5 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Steven D. Crain [5]Steven Dale Crain [1]
  1.  54
    God embodied in, God bodying forth the world: Emergence and Christian theology.Steven D. Crain - 2006 - Zygon 41 (3):665-674.
  2. (2 other versions)Index to Volume 32.John R. Albright, James B. Ashbrook, George G. Brooks, Anna Case-Winters, Michael Cavanaugh, Philip Clayton & Steven D. Crain - 1997 - Zygon 32 (4).
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  63
    Divine Action and the Natural Sciences.Steven D. Crain - 1997 - Zygon 32 (3):423-432.
    The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences and the Vatican Observatory have jointly sponsored a series of conferences exploring the overarching question: How can we conceive a personal God creating and active within the universe described by the natural sciences? The volumes include significant contributions to the field, although I highlight two important weaknesses: (1) theology is not adequately respected as an active conversation partner capable of advancing the agenda under discussion; and (2) insufficient attention is paid to the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  52
    Divine Action in a World Chaos.Steven D. Crain - 1997 - Faith and Philosophy 14 (1):41-61.
    John Polkinghorne, formerly a physicist and now an Anglican priest and theologian, has made a significant contribution to the current dialogue between Christian theology and the natural sciences. I examine here his reflection on what is commonly called the problem of special divine action in the world. Polkinghorne argues that God acts in the world via a “topdown” or “downward” mode of causation that exploits the indeterministic openness of chaotic systems without requiring that God violate natural laws. In response, I (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  72
    Must a classical theist be an immaterialist?Steven D. Crain - 1997 - Religious Studies 33 (1):81-92.
    In this paper I examine two arguments, one by R. A. Oakes and the other by P. A. Byrne, that Berkeley's immaterialism is the only metaphysic consistent with classical theism. I show that not only do Oakes and Byrne fail to demonstrate the incompatibility of physical realism with classical theism, but also that their line of argument reveals a grave inconsistency between the latter and immaterialism. For as they expound Berkeley's metaphysic, it seems incapable of explicating the metaphysical dependency of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation