IN PRAISE OF FOLLY? THEOLOGY AND THE UNIVERSITY

To suppose the possibility of dialogue between theology and science is to suppose that theology is an intellectually worthy partner to engage in dialogue with science. The status of theology as a discipline, however, remains contested, one sign of which is the absence of theology from the university. I argue that a healthy theology‐science dialogue would benefit from the presence of theology as an academic discipline in the university. Theology and theologians would benefit from the much closer contact with university disciplines, including the sciences. The university and the sciences would benefit from the presence of theology, providing a department of ultimate concern, where big questions may be asked and ideologies critiqued. A university theology would need to meet standards of academic integrity.     

Immigration,Exodus, and Exile: Academic Theology and Higher Education

Recently scholars of religion have disputed whether theology properly belongs to the study of religion in institutions of higher education (McCutcheon 1997a, 1997b; Cady 1998; Brown and Cady forthcoming). At the same time, religious authorities have increasingly censored the work of theologians in seminaries and church‐related schools; witness the loyalty oaths required of scholars in religious studies programs at some Protestant denominationally related colleges and the Catholic Church's recent stand expressed by Ex Cordae Ecclessiae. Both scholars who would exclude theology as a field from the study of religion and ecclesiastical authorities who would censor it fail to acknowledge the emergence of academic theology as a field that does not depend on institutional religious affiliation or personal confession of faith, a field that by its nature does depend for its continued existence on academic freedom. This article suggests a working definition of academic theology and then poses three questions: What might studying different kinds of theology academically teach us about religion? How, properly speaking, is theology as performed in a non‐sectarian environment now a nomad wandering within the formal study of religion? What are the implications of this shift in status for how academic theologians teach? The article is a revision of the inaugural address, by the same title, given for the Margaret W. Harmon professorship in Christian Theology and Culture at Macalester College, Saint Paul, Minnesota, November 18, 1999.     

Pragmatic Theology and the Natural Sciences at the Intersection of Human Interests

This paper elicits a twentieth-century American story that is deeply rooted in the legacy of American philosophical pragmatism, its impact on a particular school, and its reconstruction of American theology. The paper focuses on three generations of American theologians, and it centers on how these theologians reconstruct theology in light of the science of their day and how they maintain a true plurality of insights about human life in the world. The pragmatic theologian regards the creative exchange between theology and natural science as an opportunity for renewing our understanding of religious life and appreciating the various commitments of scientists and theologians as they meet at the juncture of human interests. The first voice is that of the early Chicago School of Theology represented by Shailer Mathews, Gerald Birney Smith, and George Burman Foster. The second voice is that of Henry Nelson Wieman, a second-generation theologian at Chicago. The final theologian discussed is James M. Gustafson, former Professor of Theological Ethics at Chicago.     

EXPLANATION, SOCIAL SCIENCE, AND THE STUDY OF RELIGION: A RESPONSE TO SEGAL WITH COMMENT ON THE ZYGON EXCHANGE

Abstract. In the issue of Zygon devoted to methodological reflection on the boundaries between natural science, social science, and theology (September 1990), Edward 0. Wilson pointed to the hierarchical tension between disciplines and antidisciplines. Working within this framework, Robert Segal outlined several “misconceptions of social science” held by religionists who fear it reduces, or “explains away” their subject. Philip Gorski, Nancey Murphy, and Kenneth Vaux suggested greater harmony but left Segal's challenge largely unaddressed. Religionists, says Segal, distrust social science because they think it ignores “the believer's point of view,” denies the “irreducibility” of religion, prefers materialist and mechanical explanations, and denies religious truth. Do religionists really claim all, or just some of these things? Are some perhaps not misconceptions, but accurate understandings of a real conflict? This article contends that distinctions need to be made; that at most, the humanistic assumptions of religionists compete with only one form of social science–reductionism; and further, that where conflict does arise, it is scientifically beneficial. Religionists differ from theologians, who argue from confessional premises, but the two are allied in opposing reductionism. Precisely because it is genuine, the debate with reductionist social science promises to advance understanding.     

