What is Science‐Engaged Theology?

Is there a journal less likely than Modern Theology to devote special issue the natural sciences? When we were in grad school, would have said, “No and I hope they never descend that. You see, does real theology.” Real theology, thought, should always be queen of sciences. We had picked up fads our generation, one such fad was idea that whenever scientists invited theological table, then theology automatically assume subservient position. But came across Kenneth Surin’s founding editorial promised study “theology relation history culture . social sciences.”11 Surin, “Editorial,” 1, no. 1 (October 1984): 2. How did this square with rest journal’s bold vision? not able piece it together until later. What picking on, however—without quite sensing significance—was theology’s “new boldness.”22 Kathryn Tanner, “Shifts over Last Quarter Century,” 26, (January 2010): 39. That Tanner’s phrase her essay reflecting on Theology’s first twenty-five years. Tanner alone. In twenty-fifth anniversary journal, several former editors current board members recounted some version same outlook. No longer options constrained by modernity; time proclaim pox both houses—those too ready culturally accommodate those repudiate. replace tired modernity varies, depending whom you ask. For George Lindbeck, understood as cultural-linguistic grammar—because old options, which looked like opposites (experiential-expressivist cognitive-propositionalist), fact fighting side. Stanley Hauerwas, take form ecclesial practices resident alien Christians—because (Democrats Republicans), family squabbling who jurisdiction kitchen. defined whatever help young scholars combat Margaret Thatcher’s neoliberal blitzkrieg (his word)—because (Schleiermachian accommodators Barthian repudiators), embroiled civil war weapons. perhaps leading champion new boldness pages has been Radical Orthodoxy, challenges dominance sciences, their pretense neutral rationality, characteristic modernity’s eclipse theology. Given boldness” signature trademark from its inception, might think science is out place. It might, is, considers publication Peter Harrison’s Gifford Lectures, The Territories Science Religion (2015). ostensible argument debunks long-standing conflict thesis propagated John William Draper Andrew Dickson White according “Religion” “Science” are locked inevitable battle, an assumption grounded premise Bible meant read literally and, logic, Christians committed proposition God created world 6000 years ago, sun revolves around earth, so on.33 Draper, History Conflict between (1875); White, A Warfare Christendom, 2 vols. (1897). Historians long known Galileo’s Darwin’s stories more complicated caricature. Nonetheless, persists certain circles (e.g., Richard Dawkins’s Twitter account). argument, however, explores further fascinating implications for Imagine, Harrison says, hear about battle fought middle ages Israel Egypt. must false since countries exist ages.44 Harrison, (Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press, 2015), 1. If someone defends veracity these saying, “On contrary, pyramids Second Temple ruins back then,” case, because even if army attacked ruins, naming armed forces Egyptian Israeli armies profoundly misleading. So goes argument. could possibly nineteenth century at earliest, because, then, definitions distinct entities yet developed. Even battles bore similarities post-Darwin post-Christendom “Religion,” anachronism terms greatly confuses matter. offers theologians language rethink how senses, tools extending systematizing them, count legitimately source—because opposing mutually exclusive positions (e.g. Ian Barbour’s typology conflict, independence, dialogue) occupy territory. recent years, two streams thought within academic developed cues Harrison. first, mostly made senior scholars, associated major players Orthodoxy (John Milbank, Simon Oliver, Catherine Pickstock, et al.) but headed Paul Tyson, younger colleague himself. second series research grants based St Andrews. Among other endeavors, stream led creation issue, primarily junior contribute. present literature religion tends dominated three genres: genre, into relationship perennial opposition; disentangling genre sort thing another; synthetic genre. While face approaches hardly divergent, share common commitment "science" "religion" valid, trans-historical categories capture or features human culture. true religion, albeit various guises, chief lenses through interpreted, posing question relate each makes good sense. what true?55 “Introduction: After Religion?,” Religion, eds. Milbank Tyson (Cambridge: Cambridge forthcoming). Indeed, put positively, right? modern sense underdetermined far general helpful?66 says religio scientia bears close analogical Bill Cavanaugh argued ago status so-called wars religion. See T. Cavanaugh, “‘A Fire Strong Enough Consume House’: Wars Rise Nation State,” 11, 4 1995): 397-420. can conclusions incorporated iteration thought? One “we initiate much fruitful discussion begin questioning basic [Science Religion] frame delimit conversation interpret world,” Tyson’s project sets do.77 “Introduction.” words, get bottom purchase focusing narrative—i.e., recounting moments boundaries flux philosophy science? magic