The Scope of Planetarity and What Constitutes Refraction: A Response to Adam Pryor
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 als...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
2022
|
In: |
Theology and science
Year: 2022, Volume: 20, Issue: 3, Pages: 300-306 |
IxTheo Classification: | CF Christianity and Science FA Theology NBE Anthropology |
Further subjects: | B
Imago Dei
B Planetarity B Astrobiology B Human Evolution B Astrotheology |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1474-6719 |
Reference: | Kommentar zu "What If We're Not Alone: Considering the Significance of Non-Intelligent Alien Life for Constructive Christian Theology (2022)"
|
Contains: | Enthalten in: Theology and science
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2022.2084853 |