HIGH SCIENCE AND NATURAL SCIENCES: GREEK THEOLOGIANS AND THE SCIENCE AND RELIGION INTERACTIONS (1832–1910)

What was science for the Orthodox Greek theologian of the nineteenth century? How did it feature in his (theologians were all men at the time) own work? This article is an attempt to describe the science and religion interactions by placing Greek Orthodox theologians of the nineteenth century in the center of the historical narrative, rather than treat them as occasional deuteragonists in the scientists’ historiography. The picture that emerges is far more complicated than one of antagonism, indifference, conflict, or coexistence. Greek theologians saw themselves as scientists and treated theology as a positive, rational science. They developed strategies to delineate their disciplinary borders and safeguard their identity as expert scholars by harnessing their university and academic credentials. For that reason, they had to invoke famous German and other Western theologians, while ensuring that they were seen as true defenders of Orthodox Christianity. The idea of science was an integral part of this achievement.     

A DEFENSE OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION: REFLECTIONS ON PETER HARRISON'S “AFTER SCIENCE AND RELIGION” PROJECT

Recent scholars have called into question the categories “science” and “religion” because they bring metaphysical and theological assumptions that theologians should find problematic. The critique of the categories “science” and “religion” has above all been associated with Peter Harrison and his influential argument in The Territories of Science and Religion (2015). This article evaluates the philosophical conclusions that Harrison draws from his antiessentialist philosophy in the two volumes associated with his “After Science and Religion Project.” I argue that Harrison's project is too skeptical toward the categories “science” and “religion” and places too much emphasis on naturalism being incompatible with Christian theology. One can accept the lessons of antiessentialism—above all, how meanings of terms shift over time—and still use the terms “science” and “religion” in responsible ways. This article defends the basic impulse of most scholars in science and religion who promote dialogue and argues for a more moderate reading of the lesson of Territories.     

Embodied Knowing, Embodied Theology: What Happened to the Body?

As part of a larger project on human bodies and theological knowledge, this paper is a preliminary investigation into how biology and physicality shape human knowing. It asks whether, in the frequent use of the phrase embodied knowing or embodied theology, religion scholars have paid sufficient attention to actual bodies. It argues that there has been a lapse of attention to physical dimensions of bodies in the unreflective employment of such phrases, ironically among practical and pastoral theologians who have strong interest in understanding how theology operates on the ground. The paper traces evolving interest in embodiment across several disciplines, including theology, before exploring what might be learned from recent research on evolution, biology, and bodies in anthropology and the biological sciences.     

Kuhn's Structural Revolutions and the Development of Christian Doctrine: A Systematic Discussion

In 1845, John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote a treatise describing the development of Christian doctrine. Since then, his ideas have been challenged, in particular by Protestant theologians who have argued that the development of doctrine does not progress in either a smooth or linear path. In the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has challenged the idea that science is purely driven by objective and rational motives. In this paper, Kuhn's ideas are applied to the development of Christian doctrine. Drawing from historical examples, it is shown that Kuhn's contextual approach to describe the progress of science aids in understanding the way doctrines themselves develop. Although this is not the first time that theology and Kuhn have conversed, the notion of doctrinal development being systematically and methodically shown to have parallels with Kuhn's ideas is novel. Ultimately, this work is another important step in building interdisciplinary links between science and theology.     

Three Questions about Minding God

Abstract. Gregory Peterson's Minding God does an excellent job of introducing the cognitive sciences to the general reader and drawing preliminary connections between these disciplines and some of the loci of theology. The book less successfully articulates how the cognitive sciences should impact the future of theology. In this article I pose three questions: (1) What semantics is presupposed in relating the languages of theology and the cognitive sciences? How do the truth conditions of these disparate disciplines relate? (2) What precisely does theology gain from what is central to cognitive science: the emphasis on information processing, inner representation, and the computer model of the mind? What exactly does cognitive science offer to theology beyond the now‐standard rejection of Cartesian dualism, the affirmation of an embodied mind, and the repudiation of reduction? (3) What can the cognitive sciences offer in tackling crucial questions in the theology‐science discussion such as divine agency and divine causation? Finally, I point to a possible begging of the question in the claim that cognitive science relates to theology because theology deals with meaning and purpose, and a particular interpretation of cognitive science grants more meaning and purpose to human beings than antecedent post‐Cartesian positions in the philosophy of mind.     

