Element contents
Thomism and the Natural Sciences
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 September 2025
Summary
This Element argues for a novel approach to the sciences within Thomism, namely, science-engaged Thomism, which, aligned with the recent science-engaged theology movement, asks theological and metaphysical questions that require the input of the natural sciences. Recent developments within Thomism show a new approach to the natural sciences, and, thus, the proposal is to encourage more of this discourse by portraying the differences between contemporary and past Thomism. Still, even if it takes a novel approach, science-engaged Thomism relies on a tradition of thought that possesses a vast arsenal of metaphysical tools. Thus, after presenting this approach and a concise introduction to some basic notions of Thomistic metaphysics, the Element reviews some theological and philosophical questions and their relation to the natural sciences: issues about creation, cosmology, and astrobiology, divine involvement in evolutionary biology, providence and indeterministic quantum processes, and some ideas for further development at the end.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009429825Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 09 October 2025
References
Asla, Mariano (2019). On the Limits, Imperfections and Evils of the Human Condition: Biological Improvement from a Thomistic Perspective. Scientia et Fides, 7(2): 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austriaco, Nicanor (2003). In Defense of Double Agency in Evolution: A Response to Five Modern Critics. Angelicum, 80(4): 947–966.Google Scholar
Austriaco, Nicanor (2015). A Theological Fittingness Argument for the Historicity of the Fall of Homo Sapiens. Nova et Vetera, 13(3): 651–668.Google Scholar
Austriaco, Nicanor (2017). In Defense of Thomistic Evolution: A Response to Chaberek. Public Discourse, 07 March. www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/03/20975/.Google Scholar
Austriaco, Nicanor, Ku, Baptist, Davenport, Thomas, Brent, James, et al. (2020). Thomistic Evolution. Providence, RI: Clunny Media.Google Scholar
Barad, Judith (1988). Aquinas’ Inconsistency on the Nature and the Treatment of Animals. Between the Species, 4(2): 102–111.Google Scholar
Beltrán, Oscar H. (2009). Teología y ciencia en la obra de Santo Tomás de Aquino. Revista Teología, 46: 281–299.Google Scholar
Boulding, Jamie (2022). The Multiverse and Participatory Metaphysics. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brooke, John H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cantin, Stanislas (1948). Précis de psychologie thomiste. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
Carreño, Juan Eduardo (2024a). Theology, Philosophy, and Biology: An Interpretation of the Conception of Jesus Christ. Nova et Vetera, 22(1): 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carreño, Juan Eduardo (2024b). Thomistic Philosophy in the Face of Evolutionary Fact. Neunkirchen-Seelscheid: editiones-scholasticae.Google Scholar
Carroll, William E. (2000). Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas. Revue des Questions Scientifiques, 171(4): 319–347.Google Scholar
Carroll, William E. (2008). Divine Agency, Contemporary Physics, and the Autonomy of Nature. The Heytrop Journal, 49: 582–602.Google Scholar
Carroll, William E. (2010). Creation and the Foundations of Evolution. Angelicum, 87: 45–60.Google Scholar
Carroll, William E. (2012). Cosmology and Creation: From Hawking to Aquinas. Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 15(1): 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, William E. (2022). Causes and the Origin of Life: Philosophy of Nature, Metaphysics, and Theology (Video) – Thomistic Institute, 1 April. https://angelicum.it/thomistic-institute/it/2022/04/01/causes-and-the-origin-of-life-video/ (accessed on 2 May 2024).Google Scholar
Carroll, William E. and Vicuña, Rafael (2017). God, Nature and the Origin of Life. Science & Christian Belief, 29: 37–41.Google Scholar
