Process
Theology and Theological Critical Realism
Is Science
fact and religion just opinion?
Can a
scientist pray?
I believe that
science and religion are intellectual cousins under the skin. Both are
searching for motivated belief.[1]
Introduction
As Christians
we cannot escape from the faces of science and scientific developments and new
scientific knowledge that seem to have challenged our theological position. It
is our responsibility to reflect and respond to science and religion
interaction theologically so as to find means and ways to relate these two
meaningfully. We need to develop new theological insights that can reduce the traditional
conflict between science and religion because we find that our traditional
Christian theology is, sometimes, inadequate. Therefore, we need to re-read and
reformulate the classical Christian theologies and doctrines in the light of
new scientific development and knowledge.[2] A
number of theologies have been suggested that can bridge the gap between
science and religion. These theologies are believed to have the potential to
integrate science and religion. We will look at some of these here in brief
-such as Process theology and Theological Critical Realism.
Theology
Theology may
be defined as the study which, through participationin and reflectin upon a
religious faith, seeks to express the content of this faith in the clearest and
most coherent language available. Thus theology proceeds, “Through
participation in and reflection upon a religious faith”.[3]
Process
thought
Process
thought by definition affirms that process is fundamental. It does not assert that everything is in
process; for that would mean that even the fact that things are in process is
subject to change. There are unchanging
principles of process and abstract forms.
But to be actual is to be a process.
Anything which is not a process is an abstraction from process, not a
full-fledged actuality.[4]
Process
Theology
Process
theology is the product of Process philosophy developed by Alfred North
Whitehead (1861-1947). Charles
Hartshome (1897-2000) and John B. Cobb (b. 1925) are the two well-known
process theologians. Whereas the term ‘process theology’ can refer to their
philosophies in that they are philosophical theologies, it also refers to the
works of a number of theologians, who are primarily Christians, who have
employed these philosophies to interpret the doctrines of their religious
traditions. According to Whitehead, religion and science are the two strongest
general forces, aside from bodily impulses, that influence us. The basic
intellectual problem of modernity is that these two forces the force of our
religious intuitions, and the force of our impulse to accurate observation and
logical deduction now seem opposed to each other. The future course of history,
Whitehead suggested, depends upon our decision regarding the relations between
them.[5]
Critical
Realism
Critical
Realism states that knowledge for epistemology is different from the in world
existence. There is a reality and a observable structure that exist independent
in human thought. Critical realist believe that this structure causes the
event. So therefore the social world can only be understood if people
understand the structure which causes the event.
Theological
Critical Realism
Theological
Critical Realism is employed by a community of scientist turned theologicans.
They are influenced by Michael Poliyani. After Poliyani, T. F. Torrance
influenced many theologians. Thus many ideas were contributed towards this
field by Theological critical realists like John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour
and Arthur Peacocke.
Emergence
of Process Theology
The most
impressive effort to propose a conceptually rigorous world view appropriate to
post-mechanistic science is that of Alfred North Whitefield (1861-1947).
Whitehead was a mathematician and his metaphysics is constructed in close
association with twentieth century science which points a dynamic, evolutionary
and relational reality. Whitehead was
basically a philosopher; the construction of process theology from the
philosophic fragments of process meta physics was worked out in detail by
theologians Charles Hartshorn, one of the important process theologians, john
cob, a prolific write on theological themes, and David pailin, the well known
British writer on process Christology.
In classical
theology, Christian theologians had tried to exalt the idea of being over
becoming, permanence over change, and eternity over temporality. Whitehead’s thought echoes the evolutionary
view of nature as a dynamic process of becoming, always changing and nature as
a dynamic process of becoming, always changing and developing. In addition, whitehead’s process metaphysics
emphasizes the interconnection of all living things. Here there is no sharp separation between the
human and the non-human. All creatures are valuable since each is an entity of
experience and nature itself becomes a community of events.[6] Barbour calims, “In addition, by balancing immense
and transcendence, process thought encourages respect for nature.”
Alfred
North Whitehead’s perspective
In trying to
bridge the gap between science and religion, Whitehead emphatically rejected a
supernatural, omnipotent God, but he maintains that no adequate, coherent
system was possible without speaking of God. He described God as an actual
entity, consciously responsive to the world and influencing it by means of
values. Whitehead holds that God created our world not out of nothing, but
out of chaos, by inducing new forms of order. The nature of the world, being
eternal, is as necessary as the nature of God, which means that the
relationship between God and the world is necessary, not arbitrary. Rather than
being an exception to all metaphysical principles, God is their chief
exemplification. God does exert influence in the world . in fact, in every
event, from subatomic particles to human experience. But this divine influence
is a regular aspect of the normal pattern of causality, not an exception
thereto.
