At the Carnegie Science Center there is a
display featuring an actor who plays Charles Darwin. You can click on a variety of questions
concerning his theories of biological evolution. One of those questions is “How do religions
respond to your theories?” Darwin’s
response is, “No organized religion accepts my theories.” I assume Darwin is speaking from his perspective in the 19th century. He even mentions an Episcopalian Minister who was disciplined by his tradition for considering evolution. "Isn't that ridiculous?" asked Darwin.
The landscaped has changed some in the 21st century. Biological evolution is certainly not embraced by all Christian traditions (take the CreationMuseum as an example), but thanks to developments in biblical studies and scientific literacy many traditions have come to accept it. Is it really the role of religious institutions to “accept” or “reject” scientific theories and discoveries? Well that’s a bit more complicated isn’t it? Theology is done by people who, whether they admit it or not, have some scientific assumptions. We could go on to list all of the other assumptions: social, psychological, historical, political, etc. This is why the accounts of creation from Genesis speak nonchalantly about the water in the dome of the sky which also contained the moon and the sun. The author(s) were simply framing their theology within the scientific perspective of their day. It’s what we do! It is the role of science to observe the universe and help explain how it all works. It is the task of theology to help understand what that says about the universe, God, and us humans. We may enjoy an entire post on a helpful way to read the creation accounts. Let’s save it; we can’t have all the fun in one day can we?
The landscaped has changed some in the 21st century. Biological evolution is certainly not embraced by all Christian traditions (take the CreationMuseum as an example), but thanks to developments in biblical studies and scientific literacy many traditions have come to accept it. Is it really the role of religious institutions to “accept” or “reject” scientific theories and discoveries? Well that’s a bit more complicated isn’t it? Theology is done by people who, whether they admit it or not, have some scientific assumptions. We could go on to list all of the other assumptions: social, psychological, historical, political, etc. This is why the accounts of creation from Genesis speak nonchalantly about the water in the dome of the sky which also contained the moon and the sun. The author(s) were simply framing their theology within the scientific perspective of their day. It’s what we do! It is the role of science to observe the universe and help explain how it all works. It is the task of theology to help understand what that says about the universe, God, and us humans. We may enjoy an entire post on a helpful way to read the creation accounts. Let’s save it; we can’t have all the fun in one day can we?
"Do you mean the bible isn’t true? Do you mean that science
is more important than faith? Don’t you
believe in divine revelation?" Woah woah, calm down. Let’s not jump to rash
conclusions. Rash conclusions should be
reserved for the previous post “The Bridge.”
Take as an example the Catholic Church’s careful positioning
to evolution and faith. Pius XII in 1950
said that evolution and Christian faith are not incongruent (Humani Generis). In 1996 John Paul II explained that
scientific truth would not contradict religious truth. There have been some qualifications between
the truth of evolution and the evolutionism mindset. These are important distinctions which we can
explore later, but for now I’m trying to build up to something! Here is what I think is remarkable: The Church insists that scientists should do their jobs, and do them well. The more science
discovers about the universe the more science will discover about God. To reference Augustine, all truth is God’s
truth. I should mention my good friend who, the more he studies science, the more he is in awe of God. You go
scientists! I commend you to your vocations.
Theologians, and religious institutions, I also commend you to your vocations. The issue between science and theology is not an issue of belief, values, or quality of data (empirical vs emotional). Both are disciplines that have a place in the academy. It is simply that the sources and scope of their observation and reflection are different. Scientists out there may weigh in on this, but I would suggest that the source for scientific observation is nothing less that the universe, and also theories about the universe. The scope of science is to observe, hypothesis, categorize, and make connections that lead to new observation.
Theology also deals with the universe, but in a different way. David Tracy speaks of religious language as "limit language." We have probably all had a limit experience. It was an experience so complex, so profound, that it reaches the very limits of our own articulation. The first views from the Hubble Telescope may have evoked such a sense of wonder that the scientists may have proclaimed, "awesome." But "awesome" only eluded to the grandeur of the experience. It is there at the limit experience of the universe that theology resides. I suggest (taking leads from Tracy) that the sources for theology are the universe, human experience, and religious narratives (which in most cases are considered Divine Revelation). The scope of theology is reflection on the human experience of the divine--reflection on significance, meaning, truth, and activity.
