Theology and Science: What Is the Relationship?

How should theology contribute to scientific positions?

            The question presupposes that theology can and should contribute to scientific positions.  For theology to be able to contribute more than mere moral maxims (i.e., “Don’t falsify your data.”) theology must be conceived in a robust manner; a kind of theistic realism in which God is objectively real and has made true propositional content available to humankind.  Historically, evangelicals have endorsed such a robust theistic realism.  Of course, the Bible is not a science textbook but it does make claims (when properly interpreted and understood) that have factual implications regarding the natural world.    In light of the above, there are at least three ways in which a robust evangelical theology might be able to contribute to scientific positions.

            First, theology can seek to provide the conceptual foundations for the scientific enterprise itself.  Science, as an empirically based methodology, rests upon philosophical presuppositions which are not themselves demonstrable in an empirical manner.  The question as to what kind of worldview might provide the matrix in which these philosophical presuppositions best fit is a crucial one.  It has been argued that a theistic worldview best explains the philosophical presuppositions needed for science.[1]  

            Second, theology might provide some factual claims that serve as boundary markers that are nonnegotiable.  Examples might include the beginning of the universe and the historicity of Adam.  J. P. Moreland, utilizing the conceptual work of philosopher of science Larry Laudan, notes that one can be epistemically justified in bringing “external conceptual problems” to bear upon a given scientific theory.  Moreland argues:

            Suppose someone held to the following two propositions:

                        

1.     The Bible is the Word of God and it teaches the truth on matters of which it speaks.

 

2.     The Bible, properly interpreted, teaches (among other things) certain truths that run counter to evolutionary theory and which are consistent with creationist theories.

 

Suppose further that this person had a list of good, rational arguments for these two propositions. In support of (1), he or she lists arguments from prophecy, history, archeology, and other areas of science for the contention that the Bible is a divinely inspired book and it is rational to trust it when it speaks on any matter, science included. In support of (2), he or she offers detailed arguments from hermeneutical theory, linguistics, comparative ancient Near Eastern studies, and so forth.

 

In the case just cited, such an individual would have reasons, perhaps good reasons, for believing that the general theory of evolution, in its current or recognizably future forms, is false and that creationism will be vindicated.[2]

 

Thus, theology can be used to provide truth claims which can serve as external conceptual problems for a reigning scientific theory.

            Third, theology can generate alternative paradigms which may choose to focus on anomalous elements in the current and more broadly accepted paradigm.[3]  Two quick examples will have to suffice here.  First, the Intelligent Design movement focused on the so-called “junk DNA” and hypothesized that these segments of DNA would be found to be irrelevant.  Second, Young Earth Creationists continue to hunt for and analyze soft tissue in dinosaur bones.  Whether the findings in these areas overturn the reigning paradigm is beside the point.  The fact that these scientists are motivated to pursue alternative lines of questioning and research may help to generate insights which would have been overlooked in other frameworks.

---

     [1] I have defended this view in more detail in my essay “Why Science Needs God: Analyzing the Religion and Science Conflict” Christian Post(January 12, 2019)—online: https://www.academia.edu/38140780/Why_Science_Needs_God_Analyzing_the_Religion_and_Science_Conflict.

     [2] J. P. Moreland, “Conceptual Problems and the Scientific Status of Creation Science” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 45 (March 1994), n.p. in online version—online: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1994/PSCF3-94Moreland.html.  

     [3] Hat tip to Thomas Kuhn.

Biblical and Theological Resources for the Problem of Evil

 * The following was written for a Philosophy of Religion class I am taking.  Here was the prompt for the essay: 

You will write one short three-page, double-spaced paper (do not go onto the fourth page!!). Here you will do a biblical and theological reflection on the problem of evil. This is not a research paper. You want to explore the question: “How does our biblical and theological framework provide resources or parameters for our investigation into the problem of evil?”

__________________________

Christians have an abundance of resources available to them in terms of biblical material and theological reflection to aid in approaching the problem of evil—both its philosophical and existential aspects.  In order to briefly canvas some of this terrain four categories of theology will be considered: God, Sin, Jesus Christ, and Eschatology.[1]

God.  The God of the Bible is the sovereign Creator who continues to sustain all things in existence.  Further, God is good, unstained by evil.  In that the traditional set-up of the problem of evil attempts to play God’s attributes of omnipotence and goodness against one another, it is important to maintain both attributes in their biblical fullness.  We ought not to relinquish either attribute in a quest to neutralize the objection.  God’s sovereignty, as manifested in the biblical storyline, also shows us that God’s plans and intentions are not always immediately apparent.  The story of Joseph with its pain and setbacks leading to ultimate vindication in a different season demonstrate this.  The story of Job shows us as well that, at times, God’s heavenly dictates are inscrutable to those on the earth.  This provides impetus for elements of the “skeptical theist” approach to the problem of evil.