Ian
Barbour’s perspective
Ian Barbour
conceives that these three theologies -Natural theology, theology of nature and
process theology are all contributing in one way or the other to
integrate science and religion and bridge the gap between them. He concludes
with the following note:
I am in basic agreement with the "Theology of Nature’ position, coupled
with a cautious use of process philosophy. Too much reliance on science in
natural theology can lead to the neglect of the areas of experience that I
consider most important religiously. As I see it, the center of the Christian
life is an experience of reorientation, the healing of our brokenness in new
wholeness, and the expression of a new relationship to God and to the
neighbour.[7]
According to
Barbour, Process philosophy or theology is a promising candidate for building
the bridge between science and religion today because it was itself formulated
under the influence of both scientific and religious thought. In Process View,
reality, including God, is conceived as a dynamic web of interconnected events.
Nature is characterized by change, chance, and novelty as well as order,
incomplete but still coming into being.
Ian
Barbour on White field’s meta physics
Barbour about
points out “In Whitehead’s metaphysics, God has a threefold role in the
unfolding of every event” First, “God is the primordial order”. Second, “God is
the ground of novelty.” And finally, “God is influenced by events in the
world.” Thus in the process model the
emphasis is on a God who experiences the world’s pain and struggle and
persuades it toward the path of creativity and fulfillment. While classical theology had described God an
unaffected by human suffering, in process theology, God is with us and for us,
empowering us in our present lives.
Process
Theology denies all
these following God’s[8]
1. God as
Cosmic Moralist
2. God as the
Unchanging and Passionless Absolute
3. God as
Controlling Power
4. God as
Sanctioner of the Status Quo
5. God as Male
Process
Thinkers on Process Theology
Process
thinkers understand God to be the source of novelty and order. Creation is a
long and incomplete process. God is not the unrelated Absolute, the Unmoved
Mover, but instead interacts reciprocally with the world, an influence on all
events though never the sole cause of any event. Process metaphysics
understands every new event to be jointly the product of the entity’s past, its
own action, and the action of God. Christian process theologians point out that
the power of love, as exemplified in the cross, is precisely its ability to
evoke a response while respecting the integrity of other beings. They also hold
that divine immutability is not a characteristic of the biblical God who is
intimately involved with history.” One of the hallmarks of process
theology, as distinct from classical conceptions of God, has been its emphasis
on the power of persuasion. Process thinkers reject the idea of divine omnipotence.
God is understood as persuasive, rather than controlling. Whitehead maintains
that the discovery that God is persuasive agency not a coercive agency is one
of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the history of religion.“ One of
the most important Process theologians, Charles Hartshorne understands God in
two different ways God as unchanging in purpose and character, but
changing in experience and relationship.”[9]
John
Polkinghorne on Theological Critical Realism
Science is
very impressive. Science also enlightens our minds and enlarges our
imaginations. Science tells us what makes the stars shine, why water is wet,
how genetic information is conveyed from one generation to the next. Not only
does science answer questions, it does so to universal satisfaction.[10]
It would be
foolish to deny that there’s a striking contrast with religion. Well not all agree on the answer to the most
fundamental religious question of them all:
‘Is there a God?’ although the
different faith clearly refer to a common human experience of the spiritual,
they seem to say such different things about it.[11]
Judaism,
Christianity and Islam focuses on the individual human self of unique value and
significance. Buddhism deepens on desires. Hinduism highlights on the
reincarnation. Each religion somehow focuses on the individual and community
which helps them to reach the next level. The conclusion seems clear. Science
is based on facts and leads to real knowledge.
Religion is just based on opinion.
It may help you or me to live our lives- religion may be ‘true for me’
or ‘true for you’ – but it is not just plain ‘true’, pure and simple. So it may seem, but I believe that such a
conclusion would be a fundamental mistake of the most kind. If I thought it were true, I would not be a
religious person. How could something
really help one in one’s life if it were just a personal illusion? Only the true can be a real basis for living
and facing death.[12]
Everyone knows
that religion involves faith. Many
people seem to think that faith involves shutting one’s eyes, gritting one’s
teeth, and believing six impossible things before breakfast, because the Bible
or the Pope or some other unquestionable authority tells us so. Not at all! Faith may involve a leap, but
it’s a leap into the light, not the dark.
The aim of the religious quest, like that of the Scientific quest, is to
seek motivated belief about what is the case. Religion can only be of real
value if its actually true. Its not a
technique for whistling in the dark to keep our spirits up.[13]
Nevertheless
there are obviously differences between science and religion. One of the most significant is that science
deals with a physical world that is science can put things to the experimental
test. The bible says , “you shall not
put the Lord your God to the test”. Thus in the realm of personal experience,
whether between ourselves or with God, we all know that testing has to give way
to trusting. There are some branches of science that are also impossible to
test. Cosmology and evolutionary biology
are examples.[14]
Another
difference between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge lies in the
consequences that they have for us. God
on the other hand, is not just there to satisfy our curiosity. The encounter with him will involve the call
to obedience as well as illumination of our minds. Religious knowledge is much more demanding
than scientific knowledge. While it
requires scrupulous attention to matters of truth, it also calls for the
response of commitment to the truth discovered.[15]
Conclusion
Many have
adopted process theology precisely because it seems to support aspects of their
biblically-shaped convictions that were rejected as false in most modern
thought. For example, the biblical understanding of God as interacting with the
world in love found clear and persuasive. There is, nothing artificial about
correlating this philosophical doctrine with the scripture from which it is
derived.
