A Scientist’s Perspective on Science?Engaged Theology

On the face of it, a psychologist is an odd choice for representative science; as psychologists, our scientific credentials are oft-disparaged, sometimes even by ourselves, only half-jokingly. But it turns out that work with which this particular cadre theologians has found meet to engage fits mostly within my disciplinary remit. Truly, in at least way, not grandparents’ science-and-religion, focused was on physical and biological sciences. Instead, these have taken their new sources research cognitive, affective, social sciences such things episodic memory, emotions, evolution cooperation conflict. The diversity theological subject matter covered special issue also welcome change from what Perry Leidenhag rightly identify “usual suspects” like existence God, immaterial soul, divine action. It notion engagement piques interest here. These want do something some theories or discoveries, use them fashion philosophical end. way imagine science be source theology—rather than authority over theology—and specifically experience Wesley’s famous quadrilateral. trouble experience, reason, tradition, scripture never been co-equal partners, each can serve well source, depending norms Christian community question. In practice, runt epistemological litter. This perhaps because personal thought too subjective, variable incommensurable person person; might feature inspiration, but justification. However, note, presents different kind is, principle—like scripture, tradition—available public scrutiny. Absent fantastical mind-reading technology, we will access one another’s experiences revelation, can, training, check fossil record see moons Jupiter solve Einstein field equations. Given its best provides, more authoritative they let on? Perhaps return medieval metaphor two books Methodism’s innovation Anglicanism’s three-legged stool. To sure, always require interpretation, so does desire interpret assumes sense authoritative. Christians typically bother interpreting Bhagavad Gita Tao Te Ching constructive work; texts say makes no substantive difference doctrine. relationship between doctrine contents Bible complicated, former would look quite if simply imagined latter away. discoveries theories—that therefore descriptions explanations natural world—is bound complicated too, comparison suggests evaluative criterion. There little game I play when reading alleges science-engaged theology: away mentioned work, try makes. helps me ascertain whether playing merely superficial role. am looking premises make conclusions valid arguments, or—fittingly enough—it hypothesized observations theories. very fussy about how much should theology, nor precisely made. constrains possibilities; provides empirical evidence adjudicates dispute; exacerbates dissolves challenge various ways difference. For example, claims theory discovery “consistent with” position weak interesting. Equally uninteresting any whiff old preacher’s trick saying, after recounting anodyne anecdote, “and doesn’t rather remind us Jesus?” That bad preaching otherwise. If approached facts interpreted, then reasonable criterion identifying engagement. there other senses could source. contemporary Methodism, “vivifies” revealed illumined confirmed reason. pretend know verbs means United Methodist Church, vivification mind. One plausible, reductive, rhetorical pedagogical role theology. We dangerously close poorly-executed homiletical strategy above, all lost. Examples concept easier understand; arguably analogies Trinity intended function. St Augustine’s psychological Trinity; indeed, presupposes human beings made God’s image mind, separates non-human animals. why Book IX De Trinitate begins exposition before commencing search images nature, motivated expectation “our feeble mind gaze upon [them] familiarly easily.” another difference, easy idea understand. prejudice, disinclined consider substantive, either. How present offerings fare? expected, mixed bag. Cockayne Salter’s project better described psychology religion either theology theology-engaged science. They argue exegetical grounds commands “remember” Jewish liturgy call mere recollection facts, re-living participation past events. metaphysics participation—including sacramental participation—is indeed topic great interest, Davison testify.11 Andrew Davison, Participation God: A Study Doctrine Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019). “something [that] going during Communion” focus, distinguish primary “act remembrance” itself, cognitive phenomenon. words “re-living,” “participation,” “actualization,” most obviously “time travel” used metaphorically here, thinnest possible analogical sense. words, hypothesizing processes involved certain liturgical acts, just pleasing qua psychologist, get less mileage it. instances science-inspired substantively informed Visala tries persuade care free mentioning moral corrupting influence scepticism; providing impetus He interested recent attempts replicate original Vohs Schooler (2008) study failed,22 Thomas Nadelhoffer, Jason Shepard, Damien L. Crone, Jim AC Everett, Brian D. Earp Neil Levy. “Does Encouraging Belief Determinism Increase Cheating? Reconsidering Value Believing Free Will,” Cognition 203 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104342. sufficiently-powered studies correlation beliefs behavior.33 Crone “Are Will Believers Nicer People? (Four Studies Suggest Not),” Social Psychological Personality Science 10, no. 5 (2019): 612-19. Sollereder’s essay description She argues importance her approach theodicy part referring key premise cognitive-behavioral therapy, cope pain suffering. What clear shaped own attempt compassionate theodicy. book Why Suffering?44 Bethany