![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Notes
1 See respectively: Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco et al., Thomistic Evolution: A Catholic Approach to Understanding Evolution in the Light of Faith (Tacoma, WA: Cluny Media, 2016); William E. Carroll, “Divine Agency, Contemporary Physics, and the Autonomy of Nature,” Heythrop Journal 49, no. 4 (2008): 582–602; Michael J. Dodds, Unlocking Divine Action: Contemporary Science and Thomas Aquinas (Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2012); Mariusz Tabaczek, Divine Action and Emergence: An Alternative to Panentheism (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2021); Ignacio Silva, Providence and Science in a World of Contingency: Thomas Aquinas’ Metaphysics of Divine Action (New York: Routledge, 2022).
2 The Divine Action Project was a large international research project that took place from 1988 until 2003. It was sponsored by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (CTNS) in Berkeley, CA and the Vatican Observatory in Rome. It should be noted that one of the important contributors to DAP was William R. Stoeger. While seldom referring directly to Aquinas, he appreciated and followed some crucial ideas characteristic of the Aristotelian-Thomistic school of thought. It can be seen especially in William R. Stoeger, “Contemporary Physics and the Ontological Status of the Laws of Nature,” in Quantum Mechanics: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, ed. Robert J. Russell et al. (Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory & Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1993), 207–31; William R. Stoeger, “Describing God’s Action in the World in Light of Scientific Knowledge of Reality,” in Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, ed. Robert J. Russell, Nancey C. Murphy, and Arthur Robert Peacocke (Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory & CTNS, 1995), 239–61 (here Stoeger builds on the distinction between primary and secondary causation), and William R. Stoeger, “The Immanent Directionality of the Evolutionary Process, and Its Relation to Teleology,” in Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, ed. Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger, and Francisco José Ayala (Vatican City; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1998), 163–90.
3 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 4.
4 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 28. He refers to Langdon B. Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” The Journal of Religion 41, no. 3 (1961): 194–205.
5 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 29. He says it in reference to Dilley’s article that was republished in 1983: Frank B. Dilley, “Does the ‘God Who Acts’ Really Act,” in God’s Activity in the World: The Contemporary Problem, ed. Owen C. Thomas (Chico, CA: Scholars Pr, 1983), 45–60.
6 See respectively: Gordon D. Kaufman, “On the Meaning of ‘Act of God,’” The Harvard Theological Review 61, no. 2 (1968): 175–201; Maurice Wiles, God’s Action in the World: The Bampton Lectures for 1986 (London: SCM Press, 1986); Vernon White, Fall of a Sparrow: A Concept of Special Divine Action (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1985).
7 Consequently, “‘objective SDA’ … refers to a divine act that (i) goes beyond creation and conservation (GDA); (ii) involves not only final causation, or intentionality, but also efficient causation; (iii) is neither merely a human response to an event (subjective SDA) nor simply serves a special function in furthering God’s purpose (functional SDA); and where furthermore (iv) the effects are particular, here and now, rather than uniform” (Kopf, Reframing Providence, 41).
8 See Kopf, Reframing Providence, 45.
9 “‘Liberal view’ is the view that God creates and sustains the existence of the universe and acts specially in it in a merely subjective (or functional) sense … ‘Conservative view’ is the view that God creates and sustains the existence of the universe and acts specially in it also in an objective sense, namely by intervening in or suspending the laws of nature” (Kopf, Reframing Providence, 47).
10 “NIODA models based on quantum and chaos theory challenge primarily causal determinism, whereas a … model based on whole-part influence questions in particular causal reductionism. Nonetheless, the central focus in breaking the presumed link between OSDA objectively special divine action and intervention was on causal determinism” (Kopf, Reframing Providence, 48).
11 This challenge has already been raised by Dodds in his Unlocking Divine Action, 140-47.
12 See Nicholas Saunders, Divine Action and Modern Science (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002) and Dodds, Unlocking Divine Action.
13 “A. Anthropo-physical in/compatibilism: human freedom is in/compatible with physical [i.e., causal] determinism; B. Anthropo-theological in/compatibilism: human freedom is in/compatible with divine determinism; C. Theo-physical in/compatibilism: objectively special divine action [OSDA] is in/compatible with physical [i.e., causal] determinism” (Kirk Wegter-McNelly, “Does God Need Room to Act? Theo-Physical In/Compatibilism in Noninterventionist Theories of Objectively Special Divine Action.” In Robert J. Russell, Nancey C. Murphy, and William R. Stoeger, eds., Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action: Twenty Years of Challenge and Progress [Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory & CTNS, 2008], 304-5).
14 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 72.
15 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 80.
16 See Kopf, Reframing Providence, 62-3, 83.
17 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 84.
18 See Dodds, Unlocking Divine Action, 144-47.
19 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 87.
20 See Mario Bunge, Causality and Modern Science, first published in 1959 (New York: Dover, 1979).
21 I omit in this review numerous references to the works of Aquinas found in the book. I limit myself to provide page numbers in Kopf where discussed ideas are to be found.
22 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 106-7.
23 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 109.
24 Similar accounts can be found in Dodds, Unlocking Divine Action; Tabaczek, Divine Action and Emergence; and Silva, Providence and Science in a World of Contingency.
25 See Ignacio Silva, “Revisiting Aquinas on Providence and Rising to the Challenge of Divine Action in Nature,” Journal of Religion 94, no. 3 (2014): 277–91; Ignacio Silva, “Divine Action and Thomism: Why Thomas Aquinas’s Thought Is Attractive Today,” Acta Philosophica 25, no. 1 (2016): 65–84; and Silva, Providence and Science in a World of Contingency.
26 See respectively: Tabaczek, Divine Action and Emergence, 205-9; Silva, Providence and Science in a World of Contingency, 140-43; and Austin Marsden Farrer, Faith and Speculation (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1967).
27 Farrer, Faith and Speculation, 170.
28 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 126.
29 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 124.
30 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 152.
31 Robert J. Russell, Cosmology from Alpha to Omega: The Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 120.
32 See Kopf, Reframing Providence, 155, after Bernard Lonergan, Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. J. Patout Burns (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1971).
33 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 178.
34 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 180.
35 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 194-97.
36 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 196.
37 See Ernst Mayr, “Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis,” in Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1976), 383–404; and Ernst Mayr, “The Idea of Teleology,” Journal of the History of Ideas 53 (1992), No. 1: 117–35.
38 See Francisco José Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky, eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974); and Francisco J. Ayala, “Teleological Explanations,” in Philosophy of Biology, ed. Michael Ruse (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 1989), 187–95.
39 See Kopf, Reframing Providence, 208-9.
40 Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1989), 290.
41 Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), xii.
42 Simon Conway Morris, The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 13.
43 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 250-51.
44 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 264.
45 Kopf, Reframing Providence, 264.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112442/MPU-social-sciences.png"})