Why is Scientific Theology Important?
I think this is a good question. I think we must endeavor to think of a few other questions first. Is precision important? And perhaps at times of crucial importance? I have done a bit of wood working when I was in my teen years. Wood working in my experience has a lot to with precision. Hence the famous carpentry aphorism, “measure twice and cut once.” In High School wood working class, I remember trying to make an end table using measuring tape, plainer, table saw, and a power sander. It seemed like the simplest of projects but being 1/8” of an inch off meant there was something really wrong with the end table. Perhaps the table would be slanted, or the pieces wouldn’t fit together right, or the whole thing would look ugly. I remember measuring, re-measuring, cutting, re-cutting, and sanding plenty to get it right. I think theology is a little like that. We are attempting to think and speak of God in a truthful way, this requires a bit of precision and at times a lot of precision. If things are a bit off, we go back and re-measure, re-cut, and sand down our words.
I think there’s this other question of how much of this is God and how much of this is ourselves? If God is invisible, how much of this is simply our imagination? Supplementary, how do we say anything truthful of God that has any bearing on reality? I think Torrance’s Scientific Theology is a particularly powerful perspective in dealing with these ponderings. We want to speak and think of God in a truthful way, a real way, and not in an imaginary way. To me this is of crucial importance.
Introduction
Torrance is concerned with reaching a knowledge of God that is not of private opinion, arbitrarily thought up, devised from ourselves, or self-willed, but devout (reverent) and precise (Scientific).[1] Torrance wishes to stand clear of the God of our imagination and the God of human logic but to be faithful and precisely speak of who God discloses himself to be. “Science attempts to understand things as they really are and not according to some foreign framework of thought we bring to the object. As such, Torrance believes that it is possible to have scientific knowledge of God and that theology can, in fact, be a science.”[2]
“In scientific theology we begin with the actual knowledge of God, and seek to test and clarify this knowledge by inquiring carefully into the relation between our knowing of God and God Himself in His being and nature. Then in the light of this clarification we seek to be more and more open and ready for God, so that we may respond faithfully and truly to all that He declares and discloses to us of Himself.”[3]
True scientific knowledge of God must come according to God’s nature, which is from revelation “Only through God can God be known.” This knowledge of God is grounded in God’s acts within time and space. Jesus’ homoousion to Patri [ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί] being the controlling center of the doctrine of God.
There is some question as to whether one should separate Torrance’s Scientific Theology from his Doctrine of Revelation. From the perspective of someone within the natural sciences or from the philosophy of Science, perhaps there is some use to making this doctrine separate from Torrance’s doctrine of Revelation. Also from the perspective of the researcher it is easier to keep these topics separate. But if you are someone who is interested in theology, Torrance’s Scientific Theology and Doctrine of Revelation are completely intermeshed. I personally would not separate them as to learn of God requires God’s self revelation.
Lastly I would like to thank Travis Stevick, Marty Folsom, and Kerry Magruder from the T.F. Torrance reading group. Travis Stevick has written extensively on Torrance’s Scientific Theology, including doing his PhD on this topic. (I have referenced him extensively in this series of articles.) Marty Folsom is a brilliant theologian who values the work of others in the field and is able create extensive dialogue from a place of deep understanding of the topics at hand, illuminating them and pointing to relevancy. He leads the T.F. Torrance Reading Group. Kerry Macgruder was the first person to really explain the principal of Kata Physin to me in a meaningful way, contextualized within Science and Theology. If you want more information in another format, I would suggest looking at the TF Torrance Reading Group on YouTube, or looking for Kerry Macgruder’s videos on Vimeo.
A Brief Overview of Torrance’s Scientific Theology
Epistemological Approach
Epistemology[4] is concerned with theories on knowledge, attempting to ask the question: how do we know what we know? Torrance uses a non-foundationalist, critical realistic approach to the knowledge of God,[5] which I will elucidate bellow.
In Torrance stands by the patristic approach “only through God can God be known.” God’s being is revealed His act and His act in His being. Jesus Christ reveals to us what God is really like being homoousios to Patri, being one substance with the Father. Thus, the incarnate Son who is of one substance with the Father is the controlling center of doctrine.[6]
What is a Non-Foundationalist Approach?
“Foundationalism is the theory of knowledge (see Epistemology) that affirms the need for certain foundational principles as the basis of all thought.”[7] To put it another way “Knowledge is a building, which must be constructed by reason upon a set of indubitable (foundational) beliefs.”[8] For Torrance, human logic, first principals, or inference are not the starting place for knowledge of God. These things presuppose things about God.
