| Frontiers of Science and Christianity | |
| Course Home Course outline General Objectives Evaluation Prescribed books Bibliography | |
| <<Previous | Next>> |
Of course there are significant differences between chemistry and theology, because their subject matter is so different, and therefore their methods of validation differ. Thus for example the predictions of theology are not open to straightforward empirical testing such as physical science habitually does at least at its lower levels. ( It turns out predictions in cosmology and predictions in the quantum world of the very small are also tough to test empirically.)
And there is this foundational difference to bear in mind - that in theology we are dealing with an omnipotent infinite God who sets His own rules, which are always consistent with his nature, but who as Deut. 6:16 says "we should not put to the test." We respond to God rather than test Him. The claims of theology are related to a testing procedure in experience and are subject to assessment by particular personal and sometimes subjective experiences.Just as claims in the quantum world can be investigated and understood only on its own counter intuitive and unpicturable terms, in which we have to respect the unusual nature of what we encounter, so the explanation of divine reality is (not surprisingly) also subject to a need to respect the unpicturable nature of that reality.
How the world of the atom can be known is determined from first to last by the way in which it actually is known. And so it is with theology as has been expressed by Tom Torrence, when he wrote "how God can be known must be determined by the way in which He actually is known". It is because the nature of what is known, as well as the nature of the knower, determines how it can be known. Only when it actually is known are we in a position to enquire how it can be known."
Behind what Torrence is saying is the recognition that God is an altogether different kind of being from any finite object, and that He stands in a different relationship to His creation than does any creature contained within it. A consequence of divine uniqueness is that theological language has to be different from that used with ordinary usage.
So although I see chemistry and theology as rational enquiries, with science demanding a great deal of intellectual passion, it has to pale when compared with the openness to involvement demanded by the spiritual quest. In the latter, heart and mind must both be engaged - for reflection goes with commitment, and relates to all aspects of our life. Not so in chemistry. Scripture and science together are expressions of the mind of the Creator - but the ultimate and complete expression of this must be personal.
Of course the encounters of revelation, i.e. the discoveries from exegesis, and the scientific insights from observation and experiment must be capable of mutually consistent interpretations, if they are indeed pointers to the one true God.
| <<Previous | Next>> |