Cessario, Romanus (2003). A Short History of Thomism. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Cipolla, Richard G. (1974). Selvaggi Revisited: Transubstantiation and Contemporary Science. Theological Studies, 35(4): 667–691.10.1177/004056397403500403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Joseph T. (1951). Physics, Philosophy, Transubstantiation, Theology. Theological Studies, 12: 24–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Philip (2004). Natural Law and Divine Action: The Search for an Expanded Theory of Causation. Zygon, 39(3): 615–636.10.1111/j.1467-9744.2004.t01-1-00605.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombo, Carlo (1955). Teologia, filosofìa, e fisica nella dottrina della transustanziazione. Scuola Cattolica, 83: 89–124.Google Scholar
Colombo, Carlo (1956). Ancora sulla dottrina della transustanziazione e la fìsica moderna. Scuola Cattolica, 84: 263–288.Google Scholar
Colombo, Carlo (1960). Bilancio provvisorio di una discussione eucaristica. Scuola Cattolica, 88: 23–55.Google Scholar
Coppens, Charles (1891). A Brief Text-Book of Logic and Mental Philosophy. New York: Schwartz, Kirwin & Fauss.10.1037/12012-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, Andrew (2018a). ‘He Fathers-Forth Whose Beauty Is Past Change’, but ‘Who Knows How?’: Evolution and Divine Exemplarity. Nova et Vetera, 16(4): 1067–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, Andrew (2018b). Looking Back toward the Origin: Scientific Cosmology as Creation ex nihilo Considered ‘from the Inside’. Anderson, Gary and Bockmuehl, Markus, eds., Creatio ex nihilo: Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 367–389.Google Scholar
Davison, Andrew (2022). Participation and Nature in Christian Theology. Hampton, Alexander J. B. and Hedley, Douglas, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Christianity and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davison, Andrew (2023). Astrobiology and Christian Doctrine: Exploring the Implications of Life in the Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009303187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Daniel (2017). Hylomorphic Animalism, Emergentism, and the Challenge of the New Mechanist Philosophy of Neuroscience. Scientia et Fides, 5(2): 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, Daniel (2018). The Interaction of Noetic and Psychosomatic Operations in a Thomist Hylomorphic Anthropology. Scientia et Fides, 6(2): 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koninck, Charles (1937). Réflexions sur le problème de l’indéterminisme. Revue Thomiste, 43(2–3): 227–252 and 393–409.Google Scholar
de Koninck, Charles (1961). Darwin’s Dilemma. The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review, 24(2): 367–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koninck, Charles (2008). The Cosmos: Charles de Koninck. McInerny, Ralph, ed. The Writings of Charles de Koninck, trans. Ralph McInerny. Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Deely, John (1973). The Problem of Evolution: A Study of the Philosophical Repercussions of Evolutionary Science. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.Google Scholar
Dodds, Michael (2012). Unlocking Divine Action. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.10.2307/j.ctt284wc8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorlodot, Henry de (1921). Le Darwinisme au Point de Vue de l’Orthodoxie Catholique. Bruxelles, Paris: Vromant.Google Scholar
Dorlodot, Henry de (1922). Darwinism and Catholic Thought. New York: Burns, Oates and Washbourne.Google Scholar
Dorlodot, Henry de (2009). L’Origine de l’homme: Le Darwinisme au Point de Vue de l’Orthodoxie Catholique. Wavre: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Doronzo, Emmanuel (1968). Theologia Dogmatica. Vol. II. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America.Google Scholar
