Alister McGrath: The Science of God
After a brief Preface, a Prolegomena discusses the legitimacy of a scientific theology and the approach adopted in this book. Then follow sections on Nature, Reality, and Theory. McGrath first considers the construction of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation and its implications, and the purpose and place of natural theology; then the rationality and knowledge in theology and the natural sciences, natural theology and the trans-traditional rationality of the Christian tradition, the foundations of realism in the natural sciences, critical realism and engagement with a stratified reality, and an encounter with reality through the contours of a scientific theology; and, finally, the legitimacy of theory in a scientific theology, its representation of reality, and the place of explanation and of metaphysics. In a Conclusion addressing the question “Where next?” he suggests scientific theology be applied in a variety of ways avoiding “the weaknesses of traditional approaches.”
Pentecostals who believe our story and theology are closely connected will be particularly appreciative of McGrath’s personal testimony of his spiritual journey. He moved from a young man infatuated with the natural sciences who assumed the validity of atheism as a viable worldview to a more mature man with a devout faith in Christ. He actually describes atheism as his “schoolboy faith”. His spiritual journey started with intellectual considerations spurred on by academic training. As he discovered that atheism was “a belief system” rather than “a factual statement about reality” and that “the intellectual case for atheism was rather insubstantial,” he investigated and embraced Christianity as a more reasonable worldview. He found a worldview that stridently challenges atheists regarding their imbecilic assumptions about the intellectually inferior nature of theism. But this also challenges classical Pentecostals to reconsider the case for an important intellectual component of Christianity. Our historic anti-intellectualism has been at least partly based on a suspicion that the intellect inevitably alienates the heart. While arid intellectualism is indeed a demonstrable danger to be assiduously avoided, we ought not to “throw out the baby with the bathwater.” Fortunately, more and more Pentecostals in today’s maturing movement affirm the essentiality of integrating head and heart. An Anglican himself, McGrath gives us an inspiring testimonial of intellectual honesty leading to initial faith and then to ongoing development and fecundity. Pentecostals will do well to take note.
McGrath’s scientific theology is a unique combination of commitment to the orthodox tradition of historic Christian thought with relevant empirical research into the world as it is understood in our times. Here is a book for those who appreciate ancient wisdom and up-to-date ways! Doubtless this is one of the most potentially satisfying directions presently before us. As always, questions arise. A case in point is Darwinism. Though he never explicitly says so, McGrath’s uses of Darwin’s theory of evolution in arguments or illustrations suggest a possible positive evaluation of that controversial and contestable philosophy. (In a March 22, 2006 lecture at Salisbury Cathedral, Oxford University, McGrath argued Darwinism is completely compatible with religious belief. But one is still left wondering whether this is his personal opinion or simply a useful apologetic strategy.) Does scientific theology subscribe to the doctrine of so-called “theistic evolution?” If it does, is this an essential element of its make-up? If so, many evangelicals might have serious objections to such a position. Additionally, this (intentional?) ambiguity exemplifies a potential problem with the scientific theology project. Even if one agrees, as I do, that McGrath is correct to encourage dialogue between these disciplines, what to do with areas of unresolved tension? Do we ignore issues? Choose a side? Suspend judgment? Help about how to deal with interdisciplinary conflict would be constructive.
Category: In Depth, Spring 2007
Followers
Fans