Theology and the Crisis in Darwinism

In the past decade, the scientific challenges to “orthodox Darwinism” have multiplied rapidly, such that it is no longer unthinkable that natural selection’s days as a universal law are numbered. But if this is the case, theologians have their work cut out for them. If Darwin’s law proves to be historically and scientifically false, a new horizon appears for the discourse between theology and natural science. What will orthodox Christianity make of the crisis in Darwinism? This article, which follows the methodological imperative of “Radical Orthodoxy”, employs Aquinas and contemporary “post‐Darwinian” science to trace a space for a theological discourse beyond both natural selection and natural theology.     

Theologians Wanted! Some Reflections about the Creation/Evolution Debate

I plead here in favor of more frequent recourse to and input from theologians, in debates about the creationist crisis, not only in order to develop new aspects of theology concerning creation, but also to undertake a real theological diagnosis of this crisis. The task of theology is not simply to write catechisms or Summae, but it is much more to do with incompleteness, light and shade. Theologians must confront themselves with reality—like secular theology at the seventeenth century, but also natural theologies—without forgetting to pose limits: absolute power of God, reality of the evil, scientific discoveries that are negative for theology, etc. Theology is a work of revelation (apocalypse).     

Chinese exploration of Orthodox theology: a critical review

ABSTRACT

In spite of the small number of Orthodox Christians in China, Chinese publications relating to Orthodox Christianity, in which many Chinese theologians from other Christian denominations or scholars without formal religious affiliation have been involved in exploring Orthodox theology, have mushroomed in recent years. It is noticeable that these explorations have been shaped not only by the renaissance of Orthodox theology in the twentieth century, but also by the Chinese context. In terms of scope, many of them are related to the Chinese context, including the relationship between Christianity and Chinese culture. In terms of depth, due to the religious backgrounds of the researchers, some of these Chinese explorations fail to integrate the theological, liturgical and spiritual dimensions of the Orthodox tradition, and exhibit difficulties in interpreting, for instance, Orthodox mystical theology. These limitations can be overcome through dialogue with contemporary Orthodox theologians.     

The Humanizing Brain: A Clinician/Pastor Response

The Humanizing Brain is an effort by theological scholars to integrate neuroscience and theological constructs into a cohesive evolutionary and developmental scheme. The primary strength is a developing dialogue between neurodevelopmental theory and process theology. The book's widest appeal should be to theologians exploring religious and spiritual manifestations in the brain and neurosciences. The relatively simplistic science may limit significant usefulness to broad neuroscientific and medical communities, although neuroscientists and sophisticated lay readers with interests and back-grounds in theology may find The Humanizing Brain quite informative and interesting.     

Psychology of Science/Theology of Science: Reaching Out or Narrowing?

Formalizing a “psychology of science” today will constrain intellectual freedom in ways more likely stultifying than liberating. We should be more improvisational in seeking ideas from academic psychology to develop a more comprehensive purview. I suggest that a psychology of science should look at systematic theology and empirical theology. Liberal theologians have long experience trying to distill from religion those structural aspects that affirm openness in a search for truth. Science, as well as religion, has its myths and rituals, but theologians are more experienced than scientists at a large mythohistorical scale. There are distortions in the extreme degree to which psychological science has traditionally emphasized empiricism, positivism, hypothesis testing, and falsifiability. I argue for less critical reduction and more creative augmentation. This could include looking outside academia at cognitive competencies of people in trades. Exaggerated parsimony is an old story. This is illustrated by the opposition to David Hartley's 1749 theory of neural oscillations. There is an inexorable “margin of uncertainty” where scientific prediction and control can never outstrip the new uses to which human beings put ideas. Facts and values interact in this margin; theology has long made a home there, but scientists sometimes have been excessive in rejecting the “naturalistic fallacy.” There is also often a degree of disingenuousness in psychology's reluctance to take subjective phenomena seriously; here there may be lessons in how empirical theology has handled subjectivity, as well as in taking an honest look at the way much of the methodology of experimental psychology incorporates subjective assessments. Feist's book is a start, but these things need more thought before codifying a psychology of science.     

