Alan Padgett, a philosopher and theologian who teaches systematic theology at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, has come out with a new book in the field of science and theology entitled Science and the Study of God. Padgett brings his significant philosophical understanding and theological acumen, along with a keen interest in the sciences, to bear on this developing and changing field of study. Recent years have seen an eruption in this new and interdisciplinary field, as an inheritance of warfare (or the rumors of warfare) is quickly being eclipsed by highly constructive and productive cooperation.
Padgett's contribution, which follows on earlier work that has focused on the nature of time both theologically and with regard to science, takes the nature of the relationship between theology and science as disciplines head on. In this book, Padgett proposes a collegial metaphor for the relationship between these two areas of study, based on what he calls the mutuality model.
Ian Barbour has been a pioneer in the field of science and religion studies, and he has set up very useful categories for analyzing the relationship between these fields. His four categories are independence, conflict, dialogue, and integration. Padgett sets his own proposal within this framework as falling between the dialogue and integration loci, sharing elements of both, but fully encompassing neither. Having sought to locate within a larger framework Padgett's work, lets now turn to the arguments themselves.
Padgett finds the area of common ground between science and theology to be one of worldview. This means that both disciplines have their own scope, but that these areas of concern overlap at the level of worldview. It is at this larger, philosophical point of interaction that a relationship can be fruitfully explored. And the relationship he seeks to advocate is the mutuality model.
Padgett does an admirable job of laying out his proposed model for understanding the relationship between theology and science. As he makes clear, philosophy is an important player in this discussion, because philosophy helps us understand both science and theology, as well as provides the terms on which we can understand their relationship. But he is also very deliberate about asserting the limitation of philosophy. He Makes this clear through a discussion of process theology which he calls "Putting Reason in Its Place." In this chapter, he very clearly asserts that while philosophy has an important and indespensable role to play in this discussion, it should not eclipse its role. This discussion is especially important in this field because of the prevalence of process thought in the current dialogue between science and theology in many circles and among many of the most prominent participants in this dialogue. Padgett makes very clear from the outset that revelation plays a decisive role in theology. No philosophical system, be it process thought or marxism, should become the determinate of theological truth. He writes, "the theologian can and must defend revelation, and the theology based on it, from philosophical preemption" (91). He further elaborates on his understanding of necessary role of revelation to the dialogue by asserting that a generic faith will not do for a dialogue partner with theology. For while it may seem useful to boil religion down to its lowest common denominators, and use that broad picture to interact with science, we have robbed theology of its religious significance in the process. He also makes an argument against givine natural theology too high a place in our thought. In short, he argues for the normativity of the Bible in theology, and specifically in the particular theology which dialogues with science. The common stream which unifies these important critiques and assertions is Padgett's understanding of human reason. While he has just spent a chapter arguing for (dialectic) realism, he also asserts the essential importance of not having too high a view of human reason. He concludes, "human reason must be cleansed and redeemed by faith for a meaningful knowledge of God to progress" (102). Thus, we must be weary of our own philosophical constructions, or our own "independent" understandings of God from nature, and must subject them to God's revelation.
Padgett then moves to an extremely insightful chapter in which he defends an understanding of "theology as worship." He outlines three publics for theology, the first being God, the second being the church, and the third being an interested hearer. This illustrates clearly for us the orientation he seeks in his theology, which is to be an orientation toward God. Theology is not purely a rational endeavor which aims at understanding, but instead at its most fundamental level is oriented toward the worship and praise of God. This has important implications for his understanding of the relationship between science and theology, because it acknowledges that theology, while it is very interested in what can be learned from the sciences, it is interested in these things from a perspective of, and finally in service of, faith.
Padgett then turns to an important section of his book, where he looks at two examples of his mutuality model. The first is the relationship of theology to thermodynamics and time, in which he looks at how our theologically-grounded worldview can shape our scientific understandings of the world. The second, a look at the social-scientific inquiry into the incarnation, looks at how sciences can influence theology.
I will briefly outline the two arguments, because of their importance for understanding how this model works. With regard to time and thermodynamics, Padgett review current understandings of the workings of the world in physics, particularly thermodynamics. He concludes this discussion with the assertion that there are currently two competing theories of the nature of time in these scientific circles, one in which time is essentially symetrical, in which it can go either "forward" or "backward." The second theory is that time is one-directional, that it only moves forward. Scientifically, he asserts, there is no strong evidence toward one model verses the other in thermodynamics. But, here is a place where theology can influence our theory choice. Theology holds to a unidirectional understanding of time, for theology holds that there is a beginning, a middle, and an end to history, and this understanding permeates our understandings of creation, the fall, salvation, eschatology, and Christ. Thus, in this case, theology can help us make a theory-choice between these two competing models of thermodynamics. This is a case where theology has influenced our scientific understandings, not by "invading" the territory of science and asserting a "scientific" truth that is foreign to science, but instead by aiding in our understandings of science, and our movement from science to broader worldview understandings.
The second example Padgett gives is of the study of the incarnation by social science, particularly history. He makes clear at the outset that, like the particulars of the thermodynamic understandings of time, the theological assertion that there is an incarnation is not verifiable by science. Just as we are not "testing" the linear nature of time by theology, we are not "testing" the reality of the incarnation by history. But, we can have a useful interaction between the disciplines. In this case, he looks at the role of history in theory-choice with regard to the incarnation. He lays out especially an Ebionite understanding of Jesus as simply a great teacher verses an orthodox understanding of Jesus as God. Historically, we would expect that one who was God would be worshiped during and shortly after his life on earth, that he would gather a large group of followers who would come after him, that his followers would regard him as God, and that there would likely be reliable reports that he had performed "supernatural" miracles. None of these things would be the case with the "Ebionite" proposal. In short, a look at history gives evidence toward the orthodox understanding as opposed to the Ebionite one. Now, this particular scenario has set up rather strong opposites, in an essentially best case scenario for using history. But it does illustrate the way we can use history on a limited basis to influence our choice of theories in theology. This understanding reflects Padgett's underlying understanding of history. He writes, "History as a scientific investigation explains events and explores meanings that human beings bring about. It does not and cannot explore what God brings about: that is contrary to the focus and methods of historical investigation" (144). He uses the classic illustration of primary and secondary causes, and asserts that history (and the other sciences), by their very nature, investigate secondary causes. Primary causes do not fall within their realm of exploration.
These two examples help us to see just how he envisions this paradigm for understanding this dialogue to work. And they prove to be very lucid exercises in relating the disciplines. They demonstrate for us the potential for fruitful dialogue between these fields of endeavor which have for too long been seen as bitter enemies. His philosophical insight, as well as his clear theological thinking (coupled with evident devotion), and his strong scientific understanding make this a welcome book in this growing field. Oh that scientists, theologians, and interested people everywhere could see the clear path he has begun to lay out.
He writes in the conclusion, "No religious believer should fear the truth, from any academic discipline." We can and should enter this dialogue with confidence. And when this dialogue is entered under the right conditions, such as those Padgett outlines here, there is potential for a very fruitful and enduring discourse between these fields of study which will make each partner the better for it.
Padgett's ending must be reproduced here:
To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
Be praise and honor and glory and power,
For ever and ever.
And the four living creatures said, "Amen." |
