Philip Clayton

Many books explain why global warming is a problem; this book shows what must be done. It addresses central themes of climate change in straightforward terms, laying out the actions that need to be taken to slow global warming and adapt to the near and long-term future that we have created for ourselves. Collecting knowledge, personal stories, and practical insights from experts across a dozen specialties, this volume shows how we can adapt to climate change in order to protect the most vulnerable among us. Grappling with a complex range of topics, including risk, migration, and societal inequality, the authors take a constructive approach that balances realism with actionable solutions. They look back across human history for lessons that still matter today, particularly the importance of building a supportive and committed community to nourish hope. Without losing sight of the scale of the challenge, the volume chronicles the opportunities to mitigate environmental impacts and to leverage the challenge as impetus for broader transformations of society. Written in an accessible, non-technical style, _Climate Change: What Must Be Done?_ is a must-read for students, policymakers, and environmentally conscious individuals who want to know how to make a difference.

Addressing fundamental questions about life, death and the universe, Science and the Spiritual Questexamines the ways in which scientists negotiate the complex frontiers between their scientific and religious beliefs. Distinguished cosmologists, physicians, biologists and computer scientists of different faiths explore the connections between the domain of science and the realms of ethics, spirituality and the divine. Through essays and frank interviews, they offer honest, stimulating, and often intensely personal thoughts about life's most impenetrable mysteries. This unique volume presents radical new approaches to the religion/science debate and highlights the continued importance of the 'spiritual quest' in a world transformed by the developments of science.

Strong claims have been made for emergence as a new paradigm for understanding science, consciousness, and religion. Tracing the past history and current definitions of the concept, Clayton assesses the case for emergent phenomena in the natural world and their significance for philosophy and theology. Complex emergent phenomena require irreducible levels of explanation in physics, chemistry and biology. This pattern of emergence suggests a new approach to the problem of consciousness, which is neither reducible to brain states nor proof of a mental substance or soul. Although emergence does not entail classical theism, it is compatible with a variety of religious positions. Clayton concludes with a defence of emergentist panentheism and a Christian constructive theology consistent with the new sciences of emergence.

It is good to spot young German philosophers working unapologetically in the tradition of Hegel, when it is done as well as this; such spottings are rarer on this side of the Atlantic. In this monograph, based on his dissertation written under Béla Weissmahr at the Jesuit Hochschule für Philosophie in München, Burkhardt examines Hegel’s critique of Kant’s theoretical philosophy, focussing on the three themes of traditional metaphysica specialis: the world, the self, and God; or, in Kant’s critique, the antinomies, the paralogisms, and the transcendental ideal. But the book is not just a treatment of specific passages in Hegel, nor even a summary of Hegel’s critique as a whole; it is an attempt to rethink the fundamental moves of the Transcendental Dialectic in light of the sorts of concerns that Hegel has raised, to speculate first with Kant and then beyond him. If one accepts, as I do, that the Kantian critique of reason remains the most fundamental opponent to speculative philosophy, then the urgency of assessing the strength of Hegel’s answer to Kant is clear.

Are humans free, or are we determined by our genes and the world around us? The question of freedom is not only one of philosophy’s greatest conundrums, but also one of the most fundamental questions of human existence. It’s particularly pressing in societies like ours, where our core institutions of law, ethics, and religion are built around the belief in individual freedom. Can one still affirm human freedom in an age of science? And if free will doesn’t exist, does it make sense to act as though it does? These are the issues that are presented, probed, and debated in the following chapters. A dozen experts―specialists in medicine, psychology, ethics, theology, and philosophy—grapple with the multiple and often profound challenges presented by today’s brain science. After examining the arguments against traditional notions of free will, several of the authors champion the idea of a chastened but robust free will for today, one that allows us still to affirm the value of first-person experience.

