Alister McGrath is one of the leading evangelical theologians today. He is a professor of theology at Oxford University, where he also received his education. He has published numerous books, including an Introduction to Christian Theology that is widely used as an introductory text book, and a number of more scholarly works, ranging in topic from the concept of justification in the history of theology to studies of Luther’s Theology of the Cross. He has also published a textbook on science and theology. Yet, it is not only his theological credentials which legitimate his work on “Scientific Theology.” He also received a Ph.D. in molecular biology from Oxford, and has conducted research in that area. Thus, in McGrath, we find an author emminently trained in both the fields of science and of theology. With this in mind, we shall now turn to his understanding of how to relate the two disciplines.
McGrath begins with a chapter on the “Legitimacy of a Scientific Theology.” McGrath lays out his agenda this way, “A scientific theology will treat the working assumptions and methods of the natural sciences as offering a supportive and illuminative role for the Christian theological enterprise, both assisting theological reflection andidentifiying and allowing exploitation of apologetic possibilities and strategies” (p. 7). In this discussion, he beings by laying out his assertion that science should act as ancilla theologiae. By this, he means that we are to acknolwedge the engagement between the disciplines, and allow science to play a supportive role to theology, as it acts as a dialogue partner. He first looks at the history of the concept of ancilla theologiae, noting that various philosophies (natural or otherwise) have acted in this capacit throughout the history of Christianity. This started with the Hellenistic world of the first centuries, and especially Platonism (seen in the writings of Augustine especially). In the Middle Ages, Aristotelianism took the place of Platonism, as an important resource for theology. McGrath notes that this history shows the possibility of having an ancilla theologiae, but it also demonstrates the danger as well as the promise. It has been possible for each of these different dialogue partners to take on too much authority with regard to theology. Thus, McGrath emphasizes that the discipline which plays this ancillary role must act in a ministerial, and not magisterial capacity in relation to theology. It may be a fruitful source of ideas with helpful convergences, and ask important questions, but at the same time, the dialogue partner must not be placed in authority over theology. He illustrates this by asserting, “The natural sciences neither prove nor disprove Christianity; thay are, however, a most profitable dialogue partner” (8).
A second important section of the prolegomena of his scientific theology is McGrath’s assertion that not only is dialogue possible in the way he as asserted, but this dialogue is an “ontological imperitive.” He asserts very simply, “A positive working relationship between Christian theology and the natural sciences is demanded by the Christian understanding of the nature of reality itself – an understanding which is grounded in the doctrine of creation” (21). For McGrath, dialogue between science and theology is not just part of an intellectual fad, but is instead fundamental to the way Christians understand the world. Because the world is God’s creation, we are required to engage it. Science must not be considered outside the scope of theology!
Important to understanding McGrath’s approach is to look at his understanding of the two disciplines of science and theology. He first looks at theology, noting the constant presence of new trends, and asserts that one must be constantly in dialogue with historical theology, constantly conversing with voices from the past. This means remaining within the “great theological tradition” but always listening with a critical ear and an eye to scripture. His understanding of science is also important, for he asserts, “Science is to be seen as an ‘unended quest’, whose findings may be up to date but are never final” (47). Thus, it is primarily methodological questions which will occupy McGrath in his scientific theology.
In the body of the second main part of his scientific theology, his discussion of “nature,” McGrath looks first at the history of the idea “nature,” and shows how it has varied throughout historical thought, from Plato and Aristotle to the mechanistic view of nature. He concludes, “A complex set of social mediations lies between the observer and ‘nature’. Nature is not, and cannot be a ‘thing-in-itself’…” (110). “Nature” itself is a free human construction, as opposed to a readily available source of objective reality. It is an interpreted concept, and must be understood as such, since it is partly shaped by “socially mediated factors.” This conclusion leads McGrath to assert, “[Nature] is therefore a category which offers little promise as a basis – or even a dialogue partner – for a scientific theology” (133). In the place of “nature” as a category, McGrath places “creation” as the category which provides this dialogue partner, and it is to his understanding of creation that we now turn.
McGrath gives careful and comprehensive attention to the doctrine of creation. He looks at the biblical concepts which feed the doctrine, as well as the development of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. He also gives careful discussion to a number of classical formulations of the doctrine, including Aquinas, Calvin and Barth, and looks at the relationship of deism to an understanding of creation, rounding out a good historical discussion of this doctrine.
