrines of providence. Contemporary authors stress the need of having indeterminate events within the natural world to allow for God’s providential action within creation, whereas Aquinas focuses his argument on the idea that a universe which includes contingent causes is a more perfect universe. I compare these two approaches, concluding that Aquinas’ seems to be better suited to account for true indetermination within the natural world, claiming that divine causality is not required to complement natural causality in its own level.

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.

Various authors within the contemporary debate on divine action in nature and contemporary science argue both for and against a Thomistic account of divine action through the notions of primary and secondary causes. In this paper I argue that those who support a Thomistic account of divine action often fail to explain Aquinas' doctrine in full, while those who argue against it base their objections on an incomplete knowledge of this doctrine, or identify it with Austin Farrer's doctrine of double agency – again failing to do Aquinas justice. I analyse these objections, indicating how they do not address Aquinas' doctrine by offering a brief but full account of the latter

© 2013 The Editors of The Philosophical QuarterlyHerman Philipse sets out in this book an extremely detailed and thorough case for dismissing the claims of natural theology in the age of science. His main strategy is to refute the arguments of Richard Swinburne, claiming that Swinburne presents the strongest case for natural theology in a scientific age; hence if Swinburne fails, natural theology generally is discredited. Whether or not the broader conclusion is warranted, that we should all become atheists, the wide‐ranging and detailed arguments and analyses should serve as useful material for teaching and debate.The structure of the book is commendably straightforward. The first part deals with the primacy and rationality of natural theology. The second part investigates the extent to which theism can be treated as a theory in the manner of scientific theories and how well it performs in this capacity, with Philipse concluding that...

© 2013 The Editors of The Philosophical QuarterlyThe volume that Kelly James Clark and Raymond J. VanArragon have put together is excellent. The question about evidence for religious belief has been raised in recent times particularly within Reformed epistemology, and the authors writing in this volume face these issues with vigorous and persuasive arguments. The book includes eleven essays, and is divided into three parts. The first part is devoted to exploring whether religious belief needs to be based on evidence. The second explores different factors and circumstances which may influence our acquisition of evidence. The final part presents arguments considering actual evidence for and against religious belief.The first part includes four essays. James Ross kicks off by arguing that the rationality of Christian faith is an issue of reliance rather than of evidence. Christian faith as a form of life,...

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.

The state of the debate surrounding issues on science and religion in Latin America is mostly unknown, both to regional and extra-regional scholars. This article presents and reviews in some detail the developments since 2000, when the first symposium on science and religion was held in Mexico, up to the present. I briefly introduce some features of Latin American academia and higher education institutions, as well as some trends in the public reception of these debates and atheist engagement with it in Mexico and Argentina. The primary conclusion of this article is that, even though the discussion is new to Latin American academic circles, it is gaining traction and will certainly grow in the coming years

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.

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.

In the first part of this paper I argue that even if at first Alvin Plantinga’s reasons for allowing special divine action seem similar to those of Thomas Aquinas, particularly in De Potentia Dei for allowing miracles, the difference in their metaphysical language makes Aquinas’ account less prone to the objections raised against Plantinga’s. In the second part I argue that Plantinga errs when recurring to quantum mechanics for allowing special divine action, making God to be a cause among causes. Thomas Aquinas, by speaking of primary and secondary causality when referring to God’s activity, avoids taking this step, evading the conclusion that God could be seen as a cause among causes. Aquinas, however, maintains in a statement which goes beyond Plantinga’s, that God’s providence requires the universe to be indeterministic because this indeterministic feature makes the universe more perfect.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Many innovative proposals have been offered over the last few years to solve the problem of divine action in nature, looking mainly at ontological causal gaps in nature, which would allow God to act in nature. Analysing these proposals I argue that they reduce God to a cause among causes. In order to avoid this conclusion, I suggest revisiting Aquinas’ doctrine of providence and God’s interplay with contingent created causes. Muchas propuestas innovadoras se han ofrecido en los últimos años para solucionar el debate acerca de la providencia divina en la naturaleza, centrándose sobre todo en el indeterminismo causal natural que parecería permitir a Dios obrar en la naturaleza. Al analizar estas propuestas, sin embargo, se concluye que Dios es reducido a una causa entre causas. Para evitar esta conclusión, sugiero analizar la doctrina de Tomás de Aquino acerca de la providencia y el obrar de Dios a través de las causas contingentes creadas.

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.

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.

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.

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.