I've never understood the fuss about science and theology. I don't see why either needs to compromise. We need to understand the methodologies of both and apply them with respect for each other.
At one time, it was suggested they are two independent magisteria. I don't see the need to go this extreme. If we argue the two methodologies are entirely independent then we are saying neither is relevant to the other. It is better to understand neither has authority over the other and to encourage conversation between them. They are different worldviews that complement and critique each other. They cannot be independent.
Their methodologies, properly understood, do not necessarily undermine each other. Theologians sometimes do not appreciate scientific method. In principle, any scientific theory is open to modification. This cannot mean there are no certainties. Richard Dawkins makes the case that theories, such as the theory of evolution, are not in any way provisional. I think he is right. Any future changes to our understanding of evolution will build upon modern evolutionary theory, rather like the way Einstein's theories of relatively built upon Newton's work, in the sense that Newton's theories became special cases of a theories with wider applicability.
Equally, some scientists think theology is about what we believe. It seems the object of theology is to produce some formula to explain the truth about the universe. I can't deny some theologies attempt to do this. But it is a profoundly mistaken approach. Complete certainty cannot be achieved through theology any more than it can through scientific theory. The aim of theology is not to bolster belief but to challenge it, by explaining the hope that is within us.
My aim as a theologian, therefore, is not to demonstrate the truth of claims about God. It can't be done. We cannot possibly know the entirety of God's relationship with humanity. My aim is more modest but I still maintain, important.
I aim to demonstrate it is not irrational to be a Christian. Those atheists who use science as a means to critique Christians, maintain faith is somehow irrational. We do not have objective information but an imaginary friend in God or Jesus. My aim is not proof but to demonstrate our faith should be taken seriously and treated with respect.
I do not want to use the findings of science to bolster faith because science itself develops to different rules and so what supports a faith view today might undermine it tomorrow. Rather the two need to be engaged in dialogue. My hope is the lives of all involved will be enriched through respectful dialogue.
Comments