Science-Theology Relations: How Did We Get Here? Where are We Going?

Irreconcilable Differences?

For many people, science-theology relations may be illustrated by the plot line of the movie “Irreconcilable Differences” (1984). The movie dramatizes how Albert and Lucy fall in love, get married, and have a daughter named Casey. Then they are distracted from each other and are headed for divorce. However, Casey beats them to the punch. She sues to divorce her parents and the media has a field day. Should we accept a divorce between science and theology? Or do they have the compatibilities necessary for a fruitful marriage?

The National Academy of Science (in Science and Creationism) suggests that science and theology are “separate and mutually exclusive realms . . . whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both.” The Academy regards science-theology interaction as a “challenge to the integrity and effectiveness of our national education system and the hard-won evidenced-based foundations of Science, . . . [to] academic and intellectual freedom and to the fundamental principles of scientific thought.” At the same time the Academy denies that there is “an irreconcilable conflict between religion and science.”

What then is the proper relationship between the two disciplines? In order to find our way to the best future for Christian science-theology relations we need to understand better the history of these relations.

The Premodern Period.

For sixteen centuries, before the Protestant Reformation, premodern theology was influenced by two theologians above all others. First, Augustine (d. 430 A.D.) promoted the idea of Plato (d. 347 B.C.) that wisdom is superior to knowledge. As a result, theology was regarded as superior to science. Later, Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 A.D.) promoted the idea of Aristotle (d. 322 B.C.) that science is derived from first principles. Thus theology came to be regarded as the highest derived science.

Nevertheless, premodern theology contained the seeds of the idea of God-world separation that would produce a harvest of science-theology conflict in the modern period. The Eastern strand of premodern theology modeled the relations of God and nature as organic through the mediation of a Cosmic Christ. In contrast, Western theology modeled the transcendent world of God (neotos) as separated from the immanent human world (aisthetos) by a chasm (chorismos). This gap was bridged by a combination of rational natural theology grounded in nature and in revealed theology received by faith. However, God's word in Christ and in the language of Scripture was viewed as primarily a source of timeless doctrine about the transcendent divine order and only secondarily a support for ideas about the immanent natural order.

The Modern Period.

From the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, there was a decline of traditional natural theology and a rise of methodological naturalism in modern science. Consequently, nature was modeled as a machine which was separated from God. Two philosopher-theologians are especially representative of this development. René Descartes (d. 1650) divided reality into matter and mind or spirit, and Immanuel Kant (d. 1804) divided knowledge into that which may be known and that which must be believed because of practical necessity.

In Understanding Modern Theology, Jeffrey Hopper comments that in the premodern period, for the most part, theology set the rules for science. "Now [in the modern period] this situation was reversed, and the findings of science were setting the problems for philosophy, which in turn was beginning to define new rules for theology." This led to increasing conflict between modern science and traditional theology. On the one hand, modern science undermines premodern views of the factual relevance of Scripture. On the other hand, modern critical hermeneutics views all language as descriptive of an immanent natural reality rather than a transcendent supernatural reality.

Modern theologians have responded in different ways. On one side, Friedrich Schleiermacher (d. 1834), the father of Protestant Liberalism, sought a truce in the science-theology conflict by describing theology as a positive and practical science rather than as a pure science. He viewed Scripture as essentially a record of religious experience. On the other pole, Benjamin B. Warfield (d. 1921) was a foremost proponent of the view that Scripture records factual propositions. This view has come to be associated with fundamentalist and conservative theology.

The Postmodern Period

A growing number of scientists, theologians, and philosophers regard 20^th and 21^st century science as radically different from premodern derived science and modern methodological naturalism. However, others emphasize the continuity of the history of science. What is clear is that scientific models have undergone significant change. Nature is now modeled as a history in which the core of reality is mysterious.

Theology has also changed. Postcritical theologians usually use modern critical methods, but they recognize the limited theological usefulness of the “scientific” historical-critical paradigm with its emphasis on the human context of the formation of Scripture. As a result, much of postmodern thought tends toward irrationalism and nihilism.

At the same time, many contemporary theologians seek to overcome the imbalance of the premodern and modern emphases on transcendence and immanence. They do this by recognizing Jesus, Scripture, and nature as in some sense revelations of what Jerry Gill describes as a “mediated divine transcendence.”

