At 05:18 PM 9/29/2006, James Mahaffy wrote:
>Folks,
>
>My paleontology students were asked to read Ted Davis article on
>concordism and Bethany, one of my students had a question. I
>suggested she give it to me and I would post it to the ASA list. I
>will blind copy this to her and the class so their e-mails won't be
>out there in a public web archive. Paleo class you can see any
>responses by looking at the archives of the ASA list at url:
>http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/
>
>Bethany has not read as much as some of you have but she is asking a
>serious question so I will post it and see if you have any response
>
>Ted Davis, in his article on historical views of the origins of the
>earth, especially in regards to Christian concordism, cites Francis
>Bacon writing about Scripture and Creation, and warning that people
>be careful to "not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings
>together." I wonder if anyone on the ASA list has an opinion on
>"wisely" mingling the teachings of Scripture and Creation. Is there
>a way to discuss God's Creation in a way that is scientifically
>sound and also Scripturally sound? -- James Mahaffy
@ Here's a review of a book which will probably answer Bethany's
question in the affirmative:
A Review of A Scientific Theology vol. 1, Nature by Alister McGrath
http://www.geocities.com/developingtheology/ScThRevNature.html
McGrath: Nature
Here we take a look at the first volume in a three volume work on
"Scientific Theology" by a leading evangelical theologian Alister
McGrath. This first volume is of special interest because it starts
out by laying the groundwork for this "Scientific Theology" by
exploring the relationship between Science and Theology. McGrath
lays out his understanding of how these two disciplines are to be
related to one another, asserting the paradigm of ancilla theologiae
is the best way to understand the relationship of science to
theology. McGrath then moves on to the first major section of his
Scientific Theology, with a discussion of the concept of "nature" and
what this means for the current dialogue.
Alister McGrath is one of the leading evangelical theologians
today. He is a professor of theology at Oxford University, where he
also received his education. He has published numerous books,
including an Introduction to Christian Theology that is widely used
as an introductory text book, and a number of more scholarly works,
ranging in topic from the concept of justification in the history of
theology to studies of Luther's Theology of the Cross. He has also
published a textbook on science and theology. Yet, it is not only
his theological credentials which legitimate his work on "Scientific
Theology." He also received a Ph.D. in molecular biology from
Oxford, and has conducted research in that area. Thus, in McGrath,
we find an author emminently trained in both the fields of science
and of theology. With this in mind, we shall now turn to his
understanding of how to relate the two disciplines.
McGrath begins with a chapter on the "Legitimacy of a
Scientific Theology." McGrath lays out his agenda this way, "A
scientific theology will treat the working assumptions and methods of
the natural sciences as offering a supportive and illuminative role
for the Christian theological enterprise, both assisting theological
reflection andidentifiying and allowing exploitation of apologetic
possibilities and strategies" (p. 7). In this discussion, he beings
by laying out his assertion that science should act as ancilla
theologiae. By this, he means that we are to acknolwedge the
engagement between the disciplines, and allow science to play a
supportive role to theology, as it acts as a dialogue partner. He
first looks at the history of the concept of ancilla theologiae,
noting that various philosophies (natural or otherwise) have acted in
this capacit throughout the history of Christianity. This started
with the Hellenistic world of the first centuries, and especially
Platonism (seen in the writings of Augustine especially). In the
Middle Ages, Aristotelianism took the place of Platonism, as an
important resource for theology. McGrath notes that this history
shows the possibility of having an ancilla theologiae, but it also
demonstrates the danger as well as the promise. It has been possible
for each of these different dialogue partners to take on too much
authority with regard to theology. Thus, McGrath emphasizes that the
discipline which plays this ancillary role must act in a ministerial,
and not magisterial capacity in relation to theology. It may be a
fruitful source of ideas with helpful convergences, and ask important
questions, but at the same time, the dialogue partner must not be
placed in authority over theology. He illustrates this by asserting,
"The natural sciences neither prove nor disprove Christianity; thay
are, however, a most profitable dialogue partner" (8).
A second important section of the prolegomena of his scientific
theology is McGrath's assertion that not only is dialogue possible in
the way he as asserted, but this dialogue is an "ontological
imperitive." He asserts very simply, "A positive working
relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences is
demanded by the Christian understanding of the nature of reality
itself - an understanding which is grounded in the doctrine of
creation" (21). For McGrath, dialogue between science and theology
is not just part of an intellectual fad, but is instead fundamental
to the way Christians understand the world. Because the world is
God's creation, we are required to engage it. Science must not be
considered outside the scope of theology!
Important to understanding McGrath's approach is to look at his
understanding of the two disciplines of science and theology. He
first looks at theology, noting the constant presence of new trends,
and asserts that one must be constantly in dialogue with historical
theology, constantly conversing with voices from the past. This
means remaining within the "great theological tradition" but always
listening with a critical ear and an eye to scripture. His
understanding of science is also important, for he asserts, "Science
is to be seen as an 'unended quest', whose findings may be up to date
but are never final" (47). Thus, it is primarily methodological
questions which will occupy McGrath in his scientific theology.
In the body of the second main part of his scientific theology,
his discussion of "nature," McGrath looks first at the history of the
idea "nature," and shows how it has varied throughout historical
thought, from Plato and Aristotle to the mechanistic view of
nature. He concludes, "A complex set of social mediations lies
between the observer and 'nature'. Nature is not, and cannot be a
'thing-in-itself'..." (110). "Nature" itself is a free human
construction, as opposed to a readily available source of objective
reality. It is an interpreted concept, and must be understood as
such, since it is partly shaped by "socially mediated factors." This
conclusion leads McGrath to assert, "[Nature] is therefore a category
which offers little promise as a basis - or even a dialogue partner -
for a scientific theology" (133). In the place of "nature" as a
category, McGrath places "creation" as the category which provides
this dialogue partner, and it is to his understanding of creation
that we now turn.
