The Natural Sciences and Christian Theology: Models of Interaction
The Natural Sciences and Christian Theology: Models of Interaction
There has been a long history of interaction between Christian theology and the natural sciences. Historians of science generally take the view that theological factors generally played a significantly positive role in the emergence and persistence of modern science in the west. It is important to note that many of the key figures in the rise of the natural sciences were individuals with sincere religious commitments; perhaps more importantly, the new approaches to nature that they pioneered were underpinned in various ways by religious assumptions, particularly grounded in a Christian understanding of an ordered creation. Historians often focus on three themes which are regarded as important to any understanding of the religious origins of the scientific revolution in western Europe in the early modern period.
So what are the intellectual frameworks for understanding the present interaction between the natural sciences and Christian theology? A number of ways of categorizing these approaches have been proposed, such as the fourfold taxonomy proposed by Ian G. Barbour (1923–2013): conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Although this has been widely adopted by other writers in the field of science and religion, it has attracted criticism on a number of grounds. For our purposes, we shall simply note that it is not entirely suitable for exploring the relationship between theology (as opposed to the more generic notion of “religion”) and science. In what follows, we shall consider three broad approaches to the relationship between theology and science which are widely encountered within contemporary culture.
Warfare: The “Conflict” Thesis
One of the most influential understandings of the relationship between science and theology holds that they are in a state of permanent warfare. This viewpoint was popularized in the second half of the nineteenth century and has been given a new lease of life by its aggressive adoption by the “New Atheism,” especially obvious in Richard Dawkins's (born 1941) God Delusion (2006). It is only a matter of time before science, according to Dawkins, will eliminate religion. The “warfare” model of science and religion is now regarded as discredited by historians; this has not, however, prevented it from continuing to be influential, especially in popular culture.
Yet it is not merely the “New Atheism” that advocates the warfare of science and theology. This perspective is also found in more conservative forms of Protestantism, especially in the United States. According to this approach, the Genesis creation accounts represent a legitimate understanding of the origins of the world, which remain valid in the face of the rival theories offered by the natural sciences. This view does not regard biblical and scientific approaches as complementary. Rather, it regards the biblical material as presenting a valid and objective account of the origins and development of humanity, which is in tension with theories of evolution – and, for this reason, it says that theories of evolution are incorrect. This approach is particularly associated with conservative American evangelicalism. It is increasingly referred to as “scientific creationism,” as found in the works of writers such as Henry Madison Morris (1918–2006), particularly his Scientific Creationism (1974).
The idea that there is some essential conflict between science and theology is increasingly seen as unsustainable. The historical evidence suggests strongly that there have indeed been tensions between science and theology, just as there have also been synergies and convergence. The patterns are so complex that they simply cannot be reduced to some single “master narrative.”
Isolation: The “Non-Overlapping” Thesis
Many scientists find themselves attracted to the idea of the “NOMA” (non-overlapping magisteria) of science and theology. This idea was developed by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) as a means of diminishing the hostility between science and religion on university campuses. According to Gould's view, the “magisterium of science” deals with the “empirical realm,” whereas the “magisterium of religion” deals with “questions of ultimate meaning.” (The term “magisterium” is best understood as a “sphere of authority” or “domain of competency.”) Gould holds that these two magisteria do not, and cannot, overlap. They don't need to talk to each other, and they can't talk to teach other, in that they have nothing much in common.
A similar approach is adopted by theologians who want to emphasize the distinctiveness of Christian theology's methods and ideas. Partly in reaction against the tendency of various forms of liberal theology to accommodate to secular ideas and methods, neo-orthodoxy affirmed the distinctiveness of theology. This tendency can probably be seen at its clearest in Karl Barth's discussion of the doctrine of creation in his Church Dogmatics. For Barth, creation is a theological event which cannot be illuminated or interpreted in the light of the natural sciences. Barth's refusal to allow philosophy to have any foundational role in theology is thus extended to the natural sciences. They have their proper spheres of competence; these do not, however, include the justification or explanation of the Christian faith.
A similar approach is found in the writings of American theologians influenced by neo-orthodoxy. A good example is provided by Langdon Gilkey (1919–2004) in his Maker of Heaven and Earth (1959). Gilkey suggests that theology and the natural sciences are best understood as independent and different ways of approaching reality. The natural sciences ask “how” questions; theology asks “why” questions. The former deal with secondary causes (that is, with interactions within nature); the latter deals with primary causes (that is, the ultimate origin and purpose of nature in the first place).
The distinctiveness of the disciplines is also affirmed by Karl Rahner (1904–84). Using a framework similar to that adopted by Gilkey, Rahner argues that the sciences are concerned with “a posteriori experiences,” whereas theology deals with “a priori questions.” Rahner argues that things begin to go wrong when scientists start playing at being theologians, and vice versa, in that they refuse to respect the distinctive characteristics and limitations of the other group's disciplines.
Enrichment: The Complementarity Thesis
Whereas neo-orthodoxy regarded theology and the natural sciences as having independent agendas and methodologies, some more recent writers have argued for the need for a constructive dialogue between the two disciplines. While respecting the different methods and sources of science and theology, they can be seen as offering illumination of some aspects of life and thought which have the potential, at least in some respects, to enrich our vision of reality.
A good example is found in the writings of Wolfhart Pannenberg, who argued that the insights of the natural sciences can illuminate the Christian understanding of the doctrine of creation. Although Pannenberg insists that the two disciplines are distinct, he maintains that they can mutually interact, to the benefit of both.
Related ideas can be found in the writings of the leading Scottish theologian Thomas F. Torrance (1913–2007). Torrance argues that both theology and the natural sciences are committed to some form of realism, in that they deal with a reality whose existence is prior to their attempts to comprehend it. Both require openness to the way things are, and that their modes of inquiry are conformed to the nature of the reality that they encounter. Torrance's view is grounded in an approach which stresses the priority of God's self-revelation. This is seen as an objective reality, independent of human rational activity. Although Torrance is no uncritical supporter of Barth, this is unquestionably one area in which he identifies with Barth's agenda.
I develop a similar approach in the three volumes of my Scientific Theology (2001–3), where I argue that both the natural sciences and Christian theology represent an engagement with an external reality that is open to being represented theoretically. “A scientific theology conceives the theological enterprise as a principled attempt to give an account of the reality of God, which it understands to be embedded at different levels in the world.” I develop a form of critical realism that acknowledges the active involvement of the knower in the process of knowing, while I use Roy Bhaskar's (1944–2014) notion of the “stratification of reality” to explore the various levels of theological analysis.
More recently, I argue in Inventing the Universe (2015) for the need to enrich both scientific and theological narratives by allowing them to interact with each other. The scientific narrative of the origins of the cosmos is not the same as the Christian narrative of creation; the two can, however, be intertwined, like a dual helix, to offer a more satisfying vision of our universe.
In this chapter, we have looked at a number of issues arising from the important theological notion of revelation, and have touched on some issues about how God might be known through nature or reason. In the next chapter, we shall consider the dialogue and debate between philosophy and theology, which has been – and continues to be! – a fascinating aspect of Christian theology.