|
First to recap: Over the past four decades, the predominant
school of thought among scholars in theology and science, particularly of those
coming from a liberal theological perspective, has been critical realism. The
term stood for a packaged deal whose elements were brought together from a
variety of various philosophical contexts. They include : 1) the ubiquitous role and complex epistemic structure of
metaphor in all language (against literalism and expressivism); 2) a Hempelian
hypothetico-deductive methodology embedded in a contextualist/explanatory and
historicist/competitive framework (against positivism, empiricism and
instrumentalism); 3) a hierarchy of disciplines with both constraints and
autonomy (against epistemic reductionism); 4) a commitment to referentiality,
whether of individual terms or of entire theories (against some aspects of the
sociology of knowledge), and with it a theory of truth combining
correspondence, coherence, and pragmatism; and yet 5) a genuine division over
metaphysical issues, whose most representative alternatives are emergent monism
versus panexperientialism. Each of these elements, of course, raised complex
issues that were highly debated. Still there was sufficient agreement for these
elements to form what can be called the consensus view in theology and
science since the 1960's. For these scholars, critical realism was seen as
providing the crucial bridge between theology and science, making possible
real dialogue and growing interaction.
During this period, however, each of these elements has come
under criticism. Some scholars working in theology and science have stressed
the difficulties facing a realist interpretation of specific scientific
theories, such as quantum mechanics,as well as key theological terms, such as the concept of God.Some have acknowledged the diversity of realist positions taken by philosophersas well as the continuing challenge to realism by the sociology of knowledgeSome have given increased attention to the diversity of models of rationality
and their relative appropriateness for science and religionand the importance of differences, as well as similarities, between theology
and science from the standpoint of pragmatism.Some have moved to a non-foundationalist (and in this specific sense a
post-modernist) epistemology, either keeping correspondence and referentialityor shifting to a pragmatic theory of truth.Some working with an all-embracing philosophical system, such as Whiteadian
metaphysics, have developed a broad set of theological positions in light of
science while
others who make more limited use of metaphysics have developed equally broad
theological arguments.Other positions have emerged at increasing distances from the consensus view.
For some, a post-modernist view offers an attractive approach, drawing on
Continental and / or Anglo-American sources, and for growing numbers, feminist
critiques of science are crucial.Some have abandoned realism as a whole while still finding elements of the
preceeding still helpful in relating science and religion.
On balance, though, critical realism continues to be defended
and deployed widely in theology and science, and it continues to be presupposed
by both most working scientists, by many theologians, and in much of the public
discourse about both science and religion. On balance I believe it to be of
enduring importance, both for its crucial role in the historical developments
of the past decades and as a point of departure for future research. Whatever
directions are taken in the future, it constitutes the key methodological
contribution that the first generation gave to make discourse regarding
theology and science possible today.
Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell
|