Eberl, Jason (2014). A Thomistic Appraisal of Human Enhancement Technologies. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 35(4): 289–310.10.1007/s11017-014-9300-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberl, Jason (2018). Can Prudence Be Enhanced? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 43(5): 506–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eberl, Jason (2022). Enhancing the Imago Dei: Can a Christian Be a Transhumanist? Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 28(1): 76–93.10.1093/cb/cbab016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elders, Leo (1997). Modern Science and the Philosophy of Nature. Mario, Enrique Sacchi, ed., Ministerium Verbi: Estudios dedicados a Monseñor Héctor Aguer en ocasión del XXV aniversario de su ordenación sacerdotal. Buenos Aires: Basileia, 111–122.Google Scholar
Elders, Leo (2020). Joseph Gredt, O.S.B., Elementa philosophiae aristotelico-thomisticae. 1899–1901. Bonino, Serge-Thomas, ed., Grandi opere del Tomismo nel Novecento. Rome: Urbaniana University Press, 13–26.Google Scholar
Fabro, Cornelio (2022). Introduction to St. Thomas: Thomistic Metaphysics and Modern Thought. Chillum, MD: IVE Press.Google Scholar
Farges, Albert and Barbedette, Désiré (1921). Philosophia scholastica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis exposita et recentioribus scientiarum inventis aptata, 31st ed. Parisiis: Apud Baston, Berche et Pagis.Google Scholar
Feser, Edward (2019). Aristotle’s Revenge: The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science. Neunkirchen-Seelscheid: editiones-scholasticae.Google Scholar
Flipse, Abraham C. (2008). Between Neo-Thomist Natural Philosophy and Secular Science: Roman Catholic Scientists in the Netherlands, 1900–1950. Styles of Thinking in Science and Technology. Proceeding of the Third International Conference of the European Society for the History of Science 2008, 1146–1151.Google Scholar
Frank, Karl (1913). The Theory of Evolution in Light of Facts. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.Google Scholar
Frank, Karl (1926). Cursus Philosophicus in Usum Scholarum: Philosophia Naturalis. Friburgi: Herder.Google Scholar
Gardeil, Ambroise (1893). L’Evolutionism et les Principes de S. Thomas. Revue Thomiste, 1(1): 27–45.Google Scholar
Gardeil, Ambroise (1894). L’Evolutionism et les Principes de S. Thomas – II – Les Systèmes. Revue Thomiste, 2(1): 29–42.Google Scholar
Gardeil, Ambroise (1895). L’Evolutionism et les Principes de S. Thomas – II – Les Systèmes (cont.). Revue Thomiste, 3(1): 61–84.Google Scholar
Gardeil, Ambroise (1896). L’Evolutionism et les Principes de S. Thomas – III – Conciliation. Revue Thomiste, 4(1): 215–247.Google Scholar
Gardeil, Henri Dominique (1966). Initiation a la Philosophie de Saint Thomas d’Aquin. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.Google Scholar
Gilson, Étienne (2009). From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
González Arintero, Juan (1898). La Evolución y la Filosofía Cristina. Madrid: Librería de Gregorio del Amo.Google Scholar
González y Díaz Tuñón, Zeferino (1864). Estudios sobre la Filosofía de Santo Tomás. Tomo II. Manila: Establecimiento Tipográfico del Colegio de Santo Tomás.Google Scholar
González y Díaz Tuñón, Zeferino (1891). La Biblia y la Ciencia. Madrid: Imprenta de A. Pérez Dubrull.Google Scholar
Gredt, Josephus (1899). Elementa Philosophiae Aristotelico-Thomisticae, vol. I, 1st ed. Rome: Descleé.Google Scholar
Gredt, Josephus (1937). Elementa Philosophiae Aristotelico-Thomisticae, vol. II, 7th ed. Barcelona: Herder.Google Scholar
Gredt, Josephus (1946). Elementa Philosophiae Aristotelico-Thomisticae, vol. I, 8th ed. Barcelona: Herder.Google Scholar
Grenier, Henri (1944). Cursus philosophiae: volumen primum continens introductionem generalem, logicam et philosophiam naturalem. Quebeci: Le Seminaire de Quebec.Google Scholar
Harrison, Peter (2021). A Historian’s Perspective on Science-Engaged Theology. Modern Theology, 37(2): 476–482.10.1111/moth.12693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward Joyce, George (1922). Principles of Natural Theology. New York: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Heisenberg, Werner (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43: 172–198.10.1007/BF01397280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houck, Daniel W. (2020). Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108642927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Deal W. (1992). The Future of Thomism: An Introduction. Deal Hudson, W. and Moran, Dennis, eds., The Future of Thomism. Mishawaka, IN: American Maritain Association, 7–21.Google Scholar