McGrath’s biblical and historical study of the doctrine of creation then leads into a discussion of what he sees to be the implications of this doctrine. The first major implication which he sees is that a Christian understanding of creation “leads directly to the conclusion that there is a correspondence – the degree of which requires clarification – between the works of God and the being of God” (193). This point also leads to the related point that there is a congruence between our minds and the universe which allows scientific inquiry to be possible, and further that there is a possibility of theological reflection that is based on the fact that humans are created in the imago dei. Thus, by virtue of this created imago, the human mind is able and adequate to undertake theological reflection on God. Among his other reflections on the implications of the doctrine of creation comes the understanding that beauty does belong to the created world, by virtue of its being a creation. This, among his other assertions, leads him to conclude, “A strong doctrine of creation (such as that associated with Christianity) leads to the expectation of a fundmental convergence of truth and beauty in the investigation and explanation of the world, precisely on account of the grounding of that world in the nature of God” (240).
The final area which McGrath treats in his discussion of “nature” in this volume is natural theology. After taking a (characteristically) historical look at natural theology and its development, he returns to an earlier theme, and asserts that natural theology is fundamentally problematic due to the understanding of “nature” as an interpreted category as discussed above. Thus, different foundations have been used, such as the observable world, human rationality or human culture, upon which to base this “natural” theology. McGrath then turns to a more positive statement of the role of natural theology. Basing his discussion on the biblical basis for natural theology, and paying close attention to Barth’s objections, he seeks to put forward just how natural theology can be understood to be legitimate. In his discussion of the place of natural theology within a scientific theology, he asserts that there is resonance, but not proof, to be found in a natural theology. ” ‘Nature’ is not a self-sufficient category, capable of bearing the epistemological weight which an autonomous natural theology demands. In its legitimate and defensible form, natural theology is to be viewed as a legitimate and proper theological exercise to be conducted within the scipe of a revealed knowledge of God, rather than as an autonomous discipline outside its bounds” (294). Putting his point in a more concise fashion, he writes, “Nature has to be seen in a certain way before it has revelatory potential” (294). McGrath’s understanding of natural theology puts a capstone on his discussion of nature, as he draws together the strands he has woven, and draws out the implications of the problematic status of “nature” as a category, applying instead the category of “creation,” and heeding is own methodological assertion that science should play an ancillary role to theology, as he subordinates natural theology to (or at least places it within the context of) revealed theology.
In this first volume of his scientific theology, McGrath has truly given us a monumental work in the field. I applaud first of all his careful attention to scripture, as he deliberately places himself within the evangelical tradition. His work is not one of speculation, nor is he constantly testing the currents of modern trends. Instead, in dialogue with both historical and contemporary views, always atuned to the biblical foundation of theology, he gives us a very balanced and irenic statement of how science and theology should be related, and further, how nature is to be understood as creation. I look forward to reading futher volumes, based on the strong methodological foundation he has layed for himself in his prolegomena. I believe he is bound for success because of the course he has layed out for himself. Cheif among the strengths I believe his proposal contains is his repeated assertion that science is never to have “magisterial” authority over theology. Even as we assert a certain unity of truth or overlap between the two disciplines, we must understand, as McGrath does, that in a fundamental way, God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ, as attested in the scripture through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, must always take precedent over our provisional (even if current) formulations and understandings of the world. At the same time, though, I believe McGrath is right to assert that there is an imperative for dialogue between the two disciplines which comes from a Christian doctrine of creation, for as we assert that God created the heavens and the earth, we are affirming the value and revelatory possibilities of that creation.
I think one way in which this work has proved especially helpful for me in navigating the minefield that is today’s dialogue between science and theology is that McGrath has gotten down to the root of the relationship, by focusing on the methodologies of the two disciplines, and basing his understandings there, as opposed to getting bogged down in an attempt to demonstrate the relationship from the way a certain scientific theory or a certain doctrine has been formulated (this is not to say that he hasn’t looked at either of these areas, nor that these are not legitimate undertakings, but that he has layed a firm foundation before setting out in this endeavor).
My final conclusion is a strong recommendation of this book. It is at times dense, and certainly proves a formidable undertaking, but his writing is very clear, and his conclusions are at once careful and strong. I look forward to further volumes, as well as to the anticipated Scientific Dogmatics which may at some point follow up this current trilogy with a systematic statement of theology based on the methodological blueprint he has layed forth.
Alister McGrath, in this second volume in his Scientific Theology trilogy, continues what he calls “an essentially linear argument from nature to theory,” with a reflection on reality, and the engagement of science, and a scientific theology, with reality. As McGrath conceives it, a scientific theology is one that seeks to give an account of reality. He stresses repeatedly the a posteriori as opposed to a priori nature of theology. This means that theology (like science as well) responds to reality, in its development and formulations. In this substantial volume, McGrath seeks to outline what he terms a “critical realism” as the approach which is to be preferred in understanding how reality is to be engaged. He draws a parallel between critical realism in the natural sciences and the critical realism as a program for a scientific theology.
