Dalliana Bañuelos

Microtheme #3

The potential of Stoeger’s overall approach for fostering the productive dialogue between

religion and science in light of my own personal faith background is how he keeps his

boundaries as a scientist. He attempts to remain as objective as possible even if he is Jesuit. This

is useful as he not trying to disprove the sciences or dismantle other religions, such as mine. If

either science or religion can adequately respond to a question, then the question is answered

without a doubt. He is also firm in his account of how God works in relation to the world, which

helps reiterate the message of not interfering with the sciences. In Stoeger’s, “Conceiving Divine

Action in a Dynamic Universe”, he considers how God works through the laws of nature and not

outside of them (Stoeger 226) which puts this conversation in our perspectives. We are not able

to think of this or interpret this dialogue in any other mindset as we are part of nature and our

knowledge is through our lens. This sets down the groundwork of the prerequisites for

productive dialogue as we think of it. From the start, he states we have our own limitations in

thinking of the transcendence which makes the relationship between religion and science

difficult to grasp. A key fragment I find useful in fostering the dialogue is how he agrees with

Elizabeth Johnson. To paraphrase, Elizabeth Johnson believes the true question is not if God acts

but which God and how God acts. This broadens the audience of who can agree as many

individuals are not religious in a primarily Christian way. Individuals may now think of religion

as their faith, which can encompass many more aspects of our relationships with religion and

how what that specifically means for nature and ecology. Divine action exists to try to connect

the natural sciences with religion and allowing more interpretations fosters productive dialogue.
 A limitation of Stoeger’s overall approach to foster the productive dialogue between

science and religion in light of my own personal faith background is that he never crosses the

line he creates. He does not go far enough in his explanation or even offers more possibilities and

outcomes. He discusses only on the matter that he believes in and admits this himself that he will

not incorporate others’ ideas in his portrait of divine action because “I do not agree with the way

they have been invoked in models of divine action” (Stoeger 225). Stoeger is not illustrating his

specific view on how to conceptualize God and God’s action which does not foster the

productive dialogue between religion and science. In human minds, that cannot conceptualize the

transcendence, “no portrayal is adequate and the reality is far beyond all portrayals, (for the)

basis (of) determining the suitability of articulations about God and God’s action” (Stoeger 235).

Stoeger should be able to cross the line on his version of how God conducts and what God is

because it emphasizes his point of how some representations are more or less accurate than

others. It is not enough for him to say that some representations are less accurate because to have

a full discussion, he should offer his representation of God and offer the reason why it is

incomplete and do the same of other’s representations. While I agree with Stoeger’s points, his

inadequacy of mentioning the other models and ideally agreeing with the “traditional Judeo-

Christian-Islamic expression of God” (Stoeger 228) conveys others ideas of expression wrong. I

have faith in my friends and family and while they are not the primary cause like God is, they

embody the primary cause, God, for me. Stoeger has created a line where religion must be seen

in a traditional sense, inadequate for how others think of divine action.