Evaluation of Polkinghorne's Model Regarding the Mechanism of Divine Action
John C. Polkinghorne (1930-2021) was one of the leading figures in the field of science and theology, who had a distinctive approach to explaining the mechanism of divine action in the natural world. The aim of this article is to provide a clear examination of his approach. We will argue that many o...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Tabriz, Faculty of Literature and Forigen Languages
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Philosophical Investigations |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_19464_cc5dfb48004c8fe4399b27dfc95d3f5a.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | John C. Polkinghorne (1930-2021) was one of the leading figures in the field of science and theology, who had a distinctive approach to explaining the mechanism of divine action in the natural world. The aim of this article is to provide a clear examination of his approach. We will argue that many of the criticisms have either been responded to by Polkinghorne himself or can be answered based on his framework. In particular, we will show that his approach is not a revival of the notorious idea of the God of the Gap, contrary to what many people think. We will also acknowledge that some other criticisms point out some weaknesses or flaws in his approach, but these criticisms do not pose a serious challenge and only indicate the need for further development of his approach. For instance, his approach should be elevated to provide a unified mechanism for divine action at both macroscopic and microscopic (quantum) levels. Finally, we will criticize his approach based on the fact that he has taken top-down causality as the mechanism of divine agency, while this type of causality can be understood in a purely naturalistic way. A significant part of his approach is completely neutral toward accepting or rejecting naturalism, and the remaining part presupposes the rejection of naturalism. Therefore, although his model has great scientific-philosophical appeal, its theological significance is questionable. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2251-7960 2423-4419 |