I am currently reading Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning by Nancey Murphy, a book that I have been wanting to read for years. I am through the first quarter of the book and so far I am led to believe that this may be one of those books. You know, an absolutely foundational book that makes you ask yourself, “Why has it taken me so long to find this out?” or exclaim after reading it, “I can’t imagine life without it.”
So, it looks like a good book.
For a summary, one need look no further than the preface where Murphy describes her motivations for writing the book.
The philosopher of science must answer the question “In what does the rationality of science consist?” Few besides my teacher Feyerabend would question that science is rational. The philosophy of religion, on the other hand, must in these days provide an apologia for the very possibility of religious knowledge.
Philosophy of science has made great strides in this generation by careful study of science itself – as opposed to arm-chair investigation of the ‘logic’ of science. It seemed to me, therefore, that philosophers of religion needed an equally thorough knowledge of the cognitive aspects of religion…
… I saw that Scripture, history, and the church’s ongoing encounters with God in community life and worship could be the data for a scientific theology. Theology itself (doctrine) could be accounted theories in a theological “research program.” The analysis of the relations between data and theory, and criteria for acceptance of theories, would come from the philosophy of science of the late Imre Lakatos. (p xi-xii)
Let me make it clear from the beginning that I do not believe that for theology to be intellectually acceptable or a worthwhile endeavor that it need to be scientific. Too often, disciplines outside of traditional science want to label their fields as scientific or use scientific terminology or methodology to make their disciplines seem more relevant in today’s scientific climate. I don’t think this is necessary because I believe all disciplines have their own intrinsic value, but then again I teach at a Christian liberal arts college so that is to be expected. However, since I am a scientist and thus think and structure my ideas in the ways of science, Murphy’s approach is very inviting to me, personally.
Should her approach be inviting to more than just me? Should she have a broader audience? I think so, but you tell me. Do you agree with the following paragraph? Do you think what she’s stating is a valid and current problem for theology?
So, to sum up, the theologian’s options, as Stout sees them, are: (1) ignore Hume, with the consequence that theology becomes irrelevant to the segment of the culture that has been affected by Enlightenment thought; or (2) take Hume’s work for granted and either: (a) find some other vindication for theology (moral, aesthetic, existential), with the consequence that theology loses its cognitive content and becomes uninteresting; or (b) redefine terms so that theology has its own peculiar form of ‘rationality’, with the consequence that theology becomes unintelligible to those who operate with the same standard epistemology. (p 14)
Pingback: A New-to-Me Science and Theology Blogger | Unsettled Christianity
Hey Justin — I think Murphy’s 2(b) is a mistaken category. She seems to assume that an Enlightenment definition of “rationality” is the only normative one, and that a “theological” definition would be aberrant. In fact, things are the other way around. There was a long historical process beginning with high scholasticism (Ockham, Scotus, et al), running through the Reformation, and leading up through Hume and Kant, in which “rationality” was re-defined in terms of a sort of logical empiricism. Previously in the West, “rationality” was defined in terms of the proper ordering of thought in relation to God, which encompasses all of reality — including, but not limited to, that which is empirically knowable.
For a great intellectual history of all this, see Brad S. Gregory, The Unintended Reformation, or any variety of works by Charles Taylor or Alasdair MacIntyre.
And so I think the necessary thing is to recover a robustly Christian epistemology, which is capable of describing all of reality, including the reality of biological evolution, in the grammar of faith seeking understanding. Accepting the supposedly rationalistic but in fact nihilistic ground rules of Hume, Kant et al. would only exacerbate the war between “faith” and “science.”
But, she is using the definition of rationality that she believes the modern epistemology to require. Sure, she could redefine it, but she’s trying to converse on the same level, no?
It’s a mistake simply to try to converse “on the same level” because that gives the game away at the start. The definition of “rationality” is precisely what is in dispute. Methodological naturalism — necessary and proper in ordinary scientific practice — becomes ontological naturalism. If the ground rules require the acceptance of ontological naturalism, there is no possibility of harmony between faith and science. The only possible outcome is the swallowing of faith by “science,” Richard Dawkins-style.