Hugon, Édouard (1905). Cursus Philosophiae Thomisticae, II Philosophia Naturalis: Cosmologia. Paris: Lethielleux.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Leonard (1987). A Catalogue of Thomists, 1270–1900. Houston, TX: Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas.Google Scholar
Kittle, Simon (2022). God Is (Probably) a Cause among Causes: Why the Primary/Secondary Cause Distinction Doesn’t Help in Developing Non-Interventionist Accounts of Special Divine Action. Theology and Science, 20(2): 247–262.10.1080/14746700.2022.2057468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koons, Robert (2022). Is St. Thomas’s Aristotelian Philosophy of Nature Obsolete? South Bend, IN: St. Augustine Press.Google Scholar
Kopf, Simon (2022). Reframing Providence: New Perspectives from Aquinas on the Divine Action Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kopf, Simon (2023). Reframing Providence. New Perspectives from Aquinas on the Divine Action Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780192874986.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopf, Simon (2024). Science-Engaged Thomism. Religions, 15(5): 1–22, 591.10.3390/rel15050591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koren, Henry (1955). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Animate Nature. St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book.Google Scholar
Lazzari, Edmund (2025). The Divine Nature Is Not a Cause among Causes: A Response to Kittle and Sollereder. Theology and Science, 543–555.10.1080/14746700.2025.2514304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemaître, Georges (1931). The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory. Nature, 127: 706.10.1038/127706b0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lortie, Stanislas-Alfred (1917). Elementa philosophiae christianae ad mentem s. Thomae Aquinatis exposita, 3rd ed. Quebeci: L’Action sociale.Google Scholar
Maria, Michaele de (1913). Philosophia peripatetico-scholastica ex fontibus Aristotelis et S. Thomae Aquinatis expressa et ad adolescentium institutionem accommodata, vol. 2, 4th ed. Romae: ex Pontificia Officina Typographica.Google Scholar
Maritain, Jacques (1959). Distinguish to Unite: Or the Degrees of Knowledge. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Maritain, Jacques (1967). Vers une idée thomiste de l’évolution. Nova et Vetera, 42: 130–131.Google Scholar
Masi, Roberto (1955). Teologia eucaristica e fisica contemporanea. Doctor Communis, 8: 31–51.Google Scholar
Masi, Roberto (1957). La sostanza materiale ed i suoi accidenti – La conversione eucaristica. Studia Patavina, 4.Google Scholar
Melsen, A. G. M. van (1965). Evolution and Philosophy. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, Désiré (1887–88). Cours de Philosophie selon S. Thomas d’Aquin: La Psychologie. Autographie de Charles Peeters: Louvain.Google Scholar
Mivart, St. Jackson, George (1871). On the Genesis of Species. London & New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Pawl, Timothy (2016). Thomistic Multiple Incarnations. The Heythrop Journal, 57: 359–370.10.1111/heyj.12230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pègues, Thomas (1927). Aperçus de philosophie thomiste et de propédeutique. Paris: André Blot Editeur.Google Scholar
Perry, John and Leidenhag, Joanna (2021). What Is Science-Engaged Theology. Modern Theology, 37(2): 245–253.10.1111/moth.12681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, John and Leidenhag, Joanna (2023). Science-Engaged Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009091350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesch, Tilmann (1880). Institutiones philosophiae naturalis secundum principia S. Thomae Aquinatis, ad usum scholasticum accommodavit. Friburgi: sumptibus Herder.Google Scholar
Pesch, Tilmannus (1897). Institutiones Philosophiae Naturalis secundum Principia S. Thomae Aquinatis, ad usum scholsticum accommodavit, vol. II. Friburg: Herder.Google Scholar
Phillips, Richard Percival (1964). Modern Thomistic Philosophy. Westminster: The Newman Press.Google Scholar
