Q: Theology and science are highly specialized, often complex disciplines. Is it feasible for someone to become fully versed in both?
A: I’m not saying that every theologian has to approach theology through the context of science any more than a liberation theologian would say that everyone has to live in base community in South America. I wrote the book to encourage theologians to take the context of science more seriously … without having to master all of the technical details.
Q: You write that theologians should be happy to operate in the “questioning” context of science, but they are often not. Why is that?
A: I’m puzzled by that. That kind of thinking impoverishes theology. Science and theology are cousins on a quest for truth. The insight of science is to move from evidence to understanding, not to start with general principles that will control the whole discussion. Scientists learn that the world is quite often surprising and doesn’t match our expectations. I am very happy to practice my religious beliefs in that sort of way.
The whole discussion bothers me….. Doesn’t the fight between Science and Religion undermine the whole concept of “University”?
What is true, is true. What is false, is false. All else takes us back to witchcraft and wives-tales. It leaves me ill at ease to consider that we must fight that fight all over again.
Don
As one trained in theoretical physics, I appreciate the intersection of science and theology. It has greatly informed my ministry, teaching, and preaching. Dr/Fr Polkinhorne achieves the best balance of theology and physics in his writings and talks that I have ever heard. Like many other human conflicts, the “war” between theology and science has been much a product of mistrust, misunderstanding, and perhaps a little bit of a turf conflict.
What Polkinghorne is always willing to start from is the foundation that physics tells us a lot about how the world works, but it is theology which delves into the “why” of why we are here in the first place.
[i]theologians should be happy to operate in the “questioning†context of science, but they are often not[/i]
Yet in many areas SCIENTISTS are not comfortable in the ‘questioning context of science’ and in recent years have moved to silence debate and alternate hypothesis, especially in the arena of ‘human caused Climate Change’, which has become more a political and economic theory than a scientific one.
“Human caused Climate Change” is not the only area in scientific circles where debate has been choked by political agendas. Another area is that of Lattice Assisted Nuclear Fusion (or Cold Fusion). The high gods of thermonuclear fusion and their $10B toys are massively arrayed against LANR precisely for the reason that it attacks their Standard Model’s of the nucleus (quarks, glueons, and Quantun Chromodynamics) and their $10B toys should it be “proven” to be true, which in fact it has, although you have to be a practicioner in the field to realize it.