F. Metaphysical System vs. Specific Philosophical Issues
Finally, then, philosophy can be seen as functioning in at
least two distinct ways in the theology and science conversations. It can
provide an overarching synthesis, a complete metaphysical framework that is
consistent and coherent, adequate and applicable to all fields of knowledge. Examples include William Stoegers use of
neo-Thomism or Barbours use of process philosophy as providing a broad arena
for relating a series of theological issues and a diversity of scientific
fields. Such systems allow one to ask very general questions about nature and
draw on, and smoothly integrate, a variety of sciences for distinctive answers.
The difficulty comes when the system no longer suits changes in scientific
theories, for a metaphysical system is usually not open to a quick fix, or
when the metaphysics limits rather than facilitates the theological agenda and
its engagement with science.
On the other hand, philosophy can serve a more limited goal:
it can provide specific terms and concepts, such as space, time, matter and
causality, that are shared by differing disciplines and carry similar meanings
without embedding them in an overarching metaphysical framework. Examples
include Peacockes use of law and chance in both scientific areas such as
biological evolution and in the doctrine of creation, and Polkinghornes use of
openness in relating chaos and complexity in nature to the possibility of
divine action in the world. On the one hand, a philosophical analysis of
scientific cosmology can point to the contingency and rational intelligibility
of the universe. These presuppositions may be imported into theology where they
the become relevant to the doctrine of creation. It can also mediate a concept
of nature from theology to one underlying the natural sciences. The difficulty
with this approach, on the other hand, is that, without a single overall and
unifying system, there may be pervasive questions underlying the entire
relationship between theology and science which cannot be addressed by the
fragmentary connections offered by individual terms and concepts, and the
theological reconstructions in light of science may be more piecemeal than
broadly coherent.
Contributed by: Dr. Robert Russell
|
