STAGE‐TWO SECULARITY AND THE FUTURE OF THEOLOGY‐AND‐SCIENCE

Charles Taylor has recently provided an in‐depth exploration of secularity, with a central characteristic being the understanding that religious commitment is optional. This essay extends this analysis, considering the possibility that American society may be entering a second stage of secularity, one in which the possibility of religious commitment ceases to be an option at all for many. The possible implications of such a development are considered for the theology‐and‐science dialogue.     

Addressing Guilt within the Religious Community: Cyprian of Carthage,Reconciliation, and the Science of Emotion

This article looks at guilt, forgiveness, and “in-group” behavior using Cyprian of Carthage’s response to the third-century persecutions in dialogue with modern psychology and the science of guilt. Using Cyprian’s writings, we see the foundation of much of Christian behavior in regard to inclusion in a Christian community and the theology of penance. The broader issue of inclusivity and forgiveness connects to what evolutionary science presents on the issue regarding guilt and shame, and recent psychological work on achieving reconciliation and forgiveness between persons or in a community. By placing the Christian tradition into dialogue with these modern scientific studies, we find that a fruitful dialogue is possible which enriches both the religious and scientific communities.     

SCIENCE‐AND‐RELIGION/SPIRITUALITY/THEOLOGY DIALOGUE: WHAT FOR AND BY WHOM?

In recent years the science‐and‐religion/spirituality/theology dialogue has flourished, but the impact on the minds of the general public, on society as a whole, has been less impressive. Also, religious believers and outspoken atheists face each other without progressing toward a common understanding. The view taken here is that achieving a more marked impact of the dialogue would be beneficial for a peaceful survival of humanity. I aim to argue the why and how of that task by analyzing three possible purposes of the dialogue and their logical interdependence, suggest conceivable improvements of the quality and extent of the current efforts toward a negotiated action plan, and consider an enlargement of the circle of the actors involved. The dialogue that has been carried on between science and religion/spirituality/theology could be expanded and usefully applied to some major problems in the present world.     

Langdon Gilkey: In Memoriam

Abstract:  Langdon Gilkey died on November 19, 2004. This "Theology Update" reviews his career and examines elements in his systematic theology such as: (1) fallenness in human nature; (2) the transcendence and graciousness of God: (3) the Neo‐Orthodox agenda; (4) creation and the dialogue with science; and (4) inter‐religious dialogue. Gilkey's theological method of responding to human experience with the Christian message through a process of interpreting symbols is critically evaluated. This article is published simultaneously in Dialog and Theology and Science .     

Ecumenism Today?!

Abstract:  Prompted by the 5^th anniversary of the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification , this article argues that (1) all theology must be ecumenical; (2) marks and strategies of ecumenical theology should include differentiated consensus, ecclesia semper reformanda , merging ecumenical and inter‐religious agendas, and a tria‐logue that incorporates dialogue with science; (3) and an analysis of the challenges of globalization, postmodernism, and the invoking of the Holy Spirit for unity.     

Towards a New Religious Dialogue: Buddhism and Postmodern Theology

This paper proffers an example of a new form of religious dialogue. It subverts, rather than assumes the philosophical tradition of universal reason, upon which religious dialogue has traditionally proceeded. To this end, I call into question the frequently perceived affinity between Buddhism and radical postmodern a/theology. Whereas the latter works within a framework of oppositions inherited from the modern philosophical tradition, Buddhism is innocent of such a framework, and jettisons its 'either-or' antinomies. In this respect, I argue that there is a striking 'coincidence in outlook' between Buddhism and conservative postmodern theology, which also seeks to subvert the modern philosophical framework which it regards as being essentially secular. I suggest that this 'coincidence in outlook', which contrasts with the modern outlook, opens the way for a religious dialogue based on a mutual affirmation of difference, rather than on the distorting universalist quest for affinity at all costs.     