I understand why Murphy et al.’s approach to divine action is attractive to many people who have disappointed by Young Earth Creationists, ID’ists, and shallow pop evangelical apologists like Lee Stroebel — believe me, I do! I’ve been there and done that! These folks latch on to a little bit of philosophy and build a fortress that seems to be impregnable by empirical reality. A very bad thing.
But that is because they each in their own way are also trying to play by the same ground rules as rationalistic scientism. They lack any sort of metaphysical depth. It’s a terrible shame, because the ancient Christian intellectual tradition is thick with beautiful resources for a metaphysically deep understanding of creation that has nothing at all to fear from any empirical truth, including the truth of biological evolution, but that can also robustly challenge reductionistic scientism. This is what we need to recapture.
Have you seen Conor Cunningham’s book Darwin’s Pious Idea? It’s very demanding and written in a bit of an intense style, admittedly, but highly recommended (Conor is my doctoral advisor).
Dopderbeck,
I’m confused by what you mean by “giving away the game at the start.” This is an internal struggle for me. I’m not playing in a game with anyone.
I also wonder how you can have harmony without speaking on the same level. But at least I will admit that I am one who lacks metaphysical death!
Ok, “game” is a bad choice of words. It’s not a game for me either — it has cost me a great deal personally (you have no idea how much) and has impelled me to work on a doctorate in philosophical theology. Not something I take lightly.
What I mean is that “harmony” can’t come at the price of intellectual and spiritual integrity. There is a tendency when one has been betrayed by the lies of YECism and the shallowness of ID’ist apologetics and evangelical polemics — believe me, I’ve been there! — to give up on the notion that there is anything distinctive about the Christian faith for an account of how we know things. We are tempted to make “science” and the “scientific method” the final measuring rod of all truth claims.
With that epistemological approach, LaPlace’s quip right — there is no place for God. Not only that, there is no place for beauty or ethics or humanity or will or law or truth.
But Christianity claims that reality begins and ends with the Triune God revealed in Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, this means none of what we call “science” can fully be understood apart from Christ. There can be “harmony” between faith and science in that faith in Christ gives us the expectation that the created universe is intelligible, meaningful, and worthy of careful study, and that everything true is coherently true in Christ who holds all things together. But there can’t be “harmony” with a positivistic scientism that wants to reduce everything to mere matter. Materialism is opposed to any sort of Christian faith and has to be patiently resisted.
I agree that theology need not be scientific per se; informed by science, of course, but not scientific itself. On this point I share the sentiment of John Polkinghorne, who has said that theology (and personal experience) can only be understood with a qualitative language, relying on things such as story and symbol. Such things are distinct from the quantitative language relied on in mathematics and the natural sciences.
But Polkinghorne and I would both agree that symbol is prominent in science as well. I don’t know if Polkinghorne would come out and say his theology is scientific in methodology, although he admits the context is heavily informed by science. I would say his is a scientific methodology as well, however, or at least as scientific as the one Murphy proposes. Polkinghorne would certainly say that theology is not equal to science though as he is an opponent of integration of the two. Muddy waters, I think…
Good points. I was really just trying to get at how, while both science and religion should base their conclusions on what makes the most sense of experience, that doesn’t warrant their being treated in the exact same way. We can’t run empirical experiments with scientific tools to determine whether the Holy Spirit was present in someone’s prayer, or try and describe God purely in terms of mathematical theorems, etc.
David,
I would enjoy hearing the personal story off the record some time. Perhaps we can swap stories when you’re back for a reunion or alumni event?
I think you’re taking the efforts of Murphy and others to their logical extreme and thus, too far. There are benefits to engaging directly with science, but they are not going to result in THE sole theology. Agreed. But in the theological areas where there is clear overlap, I don’t see the harm in seeking harmony as they are doing. In fact, I only see positives. It is not all of theology, but theology of nature where discussion can be had. Perhaps the philosophical methods can be applied to ideas like the Trinity and the Resurrection, but the scientific methods cannot.