Are Theology and Science Both Interpretive Disciplines?

Thanks–I’d appreciate that.

Benjamin, I’m about to lose my Internet satellite connection for today but a quick example that you might like is the very digestible book by D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, where he also includes some of his own failed predictions and interpretations from earlier in his career. Because this book is meant to be read by laypeople as well as beginning theology students, it is more about general summaries than the detailed predictions and falsification processes— but it also cites the primary literature where you can see how he went about subjecting his own theological conclusions to exhaustive evidence review and falsification testing. (Of course, not every fallacy he discusses in the book was later repudiated by the theologian involved. But I’ve known many of these people for years and many of them certainly did eventually debunk and reverse their previous positions as they examined more evidence.)

I will certainly agree with you that a lot of popular-level and even renowned Bible expositors and theologians have tenaciously held on to their flawed ideas with near immunity to all new evidence. But just as there are scientists who do sloppy work, there are theologians who illustrate less than ideal methodologies. I saw tremendous improvements in my own lifetime. For example, back in the 1950’s through 1970’s I knew a great many seminaries where many of the faculty members were “in-bred theologians”, where most or even all of their advanced degrees were earned at the same institution where they taught. There were also a lot of unaccredited Th.D.s. That changed rapidly with more recent generations and there are now so many outstanding theologians teaching at American evangelical seminaries who earned their doctorates at prestigious European and American institutions where their methodological sophistication is far beyond those of the past. So many of them routinely apply rigorous falsification testing (even with the help of computer software) to test their predictions and radically revise traditional interpretations and challenge even their denominational doctrinal heritage. (Indeed, this is precisely why a great many denominational schools are experiencing kickback from donors and their governing boards.)

I wish I had my old file notes readily at hand so that I could give you more specific citations from the original sources but my memory is not what it used to be. But notable self-refutations come to mind involving Gordon Fee, Eta Linneman, Kurt Metzger, Fred Danker, and many more. Perhaps other forum members can help me with more popular level examples that would be more familiar to the current. Of course, as to Biologos authors, you only need to read some of their “autobiographical” articles posted on this website. Lots of us are former Young Earth Creationists, for example, and used to routinely make predictions about future scientific discoveries and about Biblical and extra-Biblical texts.

It is also worth mentioning a significant number of theologians who made major changes in their affiliations, such as various scholars who left Protestant theology entirely and became Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox based upon their self-refutation research. (When I used to keep up with Christianity Today, tracking the “lane changes” of theologians was virtually a spectator sport! I remember when Scot McKnight was elder of a Plymouth Brethren church and he recently declared himself Anglican, if I recall properly. I’ll bet readers here can think of many more. Theologians who make these kinds of changes have usually been highly critical of their own prior scholarship and have changed their minds once they decided that their hypotheses have failed to fit the available scriptural evidence and they have moved on accordingly.)

I can say from experience that the best humanities scholars (including theologians) follow the evidence where it leads and they illustrate many methodological similarities similar to those of the best scientists.

That should get you started. I wish my powers of recollection were what they were ten years ago.

I agree with you and yet I think some of our discussions on modern and ancient thinking may miss an important point.

Current science has achieved a status through knowledge and practical implementation of that knowledge. This in turn has shaped the outlook of the human population and impacted on the way people live, especially in developed countries. Because of this impact, science is (unconsciously) given a religious-type status.

If we apply a similar criteria to the impact of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Epicureans and Pythagoras, and Homer, and similar figures, we would see that the entire world (Greco-Roman) was impacted to a similar, or greater degree, for a very long period. I mean how people thought, lived, and believed. We need to add the State religion, and various other beliefs, and we would understand that interpretation is imbedded in the very consciousness of the various nations of that period.

I suggest a similar situation, differing in detail, is occurring these days. Theological endeavours for Christianity have occurred against these backgrounds (ancient and modern). Instead of viewing theology as interpretive, I am inclined to view Christian theology as revolutionary in that it does not start with principles derived from ancient philosophy/natural philosophy, or modern science/philosophy. As such it will undoubtedly ‘rub against’ modern outlooks, especially on our understanding of God, humanity, and way of life. Yet modern science is often viewed as supreme, as the font of all truth (to varying degrees), and some scientists even scoff at philosophy of science as if that throws doubt on a ‘sacred’ enterprise.

When seen in this context, valid Christian theology requires a bedrock to which it may be anchored, and that is the Gospel of Christ.

1 Like

The theologian-in-residence at St. Thomas Church on Fifth Avenue used to be into process theology! Now he’s very orthodox.

We can quibble about the definition of science, but it would be a better statement to say that “it was never a conclusion based on modern science.” Unless you’re actually defining science as “modern science”?

I will, however, refer you to this wordy blog post that outlines some of the history of the original Ptolemaic vs. Copernican model debate. The author also critiques our modern appraisals of that debate and its combatants. It’s long but the first page and instalment should suffice. There was certainly “scientific observation and testing” to support the Ptolemaic model.

Besides which, there are a lot of conclusions stated since the development of the scientific method that were asserted “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Yes, science is self-correcting. But the path does wander.

“There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” - Lord Kelvin

1 Like

I really like that “tofspot” blog (or the article you sited in it anyway). If you have a rugged sarcasm filter that can take the punishment, it makes for a delightfully fun and educational read.

The guy (Michael Flynn) is actually an accomplished sci fi author–that’s how I discovered him. He has a distant-future series that I really loved and some very interesting one-offs.

1 Like

Only trouble is that after reading the arguments and tests , I am beginning to doubt heliocentrism…

4 Likes

Or science is a study of this physical universe in which we find ourselves and theology is a study of some old texts that some believe were communicated by God to humans.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.