Critical Realism
Critical realism is a form of thinking which recognizes and distinguishes the between external reality and human knowledge. Reality exists objectively, but it is only accessible through “the grid of knowledge or worldview.” It rejects any contrast between scientific knowledge and nonscientific knowledge and thus welcomes cross-disciplinary integration[9] (which Torrance does with science and theology). Travis Stevik in explaining Torrance’s position as a critical realist says, ”he is highlighting his radical commitment to reality rather than any particular explanation or articulation of reality,” and then “if our ultimate commitment is to reality, it cannot also be to a particular explanation of that reality, however ideal.”[10]
“Now if we think of Jesus Christ in this way as the Truth in his own Person, our statements about him, biblical and theological statements, cannot be true in the same sense as Jesus Christ is true, for they do not have their truth in themselves but in their reference to him away from themselves, and they are true insofar as that reference is truthful and appropriate. By referring to him away from themselves, they both subordinate themselves to him and discriminate themselves from him. A semantic relation of this kind holds good, as we have seen, in any realist relation between statements and realities to which they refer. But if Jesus Christ is the ultimate Truth of God, as we believe him to be, then our statements about him, insofar as they are true, must refer to him accordingly, subjecting themselves to him and discriminating themselves from him in their utter difference from him as creaturely and contingent.”[11]
How we come to know something: In Accordance With It’s Nature
For Torrance, objects must known in accordance with the object’s nature or kata physin. The object itself communicates it’s inner-rationality to us. We do not impose our thinking or rationality upon it (which one could say of the foundationalist approach).
“Precise, scientific knowledge was held to result from inquiry strictly in accordance with the nature (κατὰ φύσιν) of the reality being investigated, that is, knowledge of it reached under the constraint of what it actually and essentially is in itself, and not according to arbitrary convention (κατὰ θέσιν). To know things in this way, strictly in accordance with their nature, is to know them in accordance with their truth or reality (κατ’ ἀλήθειαν) and thus to think and speak truly (ἀληθῶς) of them.”[12]
[1] Speaking against the Arians, he says “Thus in the last resort it is with reference to our private opinion (κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον νοῦν), and what we arbitrarily think up or devise (ἑπινοεῖν) from ourselves, that we form judgments about both the Son and the Father, which is precisely what the Arians were accused of doing. Any attempt to reach knowledge of God in that kind of way is self-willed and far from being devout (εὐσεβής), but neither is it scientific (ἐπιστημονική) or precise (ἀκριβής).” Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith, Access To The Father
[2] Travis Stevick, T&T Clark Handbook of Thomas F. Torrance, Theological Science Then and Now
[3] Thomas F. Torrance, Theological Science, 9. (Gathered from Travis Stevick’s article in the T&T Clark Handbook of Thomas F. Torrance)
[4] “This branch of philosophy, also called theory of knowledge, considers issues such as the sources of knowledge, the means by which knowledge claims can be justified, and the relationship between justification and truth. Though philosophers have addressed it since the beginning, it became the center of philosophical inquiry in the modern era; now, however, there are those who question its necessity or legitimacy.”
Nancy Murphy, Epistemology, "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" by Baker Publishing Group.
[5] Martin M. Davis, The pre-history of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the Christology of T.F. Torrance, pg. 1
[6] Martin M. Davis, The pre-history of the incarnation of Jesus Christ in the Christology of T.F. Torrance, pg. 1-2
[7] Norman L. Geisler, “Foundationalism,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 259.
[8] Nancy Murphy, Epistemology, "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" by Baker Publishing Group.
[9] Thorston Moritz, Critical Realism, "Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible" by Baker Publishing Group.
[10] Travis Stevick, T&T Clark Handbook of Thomas F. Torrance, Theological Science Then and Now
[11] Thomas F. Torrance, Reality and Evangelical Theology, 124. (Gathered from Travis Stevick’s article in the T&T Clark Handbook of Thomas F. Torrance)
[12] Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith, Access To The Father
One of the key features of TF as with KB: it all centres on Jesus. When God reveals God, he does so via this enfleshment. Yet, two things are vital: Jesus does not arrive out of the fringes of the universe like some alien, he’s the climax of a rich complex tradition; and even then, the NT Witness to Jesus is - to a degree - multifaceted. This last prompts an aphorism of my own: there may be Four Gospels (actually, Paul too forms his unique take, just as does Hebrews), but not Twenty Four - there’s no ribald pluralism as reigns nowadays!
As with any science then, a few key models and metaphors will emerge as key. Field theory, as with James Clerk Maxwell, beloved of TF; light’s seeming behaviour as both particles and waves; the so-called standard model of particle physics. No ribald pluralism then, but a cautious humble acknowledgement of core features - although I’m told they’re having a bit of rethink around gravity!!
Thanks Matt for suggesting just such a Primer of Theological Discourse - herewith my wee offering!