ZYGO

Zygon®

0591-2385 1467-9744

10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00940.x

IS THEOLOGY RESPECTABLE AS METAPHYSICS?

Jones

Nicholaos

02 09 2008

43 3

10.1111/zygo.2008.43.issue-3

579 592

Theology involves inquiry into God's nature, God's purposes, and whether certain experiences or pronouncements come From God. These inquiries are metaphysical, part of theology's concern with the veridicality of signs and realities that are independent from humans. Several research programs concerned with the relation between theology and science aim to secure theology's intellectual standing as a metaphysical discipline by showing that it satisfies criteria that make modern science reputable, on the grounds that modern science embodies contemporary canons of respectability for metaphysical disciplines. But, no matter the ways in which theology qua metaphysics is shown to resemble modern science, these research programs seem destined for failure. For, given the currently dominant approaches to understanding modern scientific epistemology, theological reasoning is crucially dissimilar to modern scientific reasoning in that it treats the existence of God as a certainty immune to refutation. Barring the development of an epistemology of modern science that is amenable to theology, theology as metaphysics is intellectually disreputable.

epistemology evidentialism falsification metaphysics modern science rationality respectability scientific method scientific reasoning theological reasoning theology

Bishop, John. 2002. “Faith as Doxastic Venture. Religious Studies 38:471–87.

Bishop, Joseph, and ImranAijaz. 2004. “How to answer the de jure question about Christian belief. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56:109–29.

Clayton, Philip. 1997. “Philosophy of Science: What One Needs to Know. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 32:95–104.

Clayton, Philip, and StevenKnapp. 1996. “Rationality and Christian Self‐Conceptions ”. In Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, ed. W.Mark Richardson and Wesley J.Wildman, 131–42. New York : Routledge.

Gerhart, Mary, and AllanMelvin Russell. 1996. “Mathematics, Empirical Science, and Religion .” In Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, ed. WMark Richardson and Wesley J.Wildman, 121–29. New York : Routledge.

Gilkey, Langdon. 2003. “Problems and Possibilities of Theological Models: Responding to David Klemm and William Klink. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 38:529–34.

Grenz, Stanley J.2000. “Why Do Theologians Need to Be ScientistsZygon: Journal of Religion and Science 35:331–56.

Holcomb, Justin S.2001. “Knowledge Falsely So‐called: The Theological Case Against Scientific Realism. Quodlibet: Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy 3(3), http://www.quodlibet.net/holcomb‐realism.shtml.

Klemm, David E., and William H.Klink. 2003. “Constructing and Testing Theological Models. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 38:495–528.

Lawson, E. Thomas. 2005. “A New Look at the Science‐and‐Religion Dialogue. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 40:555–64.

Luther, Martin. [1525] 2005. The Bondage of the Will. Trans. HenryCole. Fort Worth , Tx. : RDMe Publishing.

Martin, Dean. 1984. “On Certainty and Religious Belief. Religious Studies 20:593–613.

Mitchell, Sandra D.2002. “Integrative Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 17:55–70.

Murphy, Nancey. 1996. “On the Nature of Theology ”. In Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue, ed. WMark Richardson and Wesley J.Wildman, 151–59. New York : Routledge.

Murphy, Nancey. 2001. “Theology and Scientific Methodology ”. In Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, ed. MichaelPetersonet al, 513–30. New York : Oxford Univ. Press.

Peacocke, Arthur. 2000. “Science and the Future of Theology: Critical Issues. Zygon: Jour-nal of Religion and Science 35:119–40.

Peirce, Charles S.1877. “The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly 12:1–15.

Plantinga, Alvin. 1993a. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford : Clarendon.

Plantinga, Alvin. 1993b. Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford : Clarendon.

Verbin, N. K.2002. “Uncertainty and Religious Belief. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 51:1–37.

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 1996. “Entitled Christian Belief .” In Religion and Science: History Method Dialogue, ed. WMark Richardson and Wesley J.Wildman, 145–50. New York : Routledge.