As he sets out in this second volume, McGrath asserts, “This volume defends the view that knowledge arises through a sustained and passionate attempt to engage with a reality that is encountered or made known…” (4). To achieve this end, he critiques both postmodernism and the Enlightenment project and its implicit foundationalism. He first sets out to show the incoherence of the postmodern assertion that truth and value are wholly social constructs. To do this, he interacts with Richard Rorty, who develops Michael Foucault’s criticisms. Rorty makes the assertion that values have social impact merely because they are believed to be true by a consensus of society, not because they actually correspond to reality. McGrath counters that this consensus of society contains within it an implicit scientific realism at its root, undermining Rorty’s assertions (this discussion is much more in depth than I can reproduce here, and I refer you to pp. 5-11). Having stated his disagreement with Rorty, McGrath goes on to make a case for critical realism as being the foundation for the natural sciences.
The second major development upon which McGrath focuses is on the demise of foundationalism, the basing of beliefs on a set of “basic beliefs” which are held to be universal truths, available to all people at all times, an approach which rests upon the philosophy of Descartes. A major strain of “foundationalism” has held that experience provides this foundation, and this type of defense has affinity with Schleiermacher’s theology grounded on human self-consciousness, and the feeling of absolute dependence. McGrath details the demise of foundationalism by pointing to its downfall in mathematics, the area where it should be most effective. He notes the work of Frege, who began by asserting that all mathematics is founded in “logic.” But, the philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out to him a paradox in mathematics that showed the weakness of this proposal. To cite an example used by McGrath, assume A is the set of all sets that “are not their own elements.” Then, the basic truth A includes A leads to a contradiction, because for A to be itself, it defies its own definition that it is the set of sets that are not their own elements. Thus, a paradox is found in mathematics that cannot be avoided, for A = A becomes an impossibility (see McGrath’s discussion, p. 27-8).
McGrath is finally led to conclude, “To stress this point: criteria for scientific knowledge must be grounded in what nature will permit, thus possessing an a posteriori rather than a priori character” (38). What goes along with this assertion is the view that truths are mediated by tradition. There is no way to access “universal” truth, for we cannot assume our minds are a “tabula rasa” as did Descartes. Instead, McGrath uses the illustration of Neurath’s boat as a way to understand tradition: Tradition is like a boat, and we are like sailors in the boat on the sea. We can make changes to the boat, piece by piece, even to the point of having an entirely new boat, but this can be only done through a gradual reconstruction. This communicates the idea that tradition is unavoidable as an element in our reasoning, but also that tradition is living, and can be modified as necessary in response to reality. He further emphasizes that in rejecting foundationalism, he is not advocating a rejection of realism or a turn to relativism. Instead, it is to emphasize the a posteriori nature of scientific and theological reflection.
In light of the demise of foundationalism, the belief in “universal” truths, and in acknowledgement of the role of tradition in knowledge, McGrath once again turns to natural theology, which played a key role in his first volume. Here, he again asserts that natural theology provides a way to enter into dialogue with other religions. He writes, “The important point about a natural theology is that it offers us an interpretive grid by which other traditions may be addressed on the common issues of existence, enabling the coherence and attractiveness of the Christian vision to be affirmed” (75). In this way, natural theology provides the “trans-traditional rationality” that is so central to a Christian understanding of the world.
Returning to the theme of “realism” in Chapter 9, McGrath makes the assertion that the foundations for realism can be found in the natural sciences. Realism, he contends, is the working philosophy of the natural sciences, and is the only philosophy that “does not ‘make the success of science a miracle’.” (124) He goes on to discuss other alternatives to realism, and also to make a detailed case for realism in the sciences, a discussion which I will not duplicate here. His developing picture of realism is one in which“there is indeed a ‘reality’ independent of the human mind, which the mind is capable of grasping, while fully conceding that:
1. Our grasp of reality is always less than total;
2. Our descriptions of reality must be held to be revisable, in the light of closer approximations to the essential properties of things;
3. Models or other constructs may be required when representing or analyzing this reality, or its aspects, without in any way calling that reality into question.” (122-3)
This means that the social location of the theologian or scientist is neither marginalized nor absolutized. It is seen to be a factor, but not the decisive one, in scientific or theological thinking. It is precisely this agenda that he goes on to discuss in chapter 10.