Unfortunately, because of the tensions within postmodern thought, no new theological unity concerning science-theology relations has emerged. The tendencies toward division which developed in the premodern and modern periods have developed into a radical pluralism of postmodern views about Jesus, Scripture and nature. The premodern and modern influences continue. In addition, other types of theology have developed which view Scripture as witness to revelation (Neo-orthodox), symbolization of divine-human encounter (Existentialist), salvation message (Neo-evangelical), source of metaphors (Narrative), source of models (Feminist), foundation for freedom (Liberation), and as an unfolding of divine action (Process). These approaches to theology view the text of Scripture either as a revelation, as a witness to a historical revelation "behind" the text, or as a catalyst for contemporary revelation "in front of" the text.

Presently, the cutting edge of Christian theology involves the search for a viable model which deals with the manifold revelation of God in Jesus, Scripture, and nature. Such a model must engage the issue of the relations of science and theology. The relevance of Seventh-day Adventist theology for such a time as this may be indicated by the words of Ellen White. “The book of nature and the written word do not disagree; each sheds light on the other. Rightly understood they make us acquainted with God and his character by teaching us something of the wise and beneficent laws through which he works. We are thus led to adore his name and to have an intelligent trust in his word” (Signs of the Times, March 20, 1884).

Questions

Are there elements of premodern, modern, and postmodern science-theology relations which are compatible with a Bible based theology?

Is Adventist theology relevant in our postmodern time?

What are the advantages and risks of science-theology dialog?

Comments

[Rob Powers]

Prior to the Reformation period, the authority of the church among the educated classes and common people was greatly undermined by its excesses. The Reformation and Renaissance were radical breaks from the authority of Rome. Now the church has been utterly defeated and the forces of humanism and secularism rule supreme. Is life any better than before? The problem in both cases is putting your faith in man and his institutions. We must put our faith in God and his Word alone.

[Matt McMearty]

The presuppositions of the modern scientific method exclude any possibility of a metaphysical divine character intertwined with nature, which character can not be detected, measured, or captured by the many tools used by that method. It presupposes that everything is governed and therefore explainable by impersonal laws in a material universe. The very laws the method interprets as natural and impersonal are actually a revelation of the mind and character of God as much as the revelation of the same in the life of Christ and Scripture. All three books are about God's character as the law of all creation. The sooner we as Adventists understand and experience this, the easier it will become to figure out what elements of the history of science-theology relations are compatible with Biblical theology. Don't get discouraged if that search is like salvaging a few overripe apples in a barrel of rotten ones. It is easier to build from scratch, than to remodel.

[Martin Hanna]

Thanks for your comments Rob and Matt! God’s word alone is trustworthy. At the same time, God’s word is revealed in Jesus–the living Word, in Scripture–the written word, and in nature–the created word. “In the beginning was the word . . . and the word was God” (Jn 1:1). “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16). “By the word of God were the heavens made” (Ps 33:6).

As you both implied, there is not contradiction between God’s words in the Savior, in Scripture, and in nature. Contradictions arise because of mistakes made in the theological and scientific interpretation of God’s words. Let us respect God’s word wherever he reveals it. In this sense, we should start from scratch–that is start from the revelation God has given.

At the same time, there is another sense in which we do not need to start from scratch. We can stand on the shoulders of men and women of God who have done good work in science and in theology. Ignorance of their mistakes and breakthroughs would make our work more difficult.

We have nothing to fear for the future except we forget the way the Lord has led in our history. God has been leading in the history of the church and in the history of science. Of course, Satan has be active as well. He is the source of the bad apples. May God give us the wisdom to know the difference between bad and good apples!

[David Hamstra]

For those interested in a more detailed explanation of postmodern trends in scientific thinking, I recommend CBC Radio's Ideas series "How to Think About Science" (and, yes, Canadians do say "about" like that). All 24, hour-long episodes are available online for your perusal. The series of interviews focuses on authors who probe the epistemological limits of science. Of particular interest to science-theology relations, IMHO, are episodes 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18.

On an unrelated note, our Adventist, historicist understanding of the prophetic indicates to me that history is another location (albeit in the 4th dimension) where God reveals himself. If this is so, when constructing theology, there is no such thing as starting from scratch, if by starting from scratch we mean setting aside all that has come before, because what has come before is part of that "scratch." On the other hand, if by starting from "scratch" we mean beginning from the raw materials, so to speak, of theology, rather than tacking on additions to an existing theological structure, I think there is definite value in this. But this is only valuable if the present structures are wholly unsuited to their task. And it seems to me that, at least for Adventists, this is the situation that exists in science-theology relations where there is a vast distance between what we believe should be and what the current philosophical systems allow.

[Matt McMearty]

David and Martin, I find myself agreeing and appreciating the distinctions you make about working with the past as history and working with the sources of theology in the present. Getting to the sources of theology is starting from scratch and it is necessary to do this in order to sift through what has gone before us. Both have their merits, because in knowing what history shows in the relationship between science and theology, no matter how each is understood, knowing that history helps us realize how our approach is in utter contrast to what has gone before us. What the history of that relationship has shown to me is trying to reconcile theology to various philosophies does not always help what we learn from scratch. It tends to muddy the waters.

[Martin Hanna]

You are quite right Matt. If we seek to reconcile theology with various scientific theories, we will likely compromise theology in the process. Science is not always right. In fact, good science should always be open to changing and growing based on ongoing research. To reconcile theology with the science of today will make theology to be outdated when the science changes.

At the same time, theology must also be open to change and growth based on continual study of the revelations God has given in Scripture and nature. When theology is open in this way there can be a fruitful dialog between science and theology. The dialog does not mean that science and theology will always agree. Neither will they always disagree.

For example, Scripture clearly teaches that God created different kinds of animals which reproduce descendants of the same kind. For me, this contradicts the scientific theory of the common evolutionary ancestry of all living things.

At the same time, nature teaches us that different descendants within one kind of animal may have different characteristics. In light of this, I think that theology can acknowledge that many modern breeds of dogs were not present in the Garden of Eden.

This type of dialog is not an attempt to reconcile theology to scientific conclusions. Rather it is a critical and constructive dialog with science concerning the interpretation of the book of nature which is God’s book. It is essential that this dialog proceed without compromise of the revelation given in Scripture.

However, sometimes this dialog may show us that we have not interpreted Scripture correctly. For example, it seems to me that it would be an incorrect interpretation to claim that Scripture teaches that there could be no variations within the kinds of animals created by God.

[David de la Vega]

Dr. Hanna, In response to your questions I would include the dimension of the theologian’s relationship with God. I have no doubt that any of the theologians studied in their respective eras sought a Bible based theology. Who, as a Christian theologian, would seek to develop a non-Bible based theology? The difference is where they, he men/women, developing the theology or was the Spirit of God working through the theologian in developing a theology in order to reveal His will and works to the church? How could we answer such a question since such a relationship lies beyond the sensory perception of man? Only the unfolding of the theologians influence would provide evidence and even the apostate theology could still be used by God for the building of the church as He reveals Himself to those who seek Him. In asking if elements are compatible we are trying to seek the intentions and relationship of the theologian under study with our own relationship with God that affects our theology when we read the Bible. This intimacy with scripture . . . with Christ may indeed be unique to each and every soul. So what may be Bible based theology to one man or woman may be heresy to another. So what hope do we have for clarity? Perhaps clarity in defining Bible based theology is not the answer. Perhaps it is the intimacy with God that is the foundation for our hope. If we abandon the quest for definition of Bible based theology as a monolithic objective we may find a living, dynamic reality not based on human reason and understanding. We may find we receive the Mind of Christ that is not bound by human reason but answers to mysteries that defy human axiomatic development.

In regards to Adventist theology's relevance I would say that any theology is irrelevant because once theology is defined it is human and dead. If theology is more than a process but itself a revelation in real time then relevance is in the theologian's dialogue with the world as a prophet of God in the hope that all may too become prophets of Him. If Adventist theology is to become relevant it may need to cease defining and begin revealing, but not by the mind of man but by the Mind of Christ.

If theology is in dialogue with science on the basis of a defined system founded on human reason then it is just as prone to failure as science if science continues to disregard the revelations within its own community. Both science and religion have found barriers of understanding that defy reason. When human reason is the source of axioms then the entire system is compromised. If, however, the source of science and theology ideas is God then hypotheses in both camps may find greater understanding; again not by the mind of man but by the Mind of Christ. Where do these ideas that are postulated which drive the innovations of science come from? Are all deductively inspired? No, on the contrary they come from man's creativity. Is that creativity from man or are some from God? How can one know? As science receives innovation by reason and perhaps by divine inspiration so does theology. If a science-theology dialogue has its source of innovation from God rather than man how much could be revealed?