What I hope to have shown is that theology and science are not at odds, but rather have two different tasks. A religious person can do great science, and a scientific person can do great theology. You will also notice that theology is dependent on science. Wait a minute, what? I'll say it again, theology is dependent on science. If the universe and the human experience of the universe is a source for theology (as I argued it was) than theology needs to know what science says about the universe! How can I reflect on the meaning of the universe if I have an inaccurate understanding of the universe? The inverse is not the case. Science does not depend on theology as a source. Theological reflection is not a source for science. Do not misunderstand, scientists may be motivated by faith, persevere because of faith, and find meaning through their work. Scientific method, ethics, and funding may be informed by theology, but science is not observation on theological reflection. The universe is a source.
Theologians, and religious institutions, I also commend you to your vocations. The issue between science and theology is not an issue of belief, values, or quality of data (empirical vs emotional). Both are disciplines that have a place in the academy. It is simply that the sources and scope of their observation and reflection are different. Scientists out there may weigh in on this, but I would suggest that the source for scientific observation is nothing less that the universe, and also theories about the universe. The scope of science is to observe, hypothesis, categorize, and make connections that lead to new observation.
Theology also deals with the universe, but in a different way. David Tracy speaks of religious language as "limit language." We have probably all had a limit experience. It was an experience so complex, so profound, that it reaches the very limits of our own articulation. The first views from the Hubble Telescope may have evoked such a sense of wonder that the scientists may have proclaimed, "awesome." But "awesome" only eluded to the grandeur of the experience. It is there at the limit experience of the universe that theology resides. I suggest (taking leads from Tracy) that the sources for theology are the universe, human experience, and religious narratives (which in most cases are considered Divine Revelation). The scope of theology is reflection on the human experience of the divine--reflection on significance, meaning, truth, and activity.
What I hope to have shown is that theology and science are not at odds, but rather have two different tasks. A religious person can do great science, and a scientific person can do great theology. You will also notice that theology is dependent on science. Wait a minute, what? I'll say it again, theology is dependent on science. If the universe and the human experience of the universe is a source for theology (as I argued it was) than theology needs to know what science says about the universe! How can I reflect on the meaning of the universe if I have an inaccurate understanding of the universe? The inverse is not the case. Science does not depend on theology as a source. Theological reflection is not a source for science. Do not misunderstand, scientists may be motivated by faith, persevere because of faith, and find meaning through their work. Scientific method, ethics, and funding may be informed by theology, but science is not observation on theological reflection. The universe is a source.
Christians need Charles Darwin because Charles Darwin was a scientist! His theories, though incomplete and in need of further elaboration, have led to a greater understanding of species. Darwin helped to uncover further knowledge about the universe, and human origins. Christians need Darwin because the science that has continued because of his work is a source for theological reflection.
If biological evolution is the accepted explanation of the origin of life, how does this inform theology? We have finally arrived at an interesting book by Denis Edwards called Ecology at the Heart of Faith. Edwards is an Ecological Ethicist (to break it down: Ecology-the study of interactions between organic systems. You see how it’s interested in the environment? Ethics- The study of right living. Thanks for bearing with my oversimplifications). In his book, he took seriously contemporary scientific discovery and applied it to themes of systematic theology, only to later bring it back to ecology. This will warrant its own post, so for now I leave you with questions to ponder (and of course to comment upon):
If biological evolution is the accepted explanation of the origin of life, how does this inform theology? We have finally arrived at an interesting book by Denis Edwards called Ecology at the Heart of Faith. Edwards is an Ecological Ethicist (to break it down: Ecology-the study of interactions between organic systems. You see how it’s interested in the environment? Ethics- The study of right living. Thanks for bearing with my oversimplifications). In his book, he took seriously contemporary scientific discovery and applied it to themes of systematic theology, only to later bring it back to ecology. This will warrant its own post, so for now I leave you with questions to ponder (and of course to comment upon):
1.
What does the Big Bang say about our
interconnectedness to the entire universe?
2.
If humans emerged from biological evolution,
what does it say about humanity and our origins? How about the Image of God? Or for those who like a challenge: the
Incarnation? What?!
3.
How does the current cosmology (theory about the
universe) inform an eschatology (theology about the end of all things)?
4.
Lastly, what are some limitations of these
theories in informing theology? I hope
you enjoy!
No comments:
Post a Comment