McGrath begins to put forward a developing picture of critical realism. Notes the contribution of N.T. Wright, who talks of “the spiraling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence ‘critical’)” (196). This represents a holding on to the ideas of truth, objectivity and rationality, even if in a chastened form. McGrath investigates many forms and paths of critical realism, including the relationship between critical realism and Christian spirituality, and a number of other developments and uses. One fellow advocate of critical realism whom McGrath cites is John Polkinghorne, a fellow “scientist-theologian,” with a background in particle physics.
In McGrath’s proposal concerning critical realism, one important component is the understanding of reality as being “stratified.” This means that there is an acknowledgement of different “levels” of reality, built upon each other, and dependent upon each other, yet at the same time, not reducible to a single level. This “stratified” reality can be seen reflected in the layers of science noted by Bhaskar, whose critical realism McGrath is highly dependent upon: Psychological sciences, Social sciences, Biological sciences, Molecular sciences. McGrath believes that this view of reality as stratified confirms the operations of the natural sciences. He then looks at the implications of this important element of critical realism for theology, and asserts, “The stratified understanding of reality affirmed by critical realism thus allows us to argue that the natural sciences investigate the stratified structures of contingent existence at every level open to human inquiry, while a theological science addresses itself to God their creator who is revealed through them” (227). He further asserts that a stratified understanding of reality in relation to theology means “the creative and redemptive being of God is the most fundamental of all strata of reality” (228). Thus, asserting as he frequently does that ontology is determinative of methodology, and that God lies at the foundation of all reality, he turns the traditional notion of science as the “apex” of the sciences on its head, in asserting instead that theology lies at its base. He also asserts that this “stratification” of reality is seen reflected in a stratification that also has appeared in theology, such as in Barth’s threefold form of the Word of God, or in Torrance’s three levels of theological reflection. Thus, the stratification seen here is not merely a theological construct, but mirrors a stratification that is to be found in reality.
In the final chapter in this second volume, McGrath sets out his proposal for critical realism in a scientific theology, systematizing and applying the insights he has so-far built. Early on, he notes the basic theme of “encountering reality,” a theme which he sees as central to both natural and theological sciences, and anchored in a doctrine of creation, referring back to the foundation he set down in the first volume of his Scientific Theology. He sets out the agenda for a scientific theology by noting four major characteristics of a scientific theology are that it: “1. takes the form of a coherent response to an existing reality; 2. is an a posteriori discipline; 3. takes account of the unique character of its object; 4. offers an explanation of reality” (246). He also significantly adds a fifth point, that a scientific theology is Christocentric, in order to respect and reflect the inner logic of Christianity. He goes on to give a detailed defense and elaboration of each of his points, and how it is integral to a scientific theology. Here we shall give a (brutally brief) summary of his elaboration of these five points.
McGrath begins by asserting that a scientific theology is a coherent response to an existing reality. This point, at once, reflects a fundamental congruity between theology and the natural sciences, in its approach to reality. This point is made deliberately against (and in conversation with) theological anti-realism, seen in the work of Don Cupitt and Ludwig Feuerbach, which asserts that theological language is not about “reality” but about “ourselves.” Affirming the theological realism of Barth and T.F. Torrance, McGrath asserts instead that God has genuinely given himself to be known, and returning to his often recurring theme of the renewed importance of a natural theology founded on a strong doctrine of creation, asserts that God has revealed himself through an embedding of divine ordering in creation, as well as in an embodiment in Christ. This deliberately affirms the “reality” of the referents of theological language, independent of theological investigation.
McGrath’s second characteristic of a scientific theology is that it is an a posteriori discipline. In this point, he deliberately affirms that if there is a reality independent of our theological investigation of it, we must then respond to that reality, offering an account of that reality. This leads him to the somewhat paradoxical notion that theological investigation “begins with actual knowledge of God” (269). To illustrate the importance of this point, he takes a historical look at the incarnation and a priori notions of God, noting that the incarnation did not fit with a priori notions of God, and necessitated a shift in understandings of God. He asserts, “The history of Jesus of Nazareth once forced, and still forces, the redrawing of conceptual boundaries and mental horizons, demanding that we rethink and refashion our understanding of such matters as God, and human nature and destiny” (275), and he sees Luther’s theology of the cross as just such a theological endeavor. This means that a scientific theology requires that speculations be restrained, and anchored in reality, in that it must respond to the “specific form” taken by God, instead of mere human instinct or logic.
The third characteristic of a scientific theology which McGrath puts forth is a “response to its distinctive object.” Here, the emphasis is on the fact that theology must be accommodated to the specific nature of God, as opposed to a general human understanding. He explores the Buber-Brunner strategy of I-Thou and dialogical personalism as an illustration of how our theology reflects the nature of God.
