Tom 13 (2016)
Polemiki

Second Thoughts on Naturalistic Theism and Model of Levels of Analysis: A Response to Mark Harris

PDF
  • Piotr Bylica
DOI: https://doi.org/10.53763/fag.2016.13.134

Opublikowane 24.05.2021

Słowa kluczowe

  • naturalism,
  • theism,
  • naturalistic theism,
  • miracles,
  • biblical interpretation,
  • levels of analysis
    • ...więcej
    mniej

Jak cytować

Bylica P., Second Thoughts on Naturalistic Theism and Model of Levels of Analysis: A Response to Mark Harris, Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy, 2021, t. 13, s. 275-285, https://doi.org/10.53763/fag.2016.13.134
Creative Commons License

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.

Abstrakt

I shall show that Dr. Harris’ study of biblical scholarship is treated in a very serious manner in my paper, as it is the element identifying him as a representative of naturalistic theism (NT). NT is a position that has been recognized in the literature on science and religion for several years. Dr. Harris’ commitment to the rule of methodological naturalism in the natural sciences, as well as his lack of evidence for the limits of using it in his hermeneutical analysis of divine action, makes his academic papers represent the main assumptions of NT. Model of levels of analysis (MLA) helps to show the empirical character of accounts of divine action as an important part of the traditional theistic interpretation of this action, and scepticism towards such an interpretation as a main characteristic of all advocates of NT.

PDF

Pobrania

Brak dostęþnych danych do wyświetlenia.

Bibliografia

  1. Bylica Piotr, Współczesny teizm naturalistyczny z punktu widzenia modelu poziomów analizy. Problem działania sfery nadnaturalnej w przyrodzie, Biblioteka Filozoficznych Aspektów Genezy, vol. 7, Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego, Zielona Góra 2016.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  2. Griffin David R., Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts, State University of New York Press, New York 2000.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  3. Harris Mark, “Response to «Mark Harris as a Naturalistic Theist» by Piotr Bylica”, Filozoficzne Aspekty Genezy 2016, vol. 13, pp. 267-273.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  4. Johnson Phillip E., Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove 1995.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  5. Knight Christopher C., “Divine Action: A Neo-Byzantine Model”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 2005, vol. 58, pp. 181-199.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  6. Knight Christopher C., “Theistic Naturalism and Special Divine Providence”, Zygon 2009, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 533-542.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  7. Peacocke Arthur R., Creation and the World of Science: The Bampton Lectures, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1979.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  8. Peacocke Arthur R., Paths from Science Toward Go: The End of All Our Exploring, OneWorld, Oxford 2001.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar
  9. Van Till Howard, “Are Bacterial Flagella Intelligently Designed?: Reflection on the Rhetoric of the Modern ID Movement”, Science and Christian Belief 2003, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 117-140.
    Zobacz w Google Scholar