Pirotta, Angelo (1936). Summa Philosophiae Aristotelico-Thomisticae, vol. 2: Philosophia Naturalis Generalis et Specialis. Taurini: Mariett.Google Scholar
Pohle, Joseph (1917). God, the Author of Nature and the Supernatural (De Deo Creante et Elevante). A Dogmatic Treatise. St. Louis, MO & London: B. Herder.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, John (1995). The Metaphysics of Divine Action. Robert Russell, Murphy, Nancy, and Peacocke, Arthur, eds., Chaos and Complexity. Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City – Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory – CTNS, 147–156.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, John (2000). Faith, Science, and Understanding. New Haven, CT-London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Leo XIII, Pope (1879). Aeterni Patris. Encyclical on the Restoration of Christian Philosophy. www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html.Google Scholar
Rahner, Karl (1983). On Recognising the Importance of Thomas Aquinas: Theological Investigations XIII. New York: Crossroad Books.Google Scholar
Reese, Philip-Neri (2024). Losing the Forest for the Tree: Why All Thomists Should (Not) Be River Forest Thomists. Religions, 15(5): 1–17, 569.10.3390/rel15050569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Robert John (2006). Quantum Physics and the Theology of Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action. Clayton, Philip, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 579–595.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279272.003.0035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanguineti, Juan José (2023). God in the Face of Natural and Moral Evils: A Thomistic Approach. Religions, 14(7): 1–26, 816.10.3390/rel14070816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selvaggi, Filippo (1949). Il concetto di sostanza nel Dogma Eucaristico in relazione alla fisica moderna. Gregorianum, 30(1/2): 7–45.Google Scholar
Selvaggi, Filippo (1956). Realtà física e sostanza sensibile nella dottrina eucaristica. Gregorianum, 37: 16–33.Google Scholar
Selvaggi, Filippo (1957). Ancora interno ai concetti di ‘sostanza sensibile’ e ‘realtà fìsica’. Gregorianum, 38: 503–514.Google Scholar
Selvaggi, Filippo (1962). Scienza e Metodologia. Roma: Editrice Università Gregoriana.Google Scholar
Selvaggi, Filippo (1964). Causalità e indeterminismo: La problematica moderna alla luce della filosofia aristotelico-tomista. Roma: Editrice Università Gregoriana.Google Scholar
Sertillanges, Antonin (1945). L’Idée de Création et ses Retentissements en Philosophie. Paris: Éditions Montaigne.Google Scholar
Silva, Ignacio (2013). Thomas Aquinas Holds Fast: Objections to Aquinas within Today’s Debate on Divine Action. The Heythrop Journal, 54(4): 658–667.10.1111/j.1468-2265.2011.00692.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Ignacio (2014). Revisiting Aquinas on Providence and Rising to the Challenge of Divine Action in Nature. The Journal of Religion, 94(3): 277–291.10.1086/676024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Ignacio (2015). Providence, Contingency, and the Perfection of the Cosmos. Philosophy, Theology and the Sciences, 2(2): 137–157.10.1628/219597715X14369486568347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Ignacio (2022). Providence and Science in a World of Contingency. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Silva, Ignacio (2024a). Neo-Thomism on Evolution. Kojonen, Erkki V. R. and Malik, Shoaib Ahmed, eds., Design Discourse in Abrahamic Traditions: History, Metaphysics, and Science. Abingdon: Routledge. 110–128.10.4324/9781003422600-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Ignacio (2024b). Thomas Aquinas and Some Neo-Thomists on the Possibility of Miracles and the Laws of Nature. Religions, 15(4): 422, 1–14.10.3390/rel15040422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Ignacio and Recio, Gonzalo (2023). Aquinas’ Science-Engaged Theology. Religious Studies, 61(1), 179–193.10.1017/S0034412523000902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, William. M. R. (2022). From Quantum Physics to Classical Metaphysics. William Robert, M. R. Simpson Koons, C., and Orr, James, eds., Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics and the Theology of Nature. New York: Routledge, 21–65.Google Scholar