Another key component is the glory of God.  Theologians such as Jonathan Edwards argue that God’s glory is the ultimate value in the cosmos and is the chief thing that God is seeking to manifest in all his deeds.  God’s glory can be analyzed in terms of his essential nature (which cannot increase or decrease), his excellent deeds (which express God’s excellent being and character), and the epistemic goods which flow from conscious agents becoming acquainted with and appreciating God’s exalted character revealed in excellent deeds).[2]  This fuller understanding of God’s glory is important if one wants to properly assess the possibilities for a greater-good defense.  Many times, the “greater-goods” contemplated in answers to the problem of evil revolve around human-centered goods.  A focus on God’s glory as the ultimate value as displayed and understood opens up larger vistas to contemplate.  In other words, divine-centered goods needed to be added to the mix as well.

Sin.  A full doctrine of sin shows its extensive influence and powerful reverberations across all relationships.  Rebellion against God creates fractured relationship between humanity and (1) God, (2) other humans, (3) ourselves (in psychological disruptions), and (4) the created order itself which “groans” under the burden of the curse of God.  This gruesome, four-fold fracturing is important to acknowledge since it shows that the world, as it currently exists, is not fully “normal.”  It is not the way it was intended to be by God.  It also reminds us that evil and pain are not illusory but, rather, concrete realities that must be dealt with.  Under the category of sin mention should be made of demonic evil.  The New Testament in particular draws attention to these forces.  Not only does this show us that the problem of evil is much deeper and intense than some allow but it also may be of service in explaining some other elements of evil.[3]

Jesus Christ.  At the center of Christian theism is Jesus Christ.  In his life we see One who is continually fighting evil and suffering in exorcisms and healings.  Thus, we see that passivity in the face of evil and suffering has no place.  We see Jesus weeping and angry in the face of evil and suffering.  In this we see proper emotional responses to evil and suffering.  And in seeing the suffering of Jesus of himself, we see that, in some strange way, not even God himself is immune from suffering.  The fact that Jesus has suffered is often brought up in the New Testament as a hope-inducing example for believers who are going through suffering.  Suffering is to be expected for those who following the Suffering Servant.  Not only has Jesus suffered, but he has also been raised from the dead.  The resurrection provides a perspective on the problem of evil in which a horrendous evil—the crucifixion of the Son of God—can be overcome by the great good of the vindication of the Jesus the Messiah and its attendant blessings flowing to billions of people.[4]  Furthermore, the very complex of events consisting of the incarnation of the Son of God, his suffering for atonement, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a great-making feature of the world.  Alvin Plantinga and others have drawn attention to particularly the incarnation and atonement as indicative of a contingent good-making characteristic of our world “that towers above all the rest of the contingent states of affairs included in our world.”[5]  With this datum, Plantinga is able to construct a justification for God’s permitting evil, namely, that it will allow for the extremely great-goods of the incarnation and atonement.

Eschatology.  The Christian vision of history is linear and purposive.  God is bringing the cosmos to a teleological goal—the “summing up of all things in Christ” (Ephesians 1.10).  This provides assurance and hope at an existential level.  This also factors into how we calculate the amount of good and evil.  John Frame explains, “Since the ultimate theodicy is future, we must now deal with the problem of evil by faith.  We cannot total up the present evils against the present goods and from that calculation exonerate god of blame.”[6]  While we wait for the eschatological fullness of God’s plan we philosophize in hope and sing, “how long, O Lord?”[7]

---

     [1] I will largely refrain from proof-texting to demonstrate the biblical basis of the individual points in an effort to conserve space.

     [2] I was helped to develop this tri-partite understanding of God’s glory by Daniel M. Johnson, “Calvinism and the Problem of Evil: A Map of the Territory” in Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, eds. David E. Alexander and Daniel M. Johnson (Eugene, Ore: Pickwick Publications, 2016), 44-45.

     [3] Alvin Plantinga brings up the possibility of some forms of natural evil being the result of demonic beings in God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974), 58.

     [4] The notion of “horrendous evil” comes from Marilyn McCord Adams and she specifically mentions the crucifixion of Jesus as an example of a horrendous evil in her essay “Horrendous Evil and the Goodness of God” in The Problem of Evil, eds. Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 212.

     [5] Alvin Plantinga, “Supralapsarianism, or ‘O Felix Culpa,’” in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil, ed. Peter Van Inwagen (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 1-25; reprinted in Michael Peterson, ed. The Problem of Evil: Selected Readings—2^nd ed. (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2017), 368.

     [6] John Frame, “The Problem of Evil,” in Suffering and the Goodness of God, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 156.  

     [7] Kristin M. Swenson has written of the Psalms that they “provide a vocabulary and language for expressing pain, a grammar of pain, which continues to resonate for people struggling with difficulties understanding and describing their particular experiences of suffering.”  Quoted in David B. Calhoun, “Poems in the Dark: My Cancer and God’s Grace” in Suffering and the Goodness of God, eds. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 186.