A second set of questions from the discussion of Faith and Wisdom in Science at All Saints Ecclesall
resonated with each other somehow:
- If you are advocating a Theology of Science, what about a Science of Theology – what does that look like?
- In a Christian theology, might the tension between Order and Chaos arise from the Fall?
- If a pastor’s lot is the ‘cure of souls’ might not the scientist’s be ‘cure of the Earth’?
As I say in the book, I thnk that the right (if rather radical) way to express the relationship between science and theology is that they are ‘of each other’. This is an uttlery different way of framing the relationship from the classical alternatives of Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, Integration due orignally to Ian Barbour (who is, of course, largely responsible for getting the whole field of ‘science and religion’ going, so is to be hugely thanked and admired). It comes closest to ‘integration’ but is not really that – there really are large potential tensions – but the point is that this is not beause they claim competitively common ground. This is a mistake that the young earth creationists make when they claim that the Bible works as a scientific document. It is much more powerful than that – it is a mandate for doing science in the first place. No, the tensions come because each of science and theology wants to hold a meta-discourse over the other one. So Theology wants to say something (a lot) about why we do science.
In the same way, science wants to investigate theology and religion in all sorts of ways. Neurologically – what happens in religious activity and experience? Anthropologically – what social consequences are there for early religious structures and are they advantageous? Archaeologically – what is the historical status of the Old Testament texts? Psychologically – and so on. Daniel Dennett has written at most depth about a call for a scientific investigation of the benefits (or otherwise) of religion in his book Breaking the Spell, so I didnt think I needed to write so much about ‘that way around’ in Faith and Wisdom. But I think that believers have nothing to fear and everything to gain from such an illumination of science (see the neurological functional magnitic resonance images to the left, where the brains of patients at prayer evince heightened blood flow in the same areas as when talking with a loved one, reported here).
The Fall has traditionally thrown a long philosophical shadow on Christian philosophy of the mind. I have elsewhere talked about the medieval motivation for progressing science beyond Aristotle, The idea that before the Fall of Genesis chapter 3, humans had perfect knowledge of nature is not strictly biblical, but a later Patristic interpretation or perhaps embelishment of the consequences of ‘eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’. It appears in Grosseteste in the early 13th century, and in the early modern period in the Organum of Francis Bacon. If both our minds are darkened, and the world rendered more chaotic, as a result of human sin and a failure to look after it, then there are indeed deep consequences for what science must do. In particulat for Bacon, early modern science was experimental because our senses were all that remains of a hierarchy of faculties, of which they are the lowest, which enable us to perceive nature’s inner workings. Out task, part of the great commission, is to rebuild the lost knowledge we once had.
But to what purpose? That is where I like the idea of the ‘Cure of the Earth’. In a few words it points to the theological foundation of science, and of the technology with which science partners. Later this week I will be examining a PhD thesis on a theology of technology. I am looking forward very much to this.