Premium
THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEOLOGY‐ENGAGED SCIENCE: A RESPONSE TO PERRY AND RITCHIE
Author(s) -
Torrance Andrew B.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
zygon®
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.222
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1467-9744
pISSN - 0591-2385
DOI - 10.1111/zygo.12475
Subject(s) - naturalism , confusion , magic (telescope) , wish , epistemology , argument (complex analysis) , philosophy , focus (optics) , psychoanalysis , theology , sociology , psychology , medicine , anthropology , optics , physics , quantum mechanics
This article provides a response to John Perry and Sarah Lane Ritchie's article, “Magnets Magic, and Other Anomalies: In Defense of Methodological Naturalism.” In so doing, it provides a defense of some of the arguments I made in my article, “Should a Christian Adopt Methodological Naturalism?” I begin by addressing some of the confusion about my position. However, it is not simply my intention to address confusions. There remain some fundamental differences between my position and Perry and Ritchie's. It is on these differences that I wish to focus––differences that enable me to maintain my critique of methodological naturalism without falling prey to the problems they raise. Constructively, I advance the argument that the Christian scientist should be open to the possibility of theology‐engaged science, as well as the science‐engaged theology that Perry and Ritchie advocate.