Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:08:59.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology and Theology in Conversation: Reflections on Ecological Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Celia Deane‐Drummond
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The potential for theology to act as a partner in dialogue with the natural sciences is itself a subject for dispute. Those who argue that dialogue is not possible propose that theology is concerned with questions which are outside the realm of science. Such questions are answered through a mystical approach to God that defies the very presuppositions that are the basis of scientific research. The recent tendency amongst theologians to portray early scientists as the archvillains, rather than the priests of creation is noteworthy in this regard. At the opposite end of the spectrum there is the attitude which treats theology as another science. This is not so much a rehabilitation of the idea of theology as ‘queen of the sciences’, but a redefinition of theology taking into account scientific methods of research. The latter form the basis of an hermeneutical approach to scripture which takes account of recent research in historical criticism. A third and perhaps mediating approach, looks at the history of the philosophy of science and insists that these early scientists considered that their belief in nature as having a supernatural element did not hinder the advancement of science. The call now is for a reenchantment of science so that it recovers a more holistic approach characteristic of these early researchers. The clash between the first and third alternatives is that in the first case the scientists are blamed for the current ecological crisis, while in the latter they are heralded as angels of light from the past.

Type
Original Article
Information
New Blackfriars , Volume 74 , Issue 875 , October 1993 , pp. 465 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 See, for example, Sherrard, P., Human Image: World Image (Golgonooza, 1992)Google Scholar.

2 For an example of the approach which interprets theology in terms of science, see Torrance, T.F., Theological Science (Oxford University Press 1969)Google Scholar. For a thorough discussion of modern philosophical approaches and their influence on biblical studies, see Thistleton, A., The Two Horizons (Patemoster, 1980)Google Scholar.

3 See, for example, Griffin, D., ed., The Reenchantment of Science (State University of New York Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

4 Capra, F., The Too of Physics (Wildwood House 1975)Google Scholar; Capra, F., The Turning Point (Wildwood House, 1982)Google Scholar. For a background discussion see Barbour, I., Issues in Science and Religion (SCM, 1966)Google Scholar.

5 Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958)Google Scholar

6 Popper, K., The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutchinson, 1958)Google Scholar.

7 Wittgenstein, L., Philosophical Investigations (Blackwell, 1953)Google Scholar.

8 Rahner, K., Theological Investigations, Volume 13 (Darton, Longman and Todd, 1975), p. 95Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p.96.

10 Küng, H., Does God Exist? (Collins, 1980), p. 115Google Scholar.

11 Rorty, R., Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Related to this idea is the rejection of all forms of ‘foundational’ knowledge. The shift in philosophy has been away from epistemology to language and subjectivity. Habermas offers instead a model of communicative action and dialogue to replace the models of subjectivity. It seems to me to be preferable to Rorty's deconstructive approach. For an excellent discussion of these and other related issues, see Bernstein, R.J., The New Constellation (Polity, 1991), pp. 15–30; 199–292Google Scholar.

12 J. Milbank, ‘Out of the Greenhouse’, New Blackfriars, January 1993, pp. 4–14. For a discussion of the terms ‘modern’ and ‘postmodern’ see, R.J. Bernstein, op. cit., pp. 1–13.

13 Moltmann, J., God in Creation (SCM 1985)Google Scholar. For a critique of Moltmann's theology see, C. Deane‐Drummond, ‘A Critique of Jürgen Moltmann's Green Theology’, New Blackfriars, November 1992, pp. 554–565.

14 Birch, C., Eakin, W. and McDaniel, J.B., Liberating Life (Orbis, 1990)Google Scholar.

15 Cobb, J., Is It Too Late (Bruce, 1972)Google Scholar.

16 For a further critique see J. Milbank, ‘Out of the Greenhouse’, op. cit. Milbank stresses the danger of ‘pure immanentism’ that he perceives in process theology. We are commenting here more on the inconsistency of this aspect of process thought and its so‐called ‘anti‐anthropocentrism’ with the elevation of subjective experience, which reaches its culmination in human experience.

17 P. Willey and E. Willey, ‘The Earth as Gift’, New Blackfriars, February 1993, pp. 60–73.

18 Lovelock, J., The Ages of Gaia (Oxford University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

19 C. Deane‐Drummond, ‘God and Gaia: Myth or Reality?’, Theology, July/August 1992, pp. 277–285.

20 C. Deane‐Drummond, ‘Recalling the Dream: Celtic Spirituality and Ecological Consciousness’, Theology in Green, July 1993 pp. 32–38.