alchemy religion?). This promising way using continually destabilize disciplinary boundaries, highlighting ways scientific theories already engaged metaphysical debates inquiry spiritual devotion. Call approach theology-engaged science.88 “Conclusion,” idea, do, narrowly-focused questions entangled findings. call this, inversely, science-engaged Science-engaged identifies where employing presuming picture empirical world, whether consciously acknowledge not. Almost all contributors identified unacknowledged underacknowledged concept debate claims Massmann notion gift, Leidenhag purpose, Whelan order, Zahl relationality). puzzles. bringing puzzles light will move slowly critical constructive engagement relevant area research. As Alvin Plantinga writes, “The full contingencies. Therefore do merely armchairs, trying infer principles many teeth horse’s mouth; instead look.”99 Plantinga, “Methodological Naturalism?,” Origins Design 18 (1997). Online: https://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm. well serve motto issue. By invoking here, appear endorsing view “submit tribunal ‘the method.’”1010 intend least reasons. First, abandon risk collapsing religious studies. being fragile defensive, confident enough go seek learn receive. Second, scientistic waiting scraps scientists’ table assumes ideas findings easily disentangled disciplines hermetically sealed bubbles, akin different university departments sometimes separate floors building—living proximity another rarely interacting. Scientific findings, no doctrinal expression, presume require interpretation. such, third, gives impression authority Rather, sciences better conceived source alongside Scripture, tradition, reason experience. experience, type experience interpreted (like Scripture), standardized method public enquiry reason), subject falsification amendment (as kind tradition). focus usual suspects studied “Science Religion” debate—e.g., arguments existence God, reality immaterial soul, Darwinian evolution, divine action? An overreliance stock examples, archetypes, plagued intersection Christian long. line proven trap extent supplied hooks (conflict harmony nonoverlapping magisteria) upon hang narrative. Consequently, most us pains imagine examples apart relying “trans-historical categories.”1111 means must, occasion, keep grand methodological separates background. unimportant, content hand-in-hand. Oftentimes open-up roads inquiry. when leads dead end, ask types reflect methodology afterwards. Perhaps narrative emerge. Hopefully so. At least, worth finding out. addition puzzles, few aspect investigations. Where happens, surprising conformity appears. Their often driven doctrine commitments rather either philosophical insights Tanton’s use accommodation; Zahl’s excursus psychological biblical studies). Independent that, wide variety schools also represented among authors—ranging association (Davison), dialogue partners analytic (Visala), contributions Barth (Massmann) Aquinas (Whelan). collected eleven none categories. Instead, articles exemplify employ concrete debates, while acknowledging concepts, ideas, interpretations currently offered laden influences assumptions. opening sentence contributor, Davison, tone follow: “Theologians used thinking words stretch uses, widest differences, creature creator.” Davison’s article analogy, concerns concepts entangled. (In context, mean whose meanings derive multiple fields cannot fully without considering approaches.) Theologians this. example, first-year students diets dogs healthy, Unfortunately, Davison observes, every scholar gets point. scientists, need know least. computer say, “My AI system learns thinks remembers,” appreciating medieval problem univocity, equivocity, analogy? Not quite. starting He introduces understand predication, via Aquinas, Cajetan Suárez. Some distinctions only come example analogy systems add best— namely, creator. noting straddles post-Harrison streams, given origin above: past, involved Andrews projects Orthodoxy. Similar observations throughout number later concerning puts it, uses. Sometimes, order acquainted subdisciplines; expert. Vatican teaches “only bread gluten consecratable” males ordainable” does), very “bread”, “gluten”, “male” concepts: learning sacramental biology. Our asks word “remember.” theologian Joshua Cockayne psychologist Gideon Salter write, commanded remember enslavement church Jesus. ask, command obeyed, particularly alive today original events? There remember. remembrance recollection reminiscing? Moreover, group, appears occur liturgy? Using studies, introduce episodic memory, mental travel, procedural memory elucidate tradition mind. see liturgies “technologies” formation. Sarah Lane Ritchie similar insight. She begins asking, “Why people effortlessly others not, matter may desire to?”