Panpsychism,The Combination Problem,and Plural Collective Properties

Panpsychism claims that each fundamental entity is conscious, but then faces the problem of how such entities combine to make up our ordinary consciousness. In this paper, I show how panpsychism can avoid this so-called combination problem by taking seriously plural collective properties at the fundamental level.     

A Closer Look at the Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Western Obsession with the Medieval Muslim Theological Obsession with Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is a topic that has attracted much attention from both medieval Muslim theologians and modern Western scholars. By examining the development of the medieval Muslim Rationalist-Traditionalist discourse surrounding this issue, and Western academic discussions of that discourse, I shall attempt to explain why the issue of anthropomorphism has repeatedly dominated discussions on Islamic theology. I will also attempt to show how various associations made with Muslim Rationalism and Traditionalism have influenced Western perceptions of these movements.     

THE THEOLOGICAL DEBATE OVER HUMAN ENHANCEMENT: AN EMPIRICAL CASE STUDY OF A MEDIATING ORGANIZATION

For most theologians, theology should ultimately be used by the laity and/or the public. However, the religion and science debate has not focused on the divide between theologians and the laity. In this case study I examine the debate among theologians about human enhancement. I focus on the extent to which the structure of the debate in a “mediating organization” between the theologians and the public coincides with the structure of the debate among the theologians. I conduct a survey of participants in the organization, and find that the basic divides among the theologians are largely replicated. These results, when combined with studies of the theologians themselves and the laity, provide a more holistic understanding of the future debate about human enhancement.     

关于三大神学问题的哲学思考

灵魂是否不灭?上帝是否存在?上帝意志是否具有超必然的自由?这三个问题涉及宗教的根本基础。宗教神学家一直把上述三个问题视为神学的基本问题。一方面把它们奉为神圣的信条,不许信仰者怀疑;另一方面,也不断利用哲学和理性的形式,对之作出各式各样的证明。但是历史上的启蒙哲学家和自然科学家对之发出了公开的挑战,从哲学世界观的高度,从自然科学新成就出发,证明统一的自然界不可能有任何超自然存在。围绕三大神学问题的争论,一直是哲学与神学关系史上的中心问题,它也成了宗教哲学必须解答的重要理论问题。     

THE UNSUITABILITY OF EMERGENCE THEORY FOR PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGY: A RESPONSE TO BRADNICK AND MCCALL

In this response to David Bradnick's and Bradford McCall's defense of Amos Yong's usage of emergence theory, we defend our previous argument regarding the tension between Yong's Pentecostal commitments and the philosophical entailments of emergence theory. We clarify and extend our previous concerns in three ways. First, we explore the difficulties of construing divine action naturalistically (i.e. natural divine causation). Second, we clarify the problems of employing supervenience in theology. Third, we show why Bradnick's and McCall's advice to Yong to adopt weak emergence is theologically costly. In conclusion, it is suggested that theologians within the science and religion dialogue should not fear, but recover, the language of supernaturalism and dualism.     

Nature and Grace: Two Participations in the Thought of Jonathan Edwards

Christian theologians are increasingly interested in both ontological and soteriological forms of participation theology. Paul Gavrilyuk challenges scholars to be more precise in how these relate to each other. This article contributes to the need for further precision by engaging with the thought of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards employed both types of participation, but did not embed one within the other. Ontological participation, dubbed ‘common participation’, undergirds created nature and is a methexis in God for being. Soteriological participation, dubbed ‘special participation’, explains special grace and is a relational koinonia in the love between the Father and the Son. These two participations are complementary and facilitate a clear distinction between nature and grace.