N. Sollereder, Suffering? Pick Your Own Theological Expedition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021). reader greater agency traditional works avoids vivid violence commonly works, she choices were behavioral therapeutic based introspection experiences. cite specific depictions God carry emotional resonances, unclear impacted too. Does she, avoid judge altogether? so, exclusion metaphors undermine aims provide reader? Most contributions recognizably levels both across articles. cases, superfluous: point compellingly without reference research. Ritchie Tanton refer religious experiences, lessons draw research—like labile, anthropomorphize gods, immersive, exceptional powerful—are pre-scientific scientists now theorize posit mechanisms irrelevant Ritchie’s Tanton’s main purposes. need neuroplasticity tell labile; seeks explain so. certainly neuroscience “suggest” “immersive, powerful,” neuroscientific often produce small, fickle, unreliable findings. Indeed—as shall later—the needs yet exist, affect Similarly, embodied cognition prone idolatrous anthropomorphic conceptions God; Xenophanes (d. 475 BCE) noticed long ago. Divine accommodation poses risks idolatry thoughts thoughts; were, accommodation. conceptualization hypothesis dilemma beyond Aquinas’s version problem, he case. brings “into sharper focus,” into territory. Another recurring missing defective bridge seems think messiness folk intuitions problem compatibilists, why—either general especially case—should argument? rumour argument universal assent explicit standard objections handled. same question posed Pedersen, who damned those sins whose predispositions evolved prior emergence volition. Why—either morally significant all? assessing praise- blameworthiness actions, compatibilists libertarians alike action predisposition toward sinful act determined question, cause among others including proximal factors character sinner distal ones laws constants physics. Even Robert Kane’s self-forming actions partly caused antecedent conditions non-volitional sufficiently (i.e., determined) them. Massmann’s slightly different. Like Augustine, Massmann searching creation, time giving reciprocity. him activities where expects find clearest image. looks economic activity, except broad trends forms life indicate grammar turn informs redemption. trouble, Pedersen shown, nature deeply problematic. Indeed, himself recognizes “dark” versions reciprocity nature. case, difference; outside species, claim creation. stops making Machiavellian reciprocity—not mention war violence—from being grammar. Finally, clumsily mismatches analysis. Zahl’s rejoinder critics individualist soteriologies, refers function emotions guilt, socially- relationally-oriented. hit mark. criticism soteriologies assume that, say, guilt experienced relationally, relevant contexts. proper motivate repair relationships, properly. collective particularly meaningful unless collectively And again, interpersonal relationships necessarily come expense communal concerns tells aforementioned Zahl wants claims, generalizations available poor substitutes. lesson here sciences, ceteris paribus informative phenomena highly context-dependent. philosophy theology; arguments first principles rarely go far. exists theoretical level Leidenhag’s essay. retrieve theologically-meaningful teleology against neo-Darwinian sceptics appealing organisms autopoietic self-organising systems. acknowledges, multiple “teleology”; theologically significant, threatened evolutionary theory, reconstructed autopoiesis. autopoiesis posits Alister McGrath proposes, directionality complexity. Furthermore, while supply alternative reductionist lower-level entities genes goals, remains gap account organism’s telos terms law theologian useful thinking good life. biology cannot specificity, limited indeed; conception thin use. Whelan’s different: unsure mismatch appropriate analysis be. Whelan compelling case agroecology principle, details “concretize” Catholic teaching environment, highlights centrality death health ecosystems, happens lesson—in sanitized form—of opening number Disney’s Lion King. Darwin Tennyson; surely modern offer. Consider Aldo Leopold’s example wolves deer. finding inform teaching. Nor agroecological specificity generally instructive not, nineteenth-century world sufficient concretizing job. Davison’s escaped critical scrutiny, attention. Many complaints disanalogies. Terms “memory,” “teleology,” “belief,” “reciprocity” essays, moves may justified, stretched concepts By “remember,” psychologists people’s heads; command this, excess import. “teleology” give true functions purposes accounts fall short theorists want, up Pace Ritchie, definition word “belief”; term bandied around incautiously. inconveniently common sciences: mea culpa, maxima culpa. old-school metaphysically dissatisfying enterprise. All underdetermined data; fortiori metaphysical, theological, ones. Neither quantum mechanics complexity gave whole lot heavy-lifting commitments. expanding universe neither creatio ex nihilo, did take defaced imago Dei. beginning glean inseparable promising signs occasions reached deliver. left approximations fit purpose. Or engaged high-level concepts—embodiment, autopoiesis—that exist somewhere border philosophy, far ordinary business almost nothing published pages Nature worth engaging with; intolerable anyone seeking people ask give. Perhaps, instead systems, questions self-organization differs animal, entails flourish. private ever relationally-significant, translate broader communities. citing naturalness ideas, saying prayers really increase faith, speaking tongues feel closer Jesus. answering, answers questions, yet. plenty room two-way scientists. harvest plentiful; don’t workers.