McGrath gives careful and comprehensive attention to the
doctrine of creation. He looks at the biblical concepts which feed
the doctrine, as well as the development of the doctrine of creation
ex nihilo. He also gives careful discussion to a number of classical
formulations of the doctrine, including Aquinas, Calvin and Barth,
and looks at the relationship of deism to an understanding of
creation, rounding out a good historical discussion of this doctrine.
McGrath's biblical and historical study of the doctrine of
creation then leads into a discussion of what he sees to be the
implications of this doctrine. The first major implication which he
sees is that a Christian understanding of creation "leads directly to
the conclusion that there is a correspondence - the degree of which
requires clarification - between the works of God and the being of
God" (193). This point also leads to the related point that there is
a congruence between our minds and the universe which allows
scientific inquiry to be possible, and further that there is a
possibility of theological reflection that is based on the fact that
humans are created in the imago dei. Thus, by virtue of this created
imago, the human mind is able and adequate to undertake theological
reflection on God. Among his other reflections on the implications
of the doctrine of creation comes the understanding that beauty does
belong to the created world, by virtue of its being a
creation. This, among his other assertions, leads him to conclude,
"A strong doctrine of creation (such as that associated with
Christianity) leads to the expectation of a fundmental convergence of
truth and beauty in the investigation and explanation of the world,
precisely on account of the grounding of that world in the nature of
God" (240).
The final area which McGrath treats in his discussion of
"nature" in this volume is natural theology. After taking a
(characteristically) historical look at natural theology and its
development, he returns to an earlier theme, and asserts that natural
theology is fundamentally problematic due to the understanding of
"nature" as an interpreted category as discussed above. Thus,
different foundations have been used, such as the observable world,
human rationality or human culture, upon which to base this "natural"
theology. McGrath then turns to a more positive statement of the
role of natural theology. Basing his discussion on the biblical
basis for natural theology, and paying close attention to Barth's
objections, he seeks to put forward just how natural theology can be
understood to be legitimate. In his discussion of the place of
natural theology within a scientific theology, he asserts that there
is resonance, but not proof, to be found in a natural theology. "
'Nature' is not a self-sufficient category, capable of bearing the
epistemological weight which an autonomous natural theology
demands. In its legitimate and defensible form, natural theology is
to be viewed as a legitimate and proper theological exercise to be
conducted within the scipe of a revealed knowledge of God, rather
than as an autonomous discipline outside its bounds" (294). Putting
his point in a more concise fashion, he writes, "Nature has to be
seen in a certain way before it has revelatory potential"
(294). McGrath's understanding of natural theology puts a capstone
on his discussion of nature, as he draws together the strands he has
woven, and draws out the implications of the problematic status of
"nature" as a category, applying instead the category of "creation,"
and heeding is own methodological assertion that science should play
an ancillary role to theology, as he subordinates natural theology to
(or at least places it within the context of) revealed theology.
In this first volume of his scientific theology, McGrath has
truly given us a monumental work in the field. I applaud first of
all his careful attention to scripture, as he deliberately places
himself within the evangelical tradition. His work is not one of
speculation, nor is he constantly testing the currents of modern
trends. Instead, in dialogue with both historical and contemporary
views, always atuned to the biblical foundation of theology, he gives
us a very balanced and irenic statement of how science and theology
should be related, and further, how nature is to be understood as
creation. I look forward to reading futher volumes, based on the
strong methodological foundation he has layed for himself in his
prolegomena. I believe he is bound for success because of the course
he has layed out for himself. Cheif among the strengths I believe
his proposal contains is his repeated assertion that science is never
to have "magisterial" authority over theology. Even as we assert a
certain unity of truth or overlap between the two disciplines, we
must understand, as McGrath does, that in a fundamental way, God's
self-revelation in Jesus Christ, as attested in the scripture through
the ministry of the Holy Spirit, must always take precedent over our
provisional (even if current) formulations and understandings of the
world. At the same time, though, I believe McGrath is right to
assert that there is an imperative for dialogue between the two
disciplines which comes from a Christian doctrine of creation, for as
we assert that God created the heavens and the earth, we are
affirming the value and revelatory possibilities of that creation.
I think one way in which this work has proved especially
helpful for me in navigating the minefield that is today's dialogue
between science and theology is that McGrath has gotten down to the
root of the relationship, by focusing on the methodologies of the two
disciplines, and basing his understandings there, as opposed to
getting bogged down in an attempt to demonstrate the relationship
from the way a certain scientific theory or a certain doctrine has
been formulated (this is not to say that he hasn't looked at either
of these areas, nor that these are not legitimate undertakings, but
that he has layed a firm foundation before setting out in this endeavor).
My final conclusion is a strong recommendation of this
book. It is at times dense, and certainly proves a formidable
undertaking, but his writing is very clear, and his conclusions are
at once careful and strong. I look forward to further volumes, as
well as to the anticipated Scientific Dogmatics which may at some
point follow up this current trilogy with a systematic statement of
theology based on the methodological blueprint he has layed forth
~ Janice
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 1 17:43:09 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 17:43:09 EDT