Theology and Science: Where Are We?

Theology and science have often been at odds. Each discipline has started conflict and decried the evils of the other, whereas both are in fact compatible. I assert that theology and science are not only compatible, but that one discipline informs the other and therefore they are interdependent and necessary. The logical inductions of the scientific method have much in common with the methodical study of the scriptures, and while the Bible is not a scientific manual it presents much scientific data to be observed and tested. Insofar as these disciplines work together to discover truth, they will both benefit from the insights each discipline can provide.

Peace through separation is the method. The two-language theory respects the sovereign territory of both science and theology and is advocated by highly respected persons in both fields. Both science and theology could speak of things divine. Both natural revelation and special revelation pointed us in one direction: toward God. The two-language theory, in contrast, points us in two different directions: either toward God or toward the world. Albert Einstein-remembered for his remark that "science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind"-distinguished between the language of fact and the language of value. "Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be," he once told an audience at Princeton; "religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action." Neo-orthodoxy theologian Langdon Gilkey has long argued for the two-language approach. For him science deals only with objective or public knowing of proximate origins, whereas religion and its theological articulation deal with existential or personal knowing of ultimate origins. Science asks how? While religion asks why? What Gilkey wants, of course, is for one person to be a citizen in two lands-that is, to be able to embrace both Christian faith and scientific method without conflict. To speak both languages is to be bilingual, and bilingual intellectuals can work with one another in peace. 6. Hypothetical consonance: The term consonance, coming from the work of Ernan Mc Mullin, indicates that we are looking for those areas where there is a correspondence between what can be said scientifically about the natural world and what the theologian understands to be God's creation. Consonance in the strong sense means "accord," "harmony." Accord or harmony might be a treasure we hope to find, but we have not found it yet. Where we are now is working with consonance in a weak sensethat is, identifying common domains of question asking. The advances in physics, especially thermodynamics and quantum theory in relation to Big Bang cosmology, have in their own way raised questions about transcendent reality. The God question can be honestly asked from within scientific reasoning. Theologians and scientists now share a common subject matter, and the idea of hypothetical consonance encourages further cooperation. Term hypothetical asks theologians and scientists to subject their own assertions to further investigation and possible confirmation or disconfirmation. Openness to learning something new on the part of theologians and scientists alike is essential if hypothetical consonance is to move us forward.

2000

* I wish to thank Rob Plum and Menno Hulswit for their critical comments on earlier draft. and Armer de Beer, Rob Plum, Marije Altorf, and especially Menno Hulswit for their help with the translation of this text.

New Directions in Theology and Science: Beyond Dialogue, 2022

This book sets out a new agenda for science-theology interactions. It explores how science-theology discussions can constructively change as a result of recent developments in the history of science, the sociology of religion, and theology. The contributions take seriously the historically conditioned nature of the categories "science" and "religion" and consider the ways in which these categories are reinforced in the public sphere. Reflecting on the balance of power between theology and the sciences, the authors demonstrate a commitment to moving beyond scientistic dialogue and seek to give theology a more active role in determining the interdisciplinary agenda.

2016

Understanding Theology as a science meets with difficulties in the current culture. The contemporary plausibility seriously affects the perception of the relationship between Science and Theology. The article argues for the independence of Theology in the area of transcendence. Our discussion of complementarity begins with definitions of what we mean by ̳theology‘ and ̳science‘. The notion of complementarity is then explained in its classical meaning. In the areas of seemingly incompatible explanations the notion of Bohr‘s complementarity can be used. The article gives some examples of both classical and Bohr‘s complementarity.

2020

One can note that science tends to turn man into a master of the external and material, yet at the cost of turning him, on the level of his inner and spiritual life, into a slave of instincts altered by sin. All these, without a moral norm, become a power of destruction for man and represent issues addressed not just by bioethics, where the opinion of ‘theologians’ is consulted as well, but especially by the Church and by the Orthodoxy. The pressure of events imposes the issue of the recognition or, according to some, reformulation of the bases of ethics. Yet, this ethics ought to be constrained to a revision founded neither just on the progress of science, whose truths are partial, nor on the principles of rationalist or positivist philosophy, which try to convince man that he is no different from all the other living beings and needs to be treated in the same way as them, but on the reality of the religious fact, and, moreover, on the evidence of God’s Revelation and, implicitly, ...

Philosophy Compass, 2008

An overview of several philosophical issues that arise from the recent growth of interest in the relationships between science (especially natural science) and theology (especially Christian thought). The interactions between theology and science are complex, and often highly contextual in nature. This makes simple typologies of their interaction rather dubious. There are some similarities between religion and science, including the difficulty of defining them. Concerns about the use and meaning of language, and issues of realism and anti-realism, are found in both areas of thought. Epistemology is important to both areas, and there is increasing acceptance of differing epistemologies not only in religion and science, but also within the various scientific disciplines. One central issue is the question of legitimate influence between science and theology given their aims and methods. Another issue surrounds the question of naturalism in natural science. Also important to note is the variety of god-concepts at work in the current dialogue between science and theology.

Journal of Dharma

Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences

The paper discusses the philosophical difficulties in conducting the dialogue between science and theology. It is argued that theology deals with the event-like phenomena which cannot be presented in phenomenality of objects (what happens in science). Correspondingly, in order to incorporate the givens of theology (the "data" of religious experience) into a philosophical framework one needs to extend philosophy beyond its metaphysical and transcendental setting. This extension inevitably leads to the recognition of the fact that the foundation of both science and theology originates in human beings, having an ambiguous position in the universe which cannot be explicated on metaphysical grounds. The phenomenon of man remains inexplicable to man himself thus creating an ultimate reference point of the contingent facticity of both science and theology. The so called dialogue between science and theology demonstrates that the difference in hermeneutics of representation of the world in the phenomenality of objects and the inaugural events of human life and religious experience pertains to the basic characteristic of the human condition and that the intended overcoming of this difference under the disguise of the "dialogue" represents, in fact, an existentially untenable enterprise. Discussions on the differences in experience of the world and experience of God are profoundly timely for further articulation of the sense of the human condition, but not for its change.

Religious Studies, 2025

This article discusses the prospects and pitfalls of science-engaged theology (SET) - a new and growing movement in the science and religion discourse. The guiding question of this enquiry is why, when, and how theology should engage with the sciences. After introducing what I call the 'source account' of SET that has emerged in recent discussion, I show that this basic account often comes with additional commitments: the 'no methodology' and 'locality and specificity' theses, both of which address the 'how' question, and the 'entanglement' thesis, which addresses the 'when' question. I argue that accepting any of them as an essential feature makes SET methodologically flawed. To provide alternative answers, I then propose to interpret the sources of theology in terms of the so-called loci theologici. Recognizing the sciences specifically among the loci theologici alieni also helps to counter the view that SET may spell the end of the discipline of science and religion. The aim is, therefore, to show that the source account of SET, if taken in a minimal sense, is a valuable contribution to the science and religion discourse, without replacing it, whereas SET, if coupled with these additional assumptions, would and has considerably muddied the waters.