JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

When Werner Heisenberg presented his views of the fundamental indeterminism to which his uncertainty principle pointed in the basic levels of reality described by quantum mechanics, he used the Aristotelian technical terms of act and potency, affirming that the quantum system is in potency before the measurement and that the potency was actualised when the measurement took place, speaking thus of a ‘new ontology’ of quantum mechanics. I argue that Thomas Aquinas’ Aristotelian account of indeterminism in nature, through his analysis of the notions of matter as potency and form as act, can provide a suitable framework to understand Heisenberg's philosophical intuition about the nature of quantum systems.

The state of the debate surrounding issues on science and religion in Latin America is mostly unknown, both to regional and extra‐regional scholars. This article presents and reviews in some detail the developments since 2000, when the first symposium on science and religion was held in Mexico, up to the present. I briefly introduce some features of Latin American academia and higher education institutions, as well as some trends in the public reception of these debates and atheist engagement with it in Mexico and Argentina. The primary conclusion of this article is that, even though the discussion is new to Latin American academic circles, it is gaining traction and will certainly grow in the coming years.

Background: Increasing rates of mental health problems among adolescents are of concern. Teens who are most in need of mental health attention are reluctant to seek help. A better understanding of the help-seeking in this population is needed to overcome this gap. Methods: Five databases were searched to identify the principal barriers, facilitators and interventions targeting help-seeking for common mental health problems in adolescents aged 10-19 years. The search was performed in June 2018 and updated in March 2019. Two independent screening processes were made using the eligibility criteria. Quality assessment of each study was performed and findings summarised using a narrative synthesis. Results: 90 studies meet the inclusion criteria for this review for barrier and facilitators (n=54) and interventions (n=36). Stigma and negative beliefs towards mental health services and professionals were the most cited barriers. Facilitators included previous positive experience with health services and mental health literacy. Most interventions were based on psychoeducation, which focused on general mental health knowledge, suicide and self-harm, stigma and depression. Other types of interventions included the use of multimedia and online tools, peer training and outreach initiatives. Overall, the quality of studies was low to medium and there was no general agreement regarding help-seeking definition and measurements. Conclusion: Most of interventions took place in an educational setting however, it is important to consider adolescents outside the educational system. Encouraging help-seeking should come with the increased availability of mental health support for all adolescents in need, but this is still a major challenge for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. There is also a need to develop shared definitions, theoretical frameworks and higher methodological standards in research regarding help-seeking behaviours in adolescents. This will allow more consistency and generalisability of findings, improving the development of help-seeking interventions and ensuring timely access to mental health treatments.

Various authors within the contemporary debate on divine action in nature and contemporary science argue both for and against a Thomistic account of divine action through the notions of primary and secondary causes. In this paper I argue that those who support a Thomistic account of divine action often fail to explain Aquinas' doctrine in full, while those who argue against it base their objections on an incomplete knowledge of this doctrine, or identify it with Austin Farrer's doctrine of double agencyagain failing to do Aquinas justice. I analyse these objections, indicating how they do not address Aquinas' doctrine by offering a brief but full account of the latter.Does Thomas Aquinas' way of understanding natural and divine causation have any relevance to today's debates on divine action and contemporary science? This question is framed around the project known as the 'Divine Action Project', which was carried out under the sponsorship of the Vatican Observatory and the Centre for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, and which is well known for the six published volumes entitled 'Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action'. The topics of this twenty-year project, which consisted primarily of five conferences, include quantum cosmology and the laws of nature, chaos and complexity, evolutionary and molecular biology, neuroscience and the person, and quantum mechanics. Its goal was to tackle the problem of special divine action within the framework of contemporary scientific theories, defined as the notion that God performs actions hic et nunc in nature to guide the universe and human lives towards the goals He establishes, such as promoting life or the like. Proposals were advanced from theories of quantum divine action, to divine action through chaotic and complex systems, theories of top-down causation and notions of emergence as routes to new models of divine action. 1 These innovative proposals came with some awareness that Aquinas' thought might point towards an answer to the problem of divine action. Robert Russell indicates this several times when considering various theories. In the introduction to the third volume, in 1995, he enumerates several approaches to divine action discussed in the project, mentioning Neo-Thomism together with process theology, uniform action, and personal agent models. 2 By the conclusion in 2008, Russell asserts that, as a result of the conversations, two broad metaphysical systems were adopted by the scholars participating in the debate: process metaphysics and neo-Thomistic metaphysics. 3 He recommends further research toward a detailed assessment of the relative merits of the alternative proposals on divine action, mentioning the distinction between primary and secondary causes, 4 essential to Aquinas' account.

Background People living in Latin America are already affected by global environmental changes and several health inequities, increasing the risk of poor health. Health professionals have a key role in tackling these threats and their consequences by providing direct care and advocating for public health policies. Hence, health professionals should be taught about global environmental changes, climate change, and policy advocacy, which could be included under the planetary health frame. Unfortunately, whether these ideals have been included in the undergraduate curriculum in Latin American universities is unclear. We aimed to analyse the incorporation of courses on climate change, environmental health, and planetary health in the curriculum of undergraduate health professionals in Latin America.Methods In this review, we did a documentary analysis of the curriculum of undergraduate health professional programmes that had been published on each university website. We selected the ten best Latin American universities for each country according to the

In the first part of this paper I argue that even if at first Alvin Plantinga’s reasons for allowing special divine action seem similar to those of Thomas Aquinas, particularly in De Potentia Dei for allowing miracles, the difference in their metaphysical language makes Aquinas’ account less prone to the objections raised against Plantinga’s. In the second part I argue that Plantinga errs when recurring to quantum mechanics for allowing special divine action, making God to be a cause among causes. Thomas Aquinas, by speaking of primary and secondary causality when referring to God’s activity, avoids taking this step, evading the conclusion that God could be seen as a cause among causes. Aquinas, however, maintains in a statement which goes beyond Plantinga’s, that God’s providence requires the universe to be indeterministic because this indeterministic feature makes the universe more perfect.

Contemporary debates on divine action tend to focus on finding a space in nature where there would be no natural causes, where nature offers indeterminacy, openness, and potentiality, to place God’s action. These places are found through the natural sciences, in particular quantum mechanics. God’s action is then located in those ontological ‘causal-gaps’ offered by certain interpretations of quantum mechanics. In this view, God would determine what is left underdetermined in nature without disrupting the laws of nature. These contemporary proposals evidence at least two unexamined assumptions, which frame the discussion in such a way that they portray God as acting as a secondary cause or a ‘cause among causes’. God is somewhat required to act within these ‘gaps’, binding God to the laws of nature, and placing God’s action at the level of secondary causes. I suggest that understanding God’s action, following Thomas Aquinas, in terms of primary and secondary causation could help dissolve this difficulty. Aquinas moves away from this objection by suggesting to speak of an analogical notion of cause, allowing for an analogical understanding of God’s causality in nature. With a radically different understanding of the interplay between secondary causes and God, Aquinas manages to avoid conceiving God as a cause among causes, keeping the distinctive transcendent character of God’s causality safe from objections.