Paul L. Allen, Ernan McMullin and Critical Realism in the Science-Theology Dialogue (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), xi + 201, $99.95.
Paul L. Allen is Assistant Professor in the Department of Theological Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada. He is formerly Canadian Director of the Science and Religion Course Program, is currently an administrator with the Lonergan Website. This is his first book, and it deals with the problem of theological knowledge claims in light of scientific success(es). Critical realism, a theory of knowledge, is associated with some of the greatest figures of twentieth century philosophy and theology: names like Polanyi, Lonergan, Bhaskar, Polkinghorne, Barbour, Peacocke, McGrath, and Russell. Critical realists are found in fields such as epistemology, metaphysics, biblical studies and science-theology dialogue. It is a widely adopted position in epistemology with adherents in the philosophy of science and theology as well as the philosophy of social sciences.
Reverend Ernan McMullin is a Roman Catholic priest, who received a Ph.D. in philosophy in the 1950’s from the Roman Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. Ironically, for many years McMullin did not like realism. Allen argues that this critical realism of McMullin, based as it is on Peircean retroduction (otherwise known as abduction), offers a more substantial foundation for critical realism than does Barbour, Peacocke, or Polkinghorne. In this study, the status of knowledge in science, philosophy, and theology is under review, and it considers certain key elements of the critical realist position that benefits theological reflection. The thesis of this book is that McMullin’s philosophy of ‘critical realism’ is highly serviceable for theological discourse in that it is both historically sound and scientifically nuanced (cf. 7). The book under review is composed of an introduction, with five attendant chapters, followed by a distinct conclusion, all of which in one way or another address McMullin’s wide characterization of rationality. In what follows, salient points regarding each chapter will be highlighted.
In the first, Allen treats the critical realism of Barbour, Peacocke, and Polkinghorne, and points out why he thinks these are inferior to McMullin’s version. For example, he notes that their positions regarding critical realism are widely divergent from each other. Allen notes that McMullin’s critical realism accounts for human rationality and the historical trajectories of science without falling prey to some form of relativism. Rather, it is based on the process of scientific investigation itself. Chapter one collectively argues that critical realism can serve as a heuristic, explanatory notion that does more than merely describe interdisciplinary similitude. The second chapter illustrates that McMullin’s theory of retroduction is not vulnerable to positivist or empiricist critiques; rather, the notion of retroduction points to the heuristic character of the imagination.
Chapter three takes as a test case of the applicability McMullin’s theory of retroduction the modern discipline of cosmology, and it shows that science is ultimately limited in what it can explain. In fact, McMullin notes that cosmology “pinpoints the way in which the question about God emerges from science” (104). In chapter four, Allen deals with the theme of faith as it is construed in McMullin’s thought, particularly regarding faith’s relationship with rationality. In short, McMullin holds that there is a divinely created source for human reason, and by extension, human intentionality in general (121). The sixth chapter is the most important within the text in my humble opinion. Herein, Allen presents McMullin’s suggestions as how to integrate knowledge gained from science and theology, a concept that he refers to as ‘consonance’, which connotes interdisciplinary non0contradiction (159). Allen also articulates some key terms of natural theology beyond which McMullin himself envisioned. In summary of McMullin’s import to the science-religion dialogue, Allen notes that the employment of the term ‘critical realism’ as articulated by McMullin would improve the chances that future natural and systematic theology could provide a worldview that is intelligible to contemporary society.
In the conclusion, Allen notes McMullin’s contributions to a revival of theological scholarship include a retrieval of emphasis upon both Augustine and Aquinas, a recovery of the pragmatist impulse of Peirce, and a highlighting of the importance of secondary causes as the way in which the natural universe unfolds (176–77). All in all, I appreciate this book by Allen, as he offers great insight into McMullin’s thought. However, due to Allen’s lack of explicit training in contemporary philosophy of science, I question his ability to critically evaluate the work of McMullin. As such, it seems that he allows McMullin at times to merely assert something, rather than prove and/or demonstrate it. This criticism aside, I nevertheless recommend this title, as it expands our understanding of McMullin’s view of critical realism, one that moves beyond a permanent stand-off between the subjective and objective. Rather, critical realism illuminates the subject and the object simultaneously. Responding to criticisms made against it, this book defends critical realism in science and theology with a specific role to play in our understanding of God.
Bradford McCall, Regent University, Virginia beach, VA.