Reiterating his theme again, McGrath’s fourth characteristic of a scientific theology is that it offers an explanation of reality. This point is made to uplift deliberately the “explanatory” role of a scientific theology to give an account of reality. This takes the functional shape of connecting the beliefs of Christianity with the experience of Christians.
The fifth point, which McGrath feels led to make, even though it is not applicable to the more generic “science and religion” discussion in the same way as his other four, is that a scientific theology must be Christocentric. He asserts that this point is essential, for Christ is the distinctive and central point of Christianity, and makes four points to illustrate this centrality: Christ is the historical point of departure for Christianity, Christ reveals God, Christ is the bearer of salvation, and Christ defines the shape of the redeemed life. (299-300) Because Christ is at the foundation of the Christian faith, “it follows that the coherence of any resulting theology will be determined by the adequacy of its representation of Christ within that system” (301). McGrath notes that Creation is fundamentally bound up with Christ, and also repeatedly reaffirms that what is “embedded” in creation is “embodied” in Christ, uplifting the decisive importance of Christ, not apart from the rest of theology, but as integral and continuous with it. He concludes, “A scientific theology which is truly a Christian theology can be so only when it focuses on Christ as it is in Christ that the fullness of the God who is known partially through the created order is to be encountered (Colossions 2:9)” (313).
McGrath’s careful defense of “critical realism” rigtly calls into question a naïve view of realism that is often defended in evangelical circles. Under the perceived threat of Kantian and Enlightenment philosophy, many theologians and Christians often feel the need to “circle the wagons” around a realist world view. Many theologians and historians have noted the role of Scottish Common Sense Realism in Colonial America, through the time of the Awakenings, as well as in much of current evangelical thought. McGrath’s through investigation into “critical realism,” and into the demise of foundationalism should serve as a call for sustained critical reflection on our understanding of reality, and our access to it. Through his coherent proposal, he allows a clearly “realist” perspective to be maintained while at the same time the insights that can be gained from both Enlightenment and post-modern philosophy to be appropriated constructively and critically.
I believe that in setting forth his agenda for a scientific theology as an encounter with reality, McGrath as built a strong foundation for the theological enterprise. His proposal takes into account the historical development of theology, which at the same time upholds that history without making it divine. He also acknowledges the importance of experience, as something needing explanation, and as something based in and part of reality.
One of the distinctive, and I believe central, aspects of McGrath’s scientific theology is his revival of natural theology. His first volume carefully rebuilt an understanding of natural theology that is firmly anchored in the doctrine of creation. This second volume has continued and extended that emphasis, for natural theology has again enabled him to argue for the reality of a world to which our words and thoughts can refer, and also provides an explanation for our ability to comprehend and investigate that reality, based on the nature of God embedded in reality, and mirrored in humanity. I found this recurring revival of what is otherwise an often neglected topic to be refreshing, and also instructive, because it brings together a number of theological streams, from creation to revelation to anthropology, and places them in a coherent picture which can be understood and utilized. I look forward to the third volume in the series, Theory, where McGrath will conclude (at least for now) the trajectory of this masterful treatise on theological method with an investigation of the role of theory in science, and in theology.
Riding on the heels of his first two volumes in his Scientific Theology, the first on the understanding of nature in the sciences and in theology and the second on the nature of reality, McGrath culminates his Scientific Theology with an extended look at theory. As we have noted above, this takes him on a trajectory through an understanding of theory in the two disciplines of natural science and theology, through a look at how reality is represented, through a reflection on the place of explanation, and finally to an appraisal of the role of the contested discipline of metaphysics in these two disciplines. This final volume again expounds McGrath’s great themes of his Scientific Theology, such as the place of “scientific” formulation as an a posteriori reflection on the revelation of God, especially in Jesus Christ, as opposed to a priori theorizing or confining of the Truth of theology to the truths of modern-day philosophy or culture. He also again demonstrates how science can play the role of ancilla theologiae.
McGrath begins his formidable argument in this volume by reflecting on the formulation of theories in both the sciences and in theology. He points out the inevitability of theory as a response to the reality that is encountered in the world.
In this volume, as in the other two volumes of his Scientific Theology, McGrath utilizes the natural sciences as ancilla theologiae, as dialogue partner with theology. At every turn he is careful to show how the method of the natural sciences is analogous to that used in theology. While not uncritical of the sciences and their presuppositions or overstatements, he shows how parallel methodologies can and should be used to inquire into theological truths. At many points, it would seem he uses the legitimacy that the natural sciences has in today’s philosophy and culture to combat the hostility and criticism that is often leveled against theology through demonstrating similarity of their methods.