Introduction to the Symposium

Abstract. The articles in this section were presented at the conference “Toward a Theology of Disease” sponsored by the Zygon Center in October, 2002. This was a second conference designed to address the question of what the science‐religion dialogue could contribute to the larger discussion of the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS. The conference brought a wide range of perspectives to this question from different religious traditions. I draw them together here around the idea that Philip Hefner introduced in his keynote address: our fragmented experience of the world. The notion of fragmentation opens the door for both a recognition of several possible approaches to building a theology of disease and the pluralism of religious traditions, as well as providing a framework for integrating our full awareness that HIV/AIDS is a problem without solutions and requiring a level of humility in posing any real answers. The essays clearly suggest that the question remains perplexing but that our efforts do show that a multifaith, multidisciplinary religion‐science dialogue can contribute significantly to the larger discussion.     

The ecclesial dimension in the dialogue between theology and science

This article discusses the role of the science–religion dialogue in reaction to modern secularism, atheism and nihilism. It is argued that the only viable way for such a dialogue is along the lines of radical theological commitment implying the ecclesial dimension. It is carefully discussed as to how the ecclesial dimension can enter the dialogue. Ultimately it is concluded that the dialogue between science and theology explicates the para-eucharistic essence of science, thus reconciling it with theology in the sense of the commonality of their experiential origin in humanity made in the image of God.     

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.     

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.     

A Psychology of Religious Plurality: From Intra-Religious Dialogue to Intra-Psychic Reality

Panikkar’s (The intra-religious dialogue, 1978) classic, re-issued by Paulist Press in 1999, grapples with the theological challenges in the disciplines of comparative theology and the theology of religions through what he terms, “intra-religious dialogue.” In this psychology of religious plurality, I use works from a variety of disciplines to highlight the achievements of Panikkar’s intra-religious dialogue, as well as to critique his work in the hope of finding categories of understanding that can be profitably used to face the inter-personal crises of the contemporary world, namely religious terrorism.     

EVOLUTION AND THEODICY: HOW (NOT) TO DO SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

This article uses Christopher Southgate's work and engagement with other scholars on the topic of evolutionary theodicy as a case study in the dialogue of science and Christian theology. A typology is outlined of ways in which the voices of science and the Christian tradition may be related in a science–theology dialogue, and examples of each position on the typology are given from the literature on evolution and natural evil. The main focus is on Southgate's evolutionary theodicy and the alternative proposal by Neil Messer. By bringing these two accounts into dialogue, some key methodological issues are brought into focus, enabling some conclusions to be drawn about the range and limits of fruitful methodological possibilities for dialogues between science and Christian theology.     

Lutheran perspectives on interfaith relations: Theological trajectories of study processes in the Lutheran communion

The global Lutheran communion has been engaged in theological reflection on interreligious relations for several decades. In the 1960s, the Lutheran World Federation embarked on theologically reflecting on its relations to the Jewish people. This led to a critical assessment of Luther's writings on Jews. 1984, the LWF established a desk to engage theologically with religious pluralism. Starting off from a theology of religions' approach the engagement of the global communion has become more contextual, dialogical, and collaborative over the years. This has led to a dialogical public theology which affirms dialogue and theology as sisters in a critical‐constructive engagement with one's own and other communities. Raising epistemological and theological questions in dialogue in view of religious actors' public accountability can help to prevent faith from mutating into ideology or manifesting itself as idolatry.     

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Asian Contextual Theology in relation to Minjung and Prajna of Inter‐being

Abstract: Dietrich Bonhoeffer remains an influential figure in inspiring Asian contextual theology of minjung (the poor). In addition to political reading of minjung, a Buddhist wisdom (prajna) offers a basis for understanding of religious dimension of minjung. However, there has been no discussion about Bonhoeffer's legacy of theology after Auschwitz in critical dialogue with Asian contextual theology.     