The interface
between science and religion sometimes creates conflict and misunderstanding.
We need both science and religion in our daily life and it is not possible or
wise to embrace one and discard the other. Process theology and theologians
emphasis that extension is in process. Things are not just settled but there is
an ongoingness. It also mainly emphasis that God is also the part of the
ongoingness of time. They also believe that time is real for God and creation.
There is also interrelatedness even between the small particle to very big
particle/animal/thing, so all are interconnected in this world
Process
theology and Theological Critical Realism really challenging us to widen our
perspective, especially how we are going to see the reality of God and Science.
Bibliography
Polkinghorne,
John. Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity Questions to Science and Religion.
London: Triangle/SPCK, 1994.
Polkinghorne,
John. Science and Providence God’s Interactin with the World. London:
SPCK, 1994.
Polkinghorne,
John. Science and Christian Belief Theological Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker. London: SPCK, 1994.
Polkinghorne,
John. Science and Creation The Search for Understanding. London: SPCK,
1997.
Polkinghorne,
John. Reason and Reality The Relationship between Science and Theology. London: SPCK, 1994.
Ralte,
Rodinmawia. The Interface of Science and Religion An Introductory Study.
New Delhi: Christian World Imprints,
2017.
Griffin, John
B. Cobb, Jr and David Ray. Process Theology An Introductory Exposition. Philadelphia:
The Westminister Press, 1976.
Lee, Harry
James Cargas and Bernard., Eds. Religious Experience and Process Theology
The Pastoral Implications of a Major
Modern Movement. New York: Paulist Press, 1976.
Peters, Ted.,
Ed. Science and Theology. Oxford: Westview Press, 1998.
Torrance,
Thomas F. God and Rationality. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997.
Loen, Arnold
E. Secularization Science without God?. London: SCM Press Ltd, 1967.
Quick
note on Theologians
Ø
John Polkinghorne was a Professor of Mathemetical Physics at Cambridge
University. Later he became an Anglical priest and a member of the Royal
Society.
Ø
Alfred North Witehead was an English mathematician and Philosopher. He
has an alma mater from Trinity College, Cambridge.
Ø
John B. Cobb is an American theologian and philosopher. Cob was even
elected to the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Science, Cambridge.
Ø
Charles Hartshrone was an American philosopher with special interest in
the Philosophy of religion and metaphysics.
Ø
David Ray Griffin was an American professor of Philosophy of religion and
theology. Along with John B. Cobb, he
founded the Centre of Process studies in 1973, a research centre for relational
approach found in process thought.
Ø
Michael Poliyani is the scientist turned philosopher. He has an Alma mater in University of
Manchester.
Ø
Ian Graeme Barbour was an American Scholar on the relationship between
Science and religion. He coined the term ‘critical realism’. Later this has
been adapted by many theologians.
Ø
Arthur Peacocke was a British Anglican Theologian and Biochemist.
Ø
Thomas Jay oord is a theologian and Philosopher with special interest in
Religion and Science.
[1] John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and
Christianity Questions to Science and Religion (London: Triangle/SPCK,
1997),23.
[2] Rodinmawia Ralte, The Interface of Science and
Religion An Introductory Study (New Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2017),
201.
[4] John B. Cobb, Jr and David Ray Griffin, Process
Theology An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press,
1976), 14.
[5] Rodinmawia Ralte, The Interface of Science
and Religion An Introductory Study (New Delhi: Christian World Imprints,
2017), 205.
[6] Harry James Cargas and Bernard Lee., Eds. Religious
Experience and Process Theology The Pastoral Implications of a Major Modern
Movement (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 124.
[7] Harry James Cargas and Bernard Lee., Eds. Religious
Experience and Process Theology The Pastoral Implications of a Major Modern
Movement (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 125.
[8] John B. Cobb, Jr and David Ray Griffin, Process
Theology An Introductory Exposition (Philadelphia: The Westminister Press,
1976), 8-10.
[9] Harry James Cargas and Bernard Lee., Eds. Religious Experience and Process Theology The Pastoral Implications of a Major Modern Movement (New York: Paulist Press, 1976), 120.
[10] John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and
Christianity Questions to Science and Religion (London: Triangle/SPCK,
1997),12.
[11] John Polkinghorne, Science and Christian Belief
Theological Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker (London: SPCK, 1994), 145.
[12]John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity Questions to
Science and Religion (London: Triangle/SPCK, 1997),14.
[13] John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos, and Christianity
Questions to Science and Religion (London: Triangle/SPCK, 1997),21.
No comments:
Post a Comment