—essentially restating hiddenness, twist. Suppose, seems increasingly likely, brains malleable remains hidden variable effort practice, thus sense, amenable control. With aid working cognitive she argues coherence prayer, fasting, music liturgical acts “spiritual technologies” employed faith pursue belief. Following section Technology Humans. Here, Tobias Tanton studies accommodation. If, holds, adapts God’s actions understandable humans, humans capable understanding. Or maybe better, understand? answer embodied cognition, paradigm field science, conceptualization hypothesis, suggests symbols sensorimotor states. uses Athanasius’ De Incarnatione argue make prima facie idolatrous. His provides viable points, avoids accommodation ex post facto espoused Justin Martyr, deployed circumvent apparent contradictions effect, “Oh, said tells wrong idea.” sounds “retconning”—the literary device retroactive continuity science-fiction. argues, give comprehensive account incarnation epistemologically. Simeon central Tanton’s, except his target justification. article, he against “individualism vs. communalism trope” prevalent Pauline points relationality—according cognition—does work trope imagines it. systematic engaging Susan Eastman’s Person, draw historical-critical New Testament psychology. Aku Visala takes somewhat section. starts topic free works sources show “the will” fact, assemblage ill-advisedly, bundled together. carefully, Augustine Jesse Couenhoven, those, Martin Luther, handle carefully. clearly Visala’s essays engagements areas settle provide clear-cut answers, reveal dichotomies clumsy assumptions reinforce deepen dogmatic trenches. Bethany Sollereder catalogues theodicy: classical, practical, anti-theodical. resilience pain, calls “compassionate theodicy.” pay sufficient attention person anti-theodicists Terrence Tilley, Dorothee Sölle classical theodicy dalliance leisured philosophers write just-so silence voices sufferers. final grouping called Plants Animals. Mikael biological teleology, derided adherents “Religion Science” myth, concept. organismic biology—a researchers shy away teleology—Leidenhag contends ought affirm “intrinsic teleology.” crucial Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox doctrines. Alexander Massmann’s brings grace. previously played part enriching perspectives rooted Anglo-Catholic enlivening reciprocal gift-giving cultural anthropology. extends drawing animal behavior. agree salvation gift place? Should sola gratia taken in, sixteenth-century Wittenberg Geneva? Despite important nonetheless significant beings non-human animals engage exchanges. From perspective, something creation. Yet impose logic onto tug-of-war pulling own Theologians, Protestant helpful discussion, Protestantism contribution larger reciprocity gift. Matthew insects. trained agroecology, incorporates governing ecosystems, operate law does. Catholic teaching, course, draws develops parallels agroecology teaching basis. leaves puzzle. Like teaching’s appeals natural-ecological tilling keeping. overlooks entanglement appeal practical agriculture. consequence fails deal adequately constitutive role death order. Hoping us, puzzle, turns control, agroecological management insect herbivores (“pests”), agricultural Cakchiquel Guatemalan highlands. Daniel Pedersen’s book end Davison. noted fits somewhere contrast, forceful, challenge. primatologists right relatively well-established (i.e., evolved dispositions), undermine justice damnation? Pedersen Along way, refers introduced article. coda Jonathan Jong, Carmody Grey set outsiders’ replies history, respectively. Since influential thinking, interested concordant image voice Jong—an experimental psychologist, originally Malaysia—whose engages traditionally topics mortality). Anglican priest. Jong criticized misusing associations, him scrutinize articles. Grey, Roman examined life asked hold accountable embrace boldness.” writing introduction, consequently rereading submissions, noticed four recurring hallmarks successful falling pitfalls identified. First above all, Religion,” so-called, biology liturgy, ecology stewardship, etc. specific theory study, better. Tanton, propose “have simply question—what mean?—he needs bit science. authors largely consider products subdisciplines (imperfectly partially) garner Third, including inquiries upfront Above, intentionally “puzzles.” Everyone knows solve puzzle—or fail aspire similarly stating goal vaguely imprecisely “doing exemplifies theodicy. poses specific, generative, questions: “Is logical contradiction omnipotence goodness presence suffering?” “What best parent grieve lost child?” taking them shows sound differs ways. Trying (helping parent) appropriate (clarifying possible contradiction), vice versa, results confusion. To sure, lots legitimate forms matters crucially, ensuring success conditions match mode Fourth, half particular terms, “entangled concepts.” describing thus, point semantic overlap, once saw promoted book’s cover: Recent quantum physics relationality key! key term, “relationality,” self-evident univocal. nor overreact mechanics priori nothing another. continue meaning therefore neither assumed same, operated sanitized separation instead, intermingle interact, requiring careful investigation meanings. am sure done promises; “culture” “natural sciences.” these. More importantly, “arts” “sciences” course advancing sundry topics. re-read develop clearer profile looks Theology. future.1212 James J. Buckley, “Ruminations Theology,” (December 2009): 23. seem presumptuous claim future convinced grounds follows marks important, modest, doing boldness—which hallmark inception.1313 thanks Theology, Jim Fodor support, Jon Kelly Micah Perry assistance.