BEGIN:VCALENDAR PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN VERSION:2.0 CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20260429T040945Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20251120T123000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20251120T130000 SUMMARY:On the Process Turn in Science and Its Implications for a Natural Theology UID:20260429T212615Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-6b96c54f56-bljdq TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:

Recently\, arguments for the &ldquo\;process turn&rdquo\; -- i.e.\, the rejection of static \;substances as a primary ontological category in favor of dynamic processes &ndash\; have \;emerged in the philosophy of science. The implications of this shift (especially the \;rejection of substance) offer serious challenges for theology\, at least in how it is \;traditionally conceived. I argue these challenges must be met if we want to mount a \;strong theology that is compatible with our scientific epistemology. If the &ldquo\;process turn&rdquo\; in \;science is convincing\, then we have grounds to look towards establishing a theology that \;considers a similar ontological move towards process. I will briefly elucidate the \;contemporary arguments for the "process turn&rdquo\; in the philosophy of science and draw out \;the important historical shifts and contemporary empirical results that support such an \;interpretation as given in the literature. Focus will be given to relevant examples in biology and physics\, which offer particularly convincing results supporting the transition \;towards process\, and greatly impact theology in its attempt to ensure compatibility with scientific interpretation. I will then examine how this proposed &ldquo\;process turn&rdquo\; supports \;and strengthens conceptions of process ontology\; particularly why the implications of the interpretation might propel us to consider a transition away from traditional Whiteheadian \;process metaphysics. Specifically\, I will consider the assumptions of Seibt&rsquo\;s General Process Theory (GPT) and show why it likewise strengthens the explanatory power of the \;&ldquo\;process turn&rdquo\; interpretation. Finally\, I will turn to what these results might mean for a proposed natural theology. I argue that if we want to conceive of a natural theology and \;ensure the belief structures emergent through it are consistent and compatible with our scientific epistemology (and by extension the &ldquo\;process turn&rdquo\; in science and ontology)\, \;then we are compelled to look towards what a similar &ldquo\;process turn&rdquo\; might look like for our theology. It is out of the scope of this paper for me to flesh out this theology fully\, but \;I will offer preliminary considerations that point towards its future development. Among these I will consider the primary focus of the theology: its conception of the divine. Doing \;this\, I will chiefly consider on what grounds the theology might postulate the existence of God\; and in conceiving God\, I will largely focus on the examination of divine activity\, as \;opposed to divine nature. This marks a move away from what I see as a traditional\, substantivalist concern of conceiving of God&rsquo\;s explicit static nature. Said move is \;strengthened through consideration of prominent historical examples that point to uncovering divine activity (not nature) as a primary concern of theology (and by extension \;religion). I will then look towards the future\, offering suggestions for how this theology might develop\, if it takes the challenges presented by general process ontology and the \;&ldquo\;process turn&rdquo\; in science seriously

ORGANIZER;CN=Finley Lawson: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR