Abstract
Philip Clayton's God and Contemporary Science is summarized and discussed. Clayton presents a theological reading of biblical texts. In my opinion, science‐and‐religion studies should deal more substantially with insights of secular studies on the situated character of these texts. Clayton uses the relationship between mind and brain as analogy for the relationship between God and the world. This runs the risk of understanding God as analogous to the mind and hence secondary and emergent relative to the world. Besides, Clayton's arguments for “mental causation” are wanting. But then, why should a defender of panentheism decouple the mental and the material?
Keywords
exegesis, naturalism, human agency, Philip Clayton, philosophy of religion, postmodernism, divine action, philosophy of mind
How to Cite
Drees, W., (1999) “God and Contemporary Science: Philip Clayton's Defense of Panentheism”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 34(3), 515–525. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/0591-2385.00230