E. Theological and Philosophical Implications for Science: An Interaction Model of Theology and Science
A major challenge continues to be whether science and
theology be genuinely interactive in a creative and constructive
sense, each offering something of intellectual value to the other although in
different ways, or is the theological role one of mere hermeneutics?
Interactions have occurred in the rise of modern science with both creative and
distortive consequences, as feminists, historians and sociologists of knowledge
are showing (see Parts IIIA and F); moreover, diverse external factors
continue to play at least a peripheral role in theory formation and theory
choice in contemporary science. But can the influence of external factors be constructive and beneficial? I
wish to focus on theology in this role and explore the possibility that it can,
at least in some cases, lead to creative differences in future scientific
research which both science would find beneficial as judged by it own,
independent standards, such as empirical adequacy, scope, fruitfulness, and so
on.
My proposal combines the holist account of the hierarchy of
the sciences offered by Peacocke and Murphy with Barbours analogy between
theological and scientific methodologies (see Part IB)I also suggest we view theology as interacting with each discipline in the
hierarchy, and not just with ethics, ecology, or the humanities in general.
Thus theology can interact with physics, and with biology (and thus indirectly
with physics as it is layered into biology), and so on. For simplicity here I
will focus on physics, cosmology and theology. The result is striking: as
Murphy has suggested,we can identify a number of distinct paths between theology and physics and cosmology
(See Figure 1). Some moving upwards as constraints by science on theology,
others moving downwards as suggestive input and influences from theology to
science, I believe
that each represents what has actually happened both historically and in recent
and ongoing research, though often unacknowledged. By reflecting on all eight
explicitly and together, however, we might discern something about the
interaction as a whole which we have not appreciated by taking each path
separately as we have in the past. The overall perspective might also tell us
something about theology and science in the future.
Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell
|
