Rubén Pereda

The principle of sufficient reason can be taken as a guide to the progress of philosophical and scientific knowledge. Thus, we could establish a link between scientific disciplines and philosophy, which would result in a mutually enriching dialogue. However, it can be shown that the use of the principle of sufficient reason is not suitable for the philosophical and scientific research, so neither can be used to establish a dialogue. It is argued, therefore, that other principles must be deepened, e.g., causality, to establish a link between science and philosophy.

The Mind of the Universe and Causality : In The Mind of the Universe Mariano Artigas builds a bridge connecting science and theology. One of the connections he establishes between the two areas of knowledge goes through the philosophy of nature, specifically through the study of causality; in fact, in The Mind of the Universe can be found ways to understand and to expose the Aristotelian-Thomistic doctrine of causality that allow, on the one hand, the connection between science and theology and, on the other hand, going deeper into the philosophical understanding of the natural world.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason: According to Alexander R. Pruss the Principle of Sufficient Reason is essential to solve two classical problems of philosophy: 1) the problem of infinite regress and 2) the non-emergence of entities ex nihilo. Furthermore, the use of the PSR would correspond to an Aristotelian-Thomistic explanation of the metaphysical structure of individuals. However, the argument developed by Pruss has some defects that ultimately lead to the conclusion that the PSR is superfluous.

Una de las categorías empleadas en la sistematización de las posturas en teología filosófica es “teísmo clásico”, con la que se hace referencia a un grupo indeterminado de autores que mantendrían posturas comunes acerca de Dios y la religión. Hay numerosos intentos de definición del teísmo clásico: se recogen cinco que parecen especialmente relevantes, y se valora la caracterización de Dios que atribuyen al teísmo clásico. Esta valoración revela que sólo coinciden en un atributo: la inmutabilidad. Se analizan las razones y consecuencias de esta característica, lo que da pie a mostrar que tomar como punto de partida para las discusiones teológicas una definición del teísmo clásico es un modo problemático de proceder; a partir de esto se sugieren métodos alternativos que tengan en cuenta la relevancia tanto de las religiones en las que surgen las posturas denominadas clásicas, así como los sistemas propios de los principales autores identificados como teístas clásicos. Abstract: One of the categories used in the systematization of positions in philosophical theology is “classical theism,” which refers to an indeterminate group of authors who uphold common views regarding God and religion. There are numerous attempts to define classical theism; five particularly relevant definitions are examined, along with an evaluation of the characterization of God they attribute to classical theism. This assessment reveals that these definitions converge on only one attribute: immutability. The reasons for and consequences of this characteristic are analyzed, leading to the conclusion that using a definition of classical theism as a starting point for theological discussions is a problematic approach. Based on this, alternative methods are suggested that take into account both the relevance of the religious traditions in which so-called classical positions arise, and the specific systems of the major authors identified as classical theists.