JOHN POLKINGHORNE AND BERNARD LONERGAN ON THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF THEOLOGY

On the basis of his acquaintance with theoretical elementary particle physics, and following the lead of Thomas Torrance, John Polkinghorne maintains that the data upon which a science is based, and the method by which it treats those data, must respect the idiosyncratic nature of the object with which the science is concerned. Polkinghorne calls this the “accommodation” (or “conformity”) of a discipline to its object. The question then arises: What should we expect religious experience and theological method to be like if they are accommodated to the idiosyncratic nature of God? Polkinghorne's methodological program is typical of postcritical positions in the theology‐science dialogue in holding that the fiduciary element in theological method is simply a species of the fiduciary element that is a de facto part of all knowing—in other words, theological method does not differ in fundamental kind from the methods of the natural sciences. But this program may contain the seeds of an alienation of theological method from the transcendence of God similar to the double self‐alienation of theology described by Michael Buckley in At the Origins of Modern Atheism. I contend that something like Bernard Lonergan's position on how the method of faith seeking understanding is related to the methods of the natural sciences is exactly the sort of thing that one should expect on the supposition of Polkinghorne's principle of accommodation, at least if the God who is the object of theological science is transcendent. The way in which the divine differs from all other objects ought to be disclosed or reflected in religious experience and theological method. Polkinghorne charts the course for an accommodated theology, but it seems to be Lonergan who is more intent on following it.     

METHODOLOGY IN SCIENCE AND RELIGION: A REPLY TO CRITICS

Debates about methodology have been central to the emergence of the “field of science of religion.” Two questions that have motivated scholars in that field over the past half century: “is it theoretically justifiable to bring scientific and religious beliefs into dialogue?” and “can theology be rational in the same way as science?” This article responds to commentary on Against Methodology: Recent Debates on Rationality and Theology, a book which critically examines three major methodologists of recent years: Nancey Murphy, Alister McGrath, and J. Wentzel van Huyssteen. Themes raised in the commentary include the status of realism and truth in science, the unity of science, the adequacy of the term “critical realism,” proper ways of seeking legitimacy for an academic discipline, and new directions for the field of science and religion.     

Theology: Reduction or Autonomy?

Issues of the nature and task of theology remain important to the science-theology dialogue. This paper lays out a framework for understanding the nature of theology in relation to the other sciences. In particular, I argue that the primary question remains one of autonomy and reduction. If theology is a genuine academic discipline, then it should be an autonomous field with its own subject matter and norms. Wolfhart Pannenberg argues that theology is the science of God, but I suggest that theology be more broadly understood as the science of meaning. If we recognize this, the modes of interaction between theology and the other sciences becomes clearer.     

Science and Religion: Ten Models of War,Truce, and Partnership

Public discourse today continues to propagate the simplistic idea that science and religion are engaged in a hopelessly unwinnable war. This is misleading. Science and religion interact at so many different junctures and in so many different ways that any simple generalization misguides us. This essay provides an updated inventory of ten popular conceptual models for relating science and theology, when theology is understood as rational reflection on religion. Four influential models assume that a war is taking place: (1) scientism; (2) scientific imperialism; (3) theological authoritarianism; and (4) the evolution controversy. Six additional preferred models assume a truce or even more, a partnership: (5) the Two Books; (6) the Two Languages; (7) ethical alliance; (8) dialogue accompanied by creative mutual interaction; (9) naturalism; and (10) theology of nature. Special attention will be given to creative mutual interaction within a framework of a theology of nature.     

THE RELEVANCE OF EMERGENCE THEORY IN THE SCIENCE–RELIGION DIALOGUE

In this article, I call into question the relevance of emergence theories as presently used by thinkers in the science–religion discussion. Specifically, I discuss theories of emergence that have been used by both religious naturalists and proponents of panentheism. I argue for the following conclusions: (1) If we take the background theory to be metaphysical realism, then there seems to be no positive connection between the reality of emergent properties and the validity of providing reality with a religious interpretation, though one could perhaps construe an argument for the positive ontological status of emergence as a negative case for a religious worldview. (2) To be considered more plausible, religious naturalism should interpret religious discourse from the perspective of pragmatic realism. (3) Panentheistic models of divine causality are unable to avoid ontological dualism. (4) It is not obvious that emergent phenomena and/or properties are nonreducible in the ontological sense of the terms; indeed, the tension between weak and strong emergence makes it difficult for the emergentist to make ontological judgments. My general conclusion is that the concept of emergence has little metaphysical significance in the dialogue between science and theology.