New Directions in Theology and Science (ToC and Introduction)

HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies

The ecological crisis almost forces different disciplines to search together for a better world.We all share one earth: the closer we reach a certain point, the closer we also come together. This places the paper amid the so-called science and religion dialogue in which theology increasingly takes cognisance of empirical research and scientific data. On the other hand, sciences are becoming increasingly aware of the need to transcend their evidential limitations to find a comprehensive paradigm.This paper will apply an exemplary methodology by selecting the eco-theology of Jürgen Moltmann as a theologian who takes relevant results of scientific ecological research seriously. The Club of Rome, on the other hand, is an example of social (and natural) sciences urging to find a new inclusive paradigm for a world in peril.The juxtaposition of theology and science provides the need for a new value system emerging in social sciences. Randers makes clear that the culture of consumerism had ...

Horizons, 2011

creationontheweb.com

This is the first volume of a three volume series which aims to present a 'Scientific Theology'. This first volume looks at 'Nature'; the second, 'Reality'; and the third covers 'Theory'. The author, Alister E. McGrath, is professor of historical theology at Oxford University. He also holds a Ph.D. in molecular biophysics from Oxford. McGrath states upfront: 'It is the contention of this work that the relationship of Christian theology to the natural sciences is that of two fundamentally related disciplines, whose working methods reflect this common grounding in responding to a reality which lies beyond them, of which they are bound to give an ordered account' (p. xviii). But in what way are they 'fundamentally related'? And how do their working methods reflect a common grounding? McGrath criticises those who seek to employ the social sciences as a window into theology: 'Precisely on account of their radical and often aggressive commitment to a naturalist world-view, the social sciences offer a skewed perspective on religion which, in the first place, refuses to acknowledge an ancillary role to theology, and in the second place, denies the entire legitimacy of the theological project, as this is traditionally conceived'(p. 15).

Estudio Agustiniano

La ciencia y la teología compiten aparentemente en el mismo terreno. Más allá de esta opinión ampliamente compartida, es conveniente analizar el tipo de “trabajo” que, cada una de ellas, asume. La ciencia persigue objetivos “epistémicos”, mientras que la religión los persigue “soteriológicos” y “morales”. Esta distinción permite una mejor comprensión de las posibles formas de relacionarse una con otra: la competencia, la independencia y el contacto, se convierten en posiciones comunes. La idea del contacto aparece como la más apropiada para el programa teológico actual. El caso de la singularidad humana en el contexto de la teoría evolutiva es un ejemplo de los desafíos que nacen de esa posición. Esta estrategia encuentra cuatro expresiones propias: la conservadora, la tradicional, la überal y la constructivista.

What we talk about when we talk about 'science' Peter Harrison's 2011 Gifford Lectures, published under the title The Territories of Science and Religion, surely count as the single most helpful intervention in the field of 'religion and science' since that conversation got seriously underway. Thanks to Harrison, interlocutors could look away from the quest for typologies and taxonomies and towards a scrutiny of the terms themselves. 'Religion' and 'science', Harrison argued, date in their current usage only to the nineteenth century. Using the terms to refer to timeless categories of knowledge makes no sense. Seeking to frame, in general terms, the relationship between something called 'religion' and something called 'science' is therefore a pursuit of questionable utility. As the editors of this issue explain in their introduction, the Science-Engaged Theology project intends to take Harrison's argument as a point of departure. If we cannot ask about 'religion' (or 'theology') and 'science' in generic terms, then surely one helpful thing we can do is bring a new emphasis on specificity to the enquiry: how does this bit of science make a difference in that bit of theology? This granularity is potent. In turning away from the pursuit of a panoramic view of the whole, Science-Engaged Theology invites theologians to a patient attentiveness to specific aspects of how various sciences describe and analyse the world, and a willingness to hear and respond to the questions this raises for theology. The enquiries in this issue represent attempts to do just that. But does Science-Engaged Theology successfully follow through on the key content of Harrison's proposal: the effort to de-essentialise 'science' and 'religion'? In this short response, I want to raise a concern about Science-Engaged Theology, but it is a fond concern, and its raising is meant appreciatively. The appreciation, with due qualification, comes below. First, I outline my worry: does Science-Engaged Theology make itself a hostage to the very circumstances which prompted Harrison to undertake his critique? Science-Engaged Theology is still operating with the terms whose employment Harrison's historicisation has cast into question. The editors stipulate that

2021

Science and Theology:<br> Befriending Each Other Epistemically The author wants to indicate the need for dialogue<br> between science and religion for the sake of human wellbeing.<br> Science and theology have ever been the two most powerful and <br> influential enterprises of humans determining the properties of <br> their very being and defining the destiny of the humanity at<br> large. The dictums and contours of the world of their meaning<br> have been extensively processed by science and theology.<br> The apparent dissonance between them, as was vivid in the<br> past and even today, leaves one amused as to their meaningmaking<br> task besides raising several serious fundamental questions.<br> Given the interwoven and overarching framework of their enquiry, what justification is there for the discordant<br> note that they strike with each other? The tension between the<br> religious experience and the ...

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, ...

St Andrew Encyclopaedia of Theology, 2022

This entry offers a history of the different ways in which the formal study of the natural world has been related to theological considerations in the Western Christian tradition. Because what counts as science and what counts as theology has changed over time, it begins with a history of the concepts 'theology' and 'science' and the bearing of these conceptual shifts on their relationship. This is followed by a general account of the kinds of relations obtained between science and theology in different periods from antiquity to the present. A final section deals with three recurring issues that also exemplify some general principles.

Method and Theory in the Study of Religions, 2010

The aim of this paper is to offer a critical evaluation of the field of “science and religion” through a brief description of its academic evolution, of the kind of scholars involved in it, and the publications belonging to it. Some elements of this discourse will be highlighted and criticized, namely a number of eurocentric theological assumptions, and what I will define as a “soteriological rhetoric” which serves as a legitimating device for the field, both ubiquitously employed in the work of the scholars involved in the field. I will argue, moreover, that such a rhetoric is the direct product of confessional interests, which disguise the field's theological apologetical aims with appeals to the universal welfare of an ethnocentrically limited conception of “humanity.”

We report on the development and application of a survey instrument that measures the patterns of thought used by individuals attempting to relate theology and science. Survey responses of 1,491 people from fi ve populations of science professors, theologians , other educators, students, and church laypersons were evaluated. We suggest a standardized conceptual framework and terminology; summarize science and theology relational approaches used by a broad spectrum of scientists, educators, pastors, and students; and discuss ways that the survey can be used to promote integrative practices. Based on theoretical constructs and empirical analyses, we propose the terms Compartmentalism, Confl ict: Science over Theology, Confl ict: Theology over Science, Complementarism, and Concordism to describe ways people relate theology and science. Overall, the favored approach of all groups we studied was Complementarism. Three groups with strong religious commitment also used Concordism to a great extent. In some populations, a large number of people did not use any science-theology paradigms to evaluate theology and science propositions. Young earth creationists predominantly used Confl ict: Theology over Science and Complementarism. Old earth creationists and evolutionary creationists relied mostly on Complementarism. We end the article with some recommendations to advance the integration of science and theology.