在经典神性行为概念恢复的背景下,因果关系在科学解释模式中的作用

IF 1.1 0 RELIGION
Mariusz Tabaczek
{"title":"在经典神性行为概念恢复的背景下,因果关系在科学解释模式中的作用","authors":"Mariusz Tabaczek","doi":"10.12775/setf.2020.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The legitimacy of going back to the classical view of God’s action in the world based on the list of causes and understanding of chance in the works of Aristotle and Aquinas – in the context of contemporary science – seems to depend on whether there is a space for causal analysis within the current models of scientific explanation. This article offers a brief account of the path leading to negation and rediscovery of the importance of causality in scientific explanation and reintroduces the semicausal position of the prominent philosopher of science, Mario Bunge, who treats causation as one of several categories of determination. The diversity of the categories he lists finds analogy in the commonly accepted pluralist approach to the search of the model which adequately describes the practice of scientific research. What is more, the same diversity of the categories of determination opens the way back to the classical Aristotle’s fourfold account of causation and his understanding of chance. This fact allows us, in turn, to defend the contemporary version of the classical notion of divine action against the accusation of methodical error in the form of imposing the notion of the ancient categories of causality on the results of contemporary scientific research, which notion, as some maintain, has little in common with the models of explanation currently accepted in natural sciences.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Causality in Scientific Models of Explanation in the Context of the Retrieval of the Classical Concept of Divine Action\",\"authors\":\"Mariusz Tabaczek\",\"doi\":\"10.12775/setf.2020.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The legitimacy of going back to the classical view of God’s action in the world based on the list of causes and understanding of chance in the works of Aristotle and Aquinas – in the context of contemporary science – seems to depend on whether there is a space for causal analysis within the current models of scientific explanation. This article offers a brief account of the path leading to negation and rediscovery of the importance of causality in scientific explanation and reintroduces the semicausal position of the prominent philosopher of science, Mario Bunge, who treats causation as one of several categories of determination. The diversity of the categories he lists finds analogy in the commonly accepted pluralist approach to the search of the model which adequately describes the practice of scientific research. What is more, the same diversity of the categories of determination opens the way back to the classical Aristotle’s fourfold account of causation and his understanding of chance. This fact allows us, in turn, to defend the contemporary version of the classical notion of divine action against the accusation of methodical error in the form of imposing the notion of the ancient categories of causality on the results of contemporary scientific research, which notion, as some maintain, has little in common with the models of explanation currently accepted in natural sciences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientia et Fides","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2020.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在当代科学的背景下,基于亚里士多德和阿奎那作品中的一系列原因和对机会的理解,回到上帝在世界上的行为的经典观点的合法性似乎取决于在当前的科学解释模型中是否有因果分析的空间。本文简要介绍了否定和重新发现因果关系在科学解释中的重要性的道路,并重新介绍了杰出的科学哲学家马里奥·邦格(Mario Bunge)的半因果立场,他将因果关系视为决定的几个类别之一。他所列出的范畴的多样性在人们普遍接受的寻找能充分描述科学研究实践的模型的多元主义方法中找到了类比。而且,决定范畴的这种多样性,又使我们回到古典的亚里士多德关于因果关系的四重解释和他对偶然性的认识上来。这一事实又使我们能够为经典的神的作用概念的现代版本辩护,反对那种把古代因果范畴的概念强加于当代科学研究结果的方法错误的指责。有些人认为,这种概念与目前自然科学中所接受的解释模式没有什么共同之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Causality in Scientific Models of Explanation in the Context of the Retrieval of the Classical Concept of Divine Action
The legitimacy of going back to the classical view of God’s action in the world based on the list of causes and understanding of chance in the works of Aristotle and Aquinas – in the context of contemporary science – seems to depend on whether there is a space for causal analysis within the current models of scientific explanation. This article offers a brief account of the path leading to negation and rediscovery of the importance of causality in scientific explanation and reintroduces the semicausal position of the prominent philosopher of science, Mario Bunge, who treats causation as one of several categories of determination. The diversity of the categories he lists finds analogy in the commonly accepted pluralist approach to the search of the model which adequately describes the practice of scientific research. What is more, the same diversity of the categories of determination opens the way back to the classical Aristotle’s fourfold account of causation and his understanding of chance. This fact allows us, in turn, to defend the contemporary version of the classical notion of divine action against the accusation of methodical error in the form of imposing the notion of the ancient categories of causality on the results of contemporary scientific research, which notion, as some maintain, has little in common with the models of explanation currently accepted in natural sciences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scientia et Fides
Scientia et Fides RELIGION-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: "Scientia et Fides" (SetF) is an open access online journal published twice a year. It is promoted by the Faculty of Theology of Nicolaus Copernicus University, in Torun, in collaboration with the Group of Research “Science, Reason and Faith” (CRYF), at the University of Navarra. The journal is characterised by the interdisciplinary approach, multiplicity of research perspectives and broad reflection on methodology as well as analysis of the latest publications on the relationship between science and faith. The tasks of the journal are perfectly expressed by the motto "Veritas in omnibus quaerenda est" ("to seek the truth in all things") from "De revolutionibus" by Nicolaus Copernicus. SetF aims to present rigorous research works regarding different aspects of the relationship between science and religion. For this reason, SetF articles are not confined to the methodology of a single discipline and may cover a wide range of topics, provided that the interdisciplinary dialogue between science and religion is undertaken. The journal accepts articles written in English, Spanish, Polish, French, Italian and German which will be evaluated by a peer-review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信