This chapter first considers some of the more general concerns of scientists about the natural theology project and how they might interpret it, and then discusses the three categories into which arguments by scientists, and arguments made on behalf of science, tend to fall. The first and perhaps most dominant category are criticisms of religious beliefs and religious believing as such. The second category focuses on bad arguments made by natural theologians. The third category consists of what scientists view as the more constructive alternative to metaphysical beliefs and to religious ways of knowing. The chapter demonstrates how the naturalism found in scientific practice is rooted in the basic methods of data acquisition, data analysis, and the reconstruction in the natural sciences. It suggests that the strongest argument against the natural theologians is the argument from the comparative epistemic strength of scientific and metaphysical accounts of the origin of the universe.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BEING AND ONE THEOLOGIAN I PROPOSE EXPLORING the view of being of one theologian whose work has received wide attention both in Germany and America. Wolfhart Pannenberg is known primarily through his formulation of the seven controversial theses in (and on the subject of) Revelation as History (1961), and through his development of this approach into a full-fledged theological methodology "from below" in Jesus'God and Man (1964) and Theology a:ttd the Philosophy of Scienc :e (1973). Yet philosophers and theologians have not failed to notice that some rather interesting and novel ontological speculation has accompanied the work of this philosophically oriented theologian, speculation that could represent the seed of a novel approach to contemporary ontology. Now Pannenberg's passing references to God',s being, and to being in general, could be criticized from a theological perspective ; perhaps he would even prefer a treatment along such lines. However, another line of approach also suggests itself: if one can show that Pannenberg is advocating a way of viewing being in general, how does his approach fare when taken as the foundation of a SY'stematic ontology? Is it more at home in olassical philosophical thought about being or, if not, what contemporary influences does it reflect? Of course, for manyif not most-theologians, to attempt such an abstraction would be to tear their theology asunder, joint from marrow. For example, Barth's doctrine of the becoming God, as Eberhart Jiingel has admirably shown, is designed to do justice only to the God of revelation, and is meant to be taken as prior to all philosophical speculation about God's being and being in general.1 1 Eberhart Jiingel, Gottes Sein ist in Werden (Tiibingen, 1965), e.g. pp. 9f, 73ff; cf. Barth's Kiroh7iohe Dogmatik, II/I, pp. 202f. 645 646 PHILIP CLAYTON But lying at the heart of Pannenberg's theology is the refusal to shield his theology in this way. Theology is the science of God as the all-determining reality (TPS 302ff),2 and faith cannot defend any statement that reason fails to verify (Jesus 109). As his recent anthropology sorties into behavioral psychology, sociobiology and philosophical anthropology to produce an" anthropology in theological perspective" rather than a theological anthropology, so we may also expect a readiness on Pannenberg's part to consider his ontological statements as " ontological hypotheses" (if this is not a contradictio in adjecto ), to be tested by means of their" fit" with general speculation on the nature of being. Indeed, in BQT II: 237 and TPS, Chapter 5, he explicitly asks us to try the biblical understanding of reality in the court of the " contemporary experience of reality." Elsewhere, in a direct discussion of ontology, Pannenberg uses theological subject matter as an "example" meant to " contribute to a better understanding " of the philosophical issues involved (TKG 132f). 1. The Pannenbergian Ontology Assuming the validity of my admitted abstraction and of an unashamedly philosophical rather than theological analysis, what is this "novel" view of being found in Pannenberg's writings? Pannenberg holds that "futurity" is fundamental for Jesus' message (TKG 54). All reality is "eschatologically oriented "-in philosophical terms, referred to (bezogen auf) the future-and God is "the God of the coming kingdom" (BQT II: 237), "the God of history" (Grundfragen 112-28), "the power of the future" (TKG 57). This is not merely an 2 In the following I will use the common abbreviations for Pannenberg's works: 'TPS' for Theology and the Philosophy of Science (Philadelphia, 1976) ; ' BQT' for Basic Questions in Theology, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1971) ; 'Jesus' for Jesus-God and },fan, 2nd ed" (Philadelphia, 1968); 'TKG' for Theology and the Il.ingdom of God (Philadelphia, 1969) ; 'Idea' for The Idea of God and Human F1'eedom (Philadelphia, 1973); 'Anth' for Anthropolgy in Theological Perspective (Philadelphia, 1984) ; and 'Grundfragen' for Grundfragen systematisoher Theologie, Band 2 (Gottingen, 1980). BEING AND ONE THEOLOGIAN 647 epistemological thesis, emphasizing, say, the limitedness of our knowledge of the divine; " God in his very being is the future of the world" (TKG 61). If this is so, what is God's ontological status now? "It is necessary to say," Pannenberg writes, "that, in a restricted...

Doctors routinely refuse donation offers from prospective living kidney donors with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or obesity out of concern for donor wellbeing. This refusal occurs despite the ongoing shortage of kidney transplants and the superior performance of living donor kidney transplants compared to those from deceased donors. In this paper, we argue that this paternalistic refusal by doctors is unjustified and that, within limits, there should be greater acceptance of such donations. We begin by describing possible weak and strong paternalistic justifications of current conservative donor acceptance guidelines and practices. We then justify our position by outlining the frequently under-recognised benefits and the routinely overestimated harms of such donation, before discussing the need to respect the autonomy of willing donors with certain comorbidities. Finally, we respond to a number of possible objections to our proposal for more liberal kidney donor acceptance criteria. We use the situation in Australia as our case study, but our argument is applicable to comparable situations around the world.

Ultimately we will only understand biological agency when we have developed a theory of the organization of biological processes, and science is still a long way from attaining that goal. It may be possible nonetheless to develop a list of necessary conditions for the emergence of minimal biological agency. The authors offer a model of molecular autonomous agents which meets the five minimal physical conditions that are necessary (and, we believe, conjointly sufficient) for applying agential language in biology: autocatalytic reproduction; work cycles; boundaries for reproducing individuals; self-propagating work and constraint construction; and choice and action that have evolved to respond to food or poison. When combined with the arguments from preadaptation and multiple realizability, the existence of these agents is sufficient to establish ontological emergence as against what one might call Weinbergian reductionism. Minimal biological agents are emphatically not conscious agents, and accepting their existence does not commit one to any robust theory of human agency. Nor is there anything mystical, dualistic, or non-empirical about the emergence of agency in the biosphere. Hence the emergence of molecular autonomous agents, and indeed ontological emergence in general, is not a negation of or limitation on careful biological study but simply one of its implications.

Panentheism is best understood as a philosophical research program. Identifying the core of the research program offers a strong response to the demarcation objection. It also helps focus both objections to and defenses of panentheism — and to show why common objections are not actually criticisms of the position we are defending. The paper also addresses two common criticisms: the alleged inadequacy of panentheism’s double “in” specification of the relationship between God and world, and the “double God” objection. Once the research program framework is in place, topics like these become opportunities for panentheists to engage in the kind of careful constructive work in theology and philosophy — historical, analytic, and systematic — that is required for making long-term, positive contributions to our field.

For most of this century, those in the sciences have been accustomed to view religion as an opponent. Recent years, however, have seen a cultural change of great significance. Not only have many scientists dropped their former hostility to questions of spirituality, but increasing numbers of religious persons are following scientific developments, speaking on ethical and social issues raised by technology, and modifying beliefs that conflict with empirical evidence. This article shows why and how religious perspectives can complement and supplement objective science. It explores some of the ramifications of the widespread cessation of hostilities between science and religion. It also examines the contributions made by religious persons and traditions as society wrestles with a world now largely dominated by science and its technology. It is no longer necessary to construe science and religion as enemies; they can work as allies in addressing urgent social problems and the dilemmas with which technology confronts us.