دانلود کتاب Reframing Providence: New Perspectives from Aquinas on the Divine Action Debate (Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs)

فهرست مطالب :

Cover\nReframing Providence: New Perspectives from Aquinas on the Divine Action Debate\nCopyright\nDedication\nAcknowledgements\nContents\nList of Abbreviated Works\nList of Abbreviations\nIntroduction\n The Doctrine of Providence\n Actionistic and Prudential-Ordinative Providence\n The Divine Action Debate\n New Perspectives from Aquinas\n Reframing Providence\nPART I: FRAMING PROVIDENCE—ACTIONISTIC PROVIDENCE\n 1: The Divine Action Debate\n 1.1 The Historical Roots of the Divine Action Debate\n 1.1.a The Biblical Theology Movement\n 1.1.b The Critique of Biblical Theology\n 1.2 The Theological Pushback on Divine Action in Nature\n 1.2.a The ‘Liberal Modern Worldview’\n 1.2.b Uniform and Universal Divine Action\n 1.3 The Concept of Special Divine Action\n 2: The Divine Action Project (1988–2003)\n 2.1 A New Framework as Alleged Breakthrough\n 2.1.a The Theological Divide between Liberalism and Conservatism\n 2.1.b Breaking the Presumed Link\n 2.2 Non-Interventionismand the Laws of Nature\n 2.2.a What Is Intervention?\n 2.2.b Non-Interventionas Non-Violation of the Laws of Nature\n 2.3 The NIODA Models\n 2.3.a Whole-PartInfluence\n 2.3.b Chaos Divine Action\n 2.3.c Quantum Divine Action\n 3: The Reason for the Deadlock\n 3.1 Theo-Physical Incompatibilism\n 3.1.a An Import from the Philosophy of Action\n 3.1.b An Import with Serious Consequences\n 3.2 The Incompatibilist Premise\n 3.2.a The Dichotomy: Theo-Physical Incompatibilism vs Compatibilism\n 3.2.b An Objection\n 3.2.c The Full Argument\n 3.2.d A New God-of-the-Gaps Strategy\n 3.3 Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Objections\n 3.3.a The Limitations of the Gaps Strategy\n 3.3.b Causal Gaps, Indeterminism, and Deterministic Causation\n 3.3.c Two Ways of Avoiding Competition between God and Creature\n Summary of Part I\nPART II: REFRAMING PROVIDENCE—PRUDENTIAL-ORDINATIVE PROVIDENCE\n 4: Towards a Prudential-Ordinative Understanding of Providence\n 4.1 Prudence and Providence\n 4.1.a Prudence as Analogy for Divine Providence\n 4.1.b A Twofold Account of Providence\n 4.1.b.i Providence and Government\n 4.1.b.ii Differences between Providence and Government\n 4.1.b.iii Similarities between Providence and Government\n 4.1.c Divine Government through Secondary Causation\n 4.2 Against a Common Misconception\n 4.2.a Austin Farrer’s Theory of Double Agency\n 4.2.b The Opposition against Double Agency\n 4.3 The Concept of Secondary Causation\n 4.3.a The Doctrine of Divine Application\n 4.3.b Reply to Critics of Double Agency\n 4.3.c How Many Divine Acts Are There?\n 5: Divine Providence, Natural Contingency, and the Doctrine of Transcendence\n 5.1 Revisiting the Role of Contingency and Necessity in Providence\n 5.1.a Providence and Aristotle’s Refutation of Determinism\n 5.1.b The Operative Notion of Contingency\n 5.1.c The Ultimate Reason for Contingency\n 5.2 The Doctrine of Divine Transcendence\n 5.2.a Divine Intellect—God’s Knowledge and the Problem of Temporal Fatalism\n 5.2.b Divine Will—God’s Willing and the Problem of Causal Determinism\n 5.2.c Divine Operation—God’s Transcendent, Universal, and Holistic Causation\n 5.2.c.i Transcendent Divine Causation\n 5.2.c.ii Universal Divine Causation\n 5.2.c.iii Holistic Divine Causation\n 5.3 Towards a New Appreciation of Contingency\n 5.3.a Revisiting the Relation of Providence and Contingency\n 5.3.b The Non-Discursive Manner of God’s Operations\n 5.3.c Responding to Objections\n 6: The Teleological Nature of Providence and the Teleological Natures of Creatures\n 6.1 Teleology Revisited\n 6.1.a Why Final Causality Matters\n 6.1.b An Overview of the Modern Transformation of Teleology\n 6.1.c Aquinas’ Concept of Teleology and the Inconsistency Objection\n 6.2 A Fresh Assessment of the Theory of Appetency\n 6.2.a Appetite—A ‘Dangerous’ Notion\n 6.2.b Formal Natural Inclinations\n 6.2.b.i Natural Appetite\n 6.2.b.ii Sensitive Appetite\n 6.2.b.iii Rational Appetite (Will)\n 6.2.c Material Natural Inclinations\n 6.2.c.i Matter’s Appetite for Form\n 6.2.c.ii How Potency Is Ordered to Actuality\n 6.2.c.iii What Material Natural Inclinations Are and What They Are Not\n 6.3 Divine Government through Immanent Natural Teleology\n 6.3.a Why Natural Inclinations Are Natural\n 6.3.b Reply to the Inconsistency Objection\n 6.3.c God as Final Cause of All Creaturely Operation\n Summary of Part II\nPART III: AN APPLICATION—REVISITING AN EVOLUTION DEBATE\n 7: Replaying the Tape of Life\n 7.1 The ‘Gospel of (Evolutionary) Contingency’\n 7.2 The ‘Gospel of (Human Life’s) Inevitability’\n 7.3 The ‘Secularisation of Providence’\n 8: Evaluating the Theological Responses\n 8.1 The Limitations of NIODA as a Response to Evolutionary Contingency\n 8.2 The Fruitfulness of the New Perspectives from Aquinas\n 8.3 The Directionality of Biological Evolution\n 8.3.a The Limits of Externally Imposed Teleology\n 8.3.b The Advantage of Divinely Guided Immanent Teleology\n 8.3.b.i Formal Natural Inclinations and the Directionality of Natures\n 8.3.b.ii Material Natural Inclinations and the Directionality of Nature\n 8.3.c The Difference It Makes\n Summary of Part III\nConclusion\nBibliography\n 1. Writings of Thomas Aquinas\n 2. Other Abbreviated Writings\n 3. Other Literature\nIndex