Sollereder, Bethany (2015). A Modest Objection: Neo-Thomism and God as a Cause among Causes. Theology and Science, 13(3): 345–353.10.1080/14746700.2015.1053762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoeger, William (1995). Describing God’s Action in the World in Light of Scientific Knowledge of Reality. Russell, Robert, Murphy, Nancy, and Peacocke, Arthur, eds., Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City – Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory – CTNS, 239–261.Google Scholar
Stoeger, William R. (2001). Contemporary Physics and the Ontological Status of the Laws of Nature. Robert Russell, Murphy, Nancy, and Isham, Christopher J., eds., Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Vatican City – Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory – CTNS, 207–231.Google Scholar
Tabaczek, Mariusz (2022). Does God Create through Evolution? A Thomistic Perspective. Theology and Science, 20(1): 46–68.10.1080/14746700.2021.2012917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabaczek, Mariusz (2023a). Aristotelian-Thomistic Contribution to the Contemporary Studies on Biological Life and Its Origin. Religions, 14(2): 1–25, 214.10.3390/rel14020214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabaczek, Mariusz (2023b). Human Enhancement, Transhumanism, and Posthumanism: Secular Notion of Transcendence and Its Metaphysical Presuppositions. Angelicum, 100(3): 389–417.Google Scholar
Tabaczek, Mariusz (2023c). Theistic Evolution: A Contemporary Aristotelian-Thomistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009367028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabaczek, Mariusz (2024). Vacuum Genesis and Spontaneous Emergence of the Universe from Nothing in Reference to the Classical Notion of Causality and Creation ex nihilo. Theology and Science, 22(3): 485–508.10.1080/14746700.2024.2359189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabaczek, Mariusz and Chaberek, Michael (2024). Theistic Evolution: An Exchange between Mariusz Tabaczek and Michael Chaberek. Nova et Vetera, 22(1): 221–284.Google Scholar
Tanzella-Nitti, Giuseppe (2022). Scientific Perspectives in Fundamental Theology: Understanding Christian Faith in the Age of Scientific Reason. Claremont, CA: Claremont Press.Google Scholar
Tanzella-Nitti, Giuseppe (2023). Tommaso d’Aquino e il pensiero scientifico contemporáneo. Bonino, Serge-Thomas and Tuninetti, Luca, eds., Vetera Novis Augere. Le risorse della tradizione tomista nel contesto attuale. I. Bilancio e prospettive. Rome: Urbaniana University Press, 151–179.Google Scholar
Thompson, Christopher J. (2017). The Joyful Mystery: Field Notes toward a Green Thomism. Steubenville, OH: Emmaus Road.Google Scholar
Tonquédec, Joseph de (1918). Une preuve facile de l’existence de Dieu: l’ordre du monde. Paris: Beauchesne.Google Scholar
Torrell, Jean-Pierre (2003). Situation actuelle des études thomistes. Recherches de Science Religieuse, 91: 343–371.10.3917/rsr.033.0343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urráburu, Juan José (1892). Institutiones Philosophicae. Vol. III: Cosmologia. Paris: Lethielleux, Rome: Melandri.Google Scholar
Urráburu, Juan José (1896). Institutiones Philosophicae. Vol. IV: Psychologiae. Paris: Lethielleux, Rome: Melandri.Google Scholar
Van Riel, Gerd (2022). The History of the Higher Institute of Philosophy. Désiré Mercier and the Foundation of the Higher Institute of Philosophy (1879–1906). published at KU Leuven – Institute of Philosophy, https://hiw.kuleuven.be/en/about-us/history-hiw (27 June).Google Scholar
Vollert, Cyril (1961). The Eucharist: Controversy on Transubstantiation. Theological Studies, 22(3): 391–425.10.1177/004056396102200302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisheipl, James (1967). Thomism. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill Book.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this Element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.