English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This essay is a response to Adam Pryor's Russell Family Fellowship Paper from the 2020 RFF Conference at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences of the Graduate Theological Union. It engages with Pyror's argument, critiquing his view of planetarity as too large. Planetarity is also too small to be limited to a planet, because a planet or a moon that can sustain life, at least life as currently understood, requires an energy source, in this case of Earth, the sun. This means that the planet is intra-acting with the sun in terms of defining habitability. Turning to Pryor's discussion of Imago Dei, I argue that his understanding of refracting the creative power of divine requires humans to move from nonmaleficence to beneficence in terms of human obligations to the development of life in the universe.

The Scope of Planetarity and What Constitutes Refraction: A Response to Adam Pryor