PROBLEMS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY IN THE COURSE OF THEIR MODERN HISTORY

Wolfhart Pannenberg; Wolfhart Pannenberg

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2006.00728.x

Research Articles
PROBLEMS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY IN THE COURSE OF THEIR MODERN HISTORY

Abstract

Abstract. It is misleading to speak of warfare between science and Christian theology, as Andrew White did in 1896. White also was mistaken in exaggerating the conflict between the church and Galileo and Copernicus. The more important issue between science and theology has to do with the mechanistic interpretation of nature. When he introduced the principle of inertia in his natural philosophy, René Descartes insisted that God's immutability renders it impossible for God to intervene in the creation. He reduced the idea of God to a deistic notion by speaking of motion exclusively as a property of bodies. Even though Isaac Newton offered a different view, the Cartesian view dominated subsequent thinking. This made dialogue with theology difficult. Michael Faraday, followed by Albert Einstein, introduced the idea of field; bodily phenomena were subordinated as manifestations of fields. The precursor of the idea of field is the Stoic idea of spirit, which is close to the biblical concept of spirit. Thomas Torrance and I have taken this concept of field as an occasion to reopen dialogue. Mechanistic thinking accounts for the tension between Darwinian thought and theology. In principle the tension can be resolved, because the Bible itself asserts that all living things were brought from the earth—that is, organic life emerged from inorganic matter. Thus, emergence, contingency, and novelty are consistent with Darwinian evolutionary thinking. Contingency can be related conceptually to the activity of God in creation.

Keywords

Michael Faraday, field, evolution, Albert, René Descartes, Einstein, inertia, contingency, Charles Darwin

How to Cite

Pannenberg, W., (2006) “PROBLEMS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY IN THE COURSE OF THEIR MODERN HISTORY”, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 41(1), 105–112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2006.00728.x

Rights

Download

Download XML
Download PDF

20

Views

28

Downloads

8

Citations

References

Barbour, Ian. 2000. When Science Meets Religion.New York and London : SPCK.

Berkson, William. 1974. Fields of Force: The Development of a Worldview from Faraday to Einstein. New York : Wiley.

Bonting Sjoerd, L. 2002. Chaos Theology: A Revised Creation Theology. Ottawa : Novalis.

Burtt Edwin, A. 1932. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. 2d ed. New York : Doubleday Anchor Books.

Dürr, Hans‐Peter. 1986. “Über die Notwendigkeit, in offenen Systemen zu denken .”In Die Welt als offenes System, ed. G.Altner, 9–31. Frankfurt am Main : Fischer.

Ganoczy, A. 1995. Chaos, Zufall, Schöpfungsglaube. Mainz : Grünewald.

Gore, Charles, ed. 1889. Lux Mundi: A Series of Studies in the Religion of Incarnation. Cambridge : University Press: John Wilson & Son.

Hesse, M. B.1961. Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics. London : Nelson.

Hume, David. 1748. An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. London : Millar.

Jammer, Max. 1957. Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics. Cambridge .

Jammer, Max. 1972. “Feld, Feldtheorie (I) .”In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. J.Ritter, vol. 2. Basel/Stuttgart : Schwabe.

Koyré, A. 1965. Newtonian Studies. London : Chapman.

Monod, Jacques. [1970] 1971.Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology. New York : Alfred A. Knopf.

Newton, Isaac. 1687. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). London .

Newton, Isaac. 1706. Opticks: Or a Treatise on the Reflexions, Refractions , Inflexions and Colours of Light. London .

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. [1970] 1993. Kontingenz und Naturgesetz . Towards a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith, ed. TedPeters, 72–122. Louisville , Ky. : Westminster/John Knox.

Prigogine, Ilya. 1980. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco : W. H. Freeman.

Russell Robert, J. 1988. “Contingency in Physics and Cosmology. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 23 (March): 23–43.

Russell Robert, J., Nancey, C. Murphy, and Arthur R.Peacocke, eds. 1995. Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action . Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, and Berkeley, Calif.: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences .

Torrance, Thomas. 1981. Contingent and Divine Order. Oxford Univ. Press.

White Andrew, Dickson. 1896. History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. 2 vols. New York .

Authors

Wolfhart Pannenberg (Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science)

Download

Issue

Volume 41 • Issue 1 • March 2006

Publication details

Pages	105–112

Dates

Published	2006-03-02

Licence

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0

Identifiers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2006.00728.x

File Checksums (MD5)

XML: c7e4564ee75615ce6b7cffaf71ee9a51
PDF: 289247f0be44b648537cac9a32287155

Abstract

Keywords

How to Cite

Rights

Download

20

28

8

References

Share

Authors

Download

Issue

Publication details

Dates

Licence

Identifiers

File Checksums (MD5)

Table of Contents

Abstract

Keywords

How to Cite

Rights

Download

20

28

8

References

Share

Authors

Download

Issue

Publication details

Dates

Licence

Identifiers

File Checksums (MD5)

Table of Contents

Non Specialist Summary