RT Article
T1 Cosmology from Alpha to Omega: Response to Reviews
JF Zygon
VO 45
IS 1
SP 237
OP 250
A1 Russell, Robert J. 1946-
LA English
PB Wiley-Blackwell
YR 2010
UL https://ixtheo.de/Record/1827961457
AB Abstract. I gratefully acknowledge and respond here to four reviews of my recent book, Cosmology from Alpha to Omega. Nancey Murphy stresses the importance of showing consistency between Christian theology and natural science through a detailed examination of my recent model of their creative interaction. She suggests how this model can be enhanced by adopting Alasdair MacIntyre's understanding of tradition in order to adjudicate between competing ways of incorporating science into a wider worldview. She urges the inclusion of ethics in my model and predicts that this would successfully challenge the competing naturalist tradition in contemporary society. John F. Haught weighs the alternatives of viewing divine action as objective versus subjective and of divine action at one level in nature or at all levels. He asks whether physics is fundamental to nature, arguing instead that metaphysics should be considered as fundamental. Michael Ruse assesses occasional versus universal divine action, the problems raised to divine action when it is related to quantum mechanics, and the way these relations exacerbate the challenge of natural theodicy. As an alternative he suggests viewing God as outside time and acting through unbroken natural law. Willem B. Drees discusses my use of the bridge metaphor for the relation between theology and science, the implications when science is inspired by theology, the role of contingency and necessity in the anthropic principle/many-worlds debate, and the challenge of cosmology to eschatology with the ensuing problem of theodicy.
K1 quantum mechanics
K1 objective divine action
K1 natural theodicy
K1 many worlds
K1 interaction of theology and science
K1 Ethics
K1 Cosmology
K1 Contingency
K1 CHRISTIAN eschatology
K1 Anthropic Principle
DO 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01070.x