An Interaction Model of Theology and Science.

Still a major challenge exists for the constructive conversations between theology and science: Can theology and science be genuinely interactive, each offering something of intellectual value to the other, or is the only role for theology that of critically integrating the results of science into its own conceptual sphere? In order to answer this key question, let me suggest a new diagram which makes more explicit not only the ways in which science can influence theology but also the ways in which theology has been, and can now more explicitly be, an influence on science (see Figure 3). In one sense I am merely summarizing what has already been discussed by Barbour, Murphy, Clayton and many others. In another sense I am offering a constructive proposal which could make the ‘theology and science’ interaction much more explicit and, even more importantly, help us assess its true value to both communities.

The diagram consists of eight ways in which science might influence theology and theology, science. More ways could, and probably should, be added upon further reflection. Individual theologians or scientists typically use one path in particular, often without acknowledging the existence of the other paths. Some shift between them depending on the topic being addressed. My suggestion, though, is to consider what looking at the set of paths as a whole might tell us about the state of discussions in ‘theology and science’ and what it might suggest for improving the conversations.

The eight paths divide into two sets: those now routine ones which describe the movement from science to theology, highlighting the differences in these ways, and those more controversial ones which describe the movement from theology to science, again highlighting their differences.

Figure 3: Method of creative mutual interaction

A. From Science to Theology

As Figure 3 suggests, there are at least five ways or ‘paths’ by which the natural sciences can affect constructive theology. (I will focus on physics and cosmology for specificity, but my comments would apply to the other natural sciences as well.) In the first four, theories in physics, including the key empirical data they interpret, can act as data for theology both in a direct sense ((1) and (2)) and indirectly via philosophy ((3) and (4)). (1) Theories in physics can act directly as data which places constraints on theology. So, for example, a theological theory about divine action should not violate special relativity. (2) Theories can act directly as data either to be ‘explained’ by theology or as the basis for a theological constructive argument. Appropriate to our conference is the issue of t=0 in standard Big Bang cosmology; t=0 was often explained theologically via creation ex nihilo, as we shall see below. Note: the theological explanation should be considered a part of theology, and not as an explanation lying within the domain of science. (3) Theories in physics, after philosophical analysis, can act indirectly as data for theology. For example, the contingency of the Big Bang universe, as a philosophical claim based on science and given concrete expression by such issues as t=0, can serve within natural theology as evidence for the existence of God. Similarly an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics can function within theological anthropology as providing a precondition at the level of physics for the bodily enactment of free will. (4) Theories in physics can also act indirectly as the data for theology when they are incorporated into a fully-articulated philosophy of nature (e.g., that of Alfred North Whitehead). Finally, (5) theories in physics can function heuristically in the theological context of discovery, by providing conceptual inspiration, experiential inspiration, practical/moral inspiration, or aesthetic inspiration. So Big Bang cosmology may inspire a sense of God’s immanence in nature.

B. From Theology to Physics

To see the genuinely interactive, but asymmetrical, nature of the relations I am proposing, I will suggest at least three paths by which theology can influence science. First, though I want to stress at the outset that by “influence” I am in no way appealing to, or assuming that, theologians speak with some special kind of ‘authority,’ whether based on the bible, church dogma, magisterial pronouncements, or whatever. Quite the contrary; the overall context should be an open intellectual exchange between scholars based on mutual respect and the fallibility of hypotheses proposed by either side and based on scientific or theological evidence. Instead the case I wish to make is that such influences have occurred historically and that they continue to occur in the contemporary scientific research. It is first of all, then, a descriptive claim, but it has a mildly prescriptive component as well: I believe a more intentional exploration of such influences could be fruitful for science as they have been theology, and that they could be particularly fruitful for the ‘theology and science’ interaction. That said, let’s turn to three paths from theology to physics:

(6): As mentioned above, theological theories provide some of the philosophical assumptions which underlie scientific methodology. Historians and philosophers of science have shown in detail how the doctrine of creation ex nihilo played an important role in the rise of modern science by combining the Greek assumption of the rationality of the world with the theological assumption that the world is contingent. Together these helped give birth to the empirical method and the use of mathematics to represent natural processes. Other assumptions grounded in the ex nihilo tradition, however, were not carried over into the scientific conception of nature, including goodness and purpose. It would be interesting to reopen the question of the value of these assumptions for contemporary science. Is there a sense, for example, in which neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology includes teleonomy? Do values have a partial, evolutionary grounding in nature? Would scientific theories which incorporate such ideas be more fruitful than those which do not, or are they hopeless ventures today?

(7) Theological theories can act as sources of inspiration in the scientific ‘context of discovery’, i.e., in the construction of new scientific theories. An interesting example can be found in the variety of theologies and philosophies which, to a varying degree, apparently influenced many of the pioneers of quantum theory in the period 1900-1930, including Vedanta for Schroedinger, Spinoza for Einstein, Kierkegaard for Bohr. Another example is the subtle influence of atheism on Hoyle’s search for a ‘steady state’ cosmology. Still others include a Whiteheadian approach to science, in which experience or ‘prehension’ is posited at every level of reality, including those treated by physics and biology. Another example would be to search for temporal irreversibility in fundamental physics.

Finally (8), theological theories can lead to ‘selection rules’ within the criteria of theory choice in physics. For example, if one wants to consider a theological theory as true, then one can delineate what conditions must obtain within physics for the possibility of its being true. These conditions in turn can serve as reasons for an individual research scientist or group of colleagues to choose to pursue a particular scientific theory. The asymmetry between theology and science should now be quite apparent: theological theories do not act as data for science, placing constraints on which theories can be constructed as scientific theories do for theology. This, again, reflects the prior assumption that the sciences are structured in an epistemic hierarchy of constraints and irreducibility. It also safeguards science from any normative claims by theology. It does not, though, mean that theology cannot act to provide criteria for theory choice or inspiration for the construction of new scientific theories, as the older unidirectional relation between theology and science described (i.e., in which the sole task is the theological interpretation of scientific results).

Together these eight paths portray science and theology in a much more interactive, though still asymmetric, mode. I suggest calling this the method of creative mutual interaction. Given this method, we can begin to delineate the conditions needed for real progress in ‘theology and science’. First, scholars in each field would need to find that such an interaction was fruitful according to the criteria of their own research field. So, would scientists feel that their research was more fruitful by having engaged with theology and philosophy in these ways? Would theologians consider their research to have benefited by engaging with science? Secondly, as major changes occur in one field and these changes are taken seriously by the other, would the corresponding effect of these changes be considered fruitful by scholars in that field? Ideally, a process such as this, once set in motion, could continue indefinitely. Finally, it might be possible to compare these results with those of scientists and theologians who have chosen not to engage in mutual interaction. It might also provide a useful typology for comparing and evaluating the ways that various scholars allow science to influence their theology - and vice versa! In any case, even accomplishing the first step would be a major event of enormous significance not only for theology and for science, but I believe more generally for our contemporary culture which is frequently skeptical (even bitter) towards religion (and sometimes towards science).

Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell