William H. Chalker, Science and Faith: Understanding Meaning, and Method.
William H. Chalker (Ph.D., Duke University) is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at Albertson College of Idaho, after serving actively there from 1960-1987. This volume is an introduction, of sorts, to the theology and science dialog. Chalker herein proffers a thesis – and a sustained defense – that stipulates that any perceived conflict within the theology and science dialog is due to a fundamental misunderstanding, for Science seeks utility in its search for knowledge, whereas theology seeks for ultimate purposes in its search for knowledge (this is a view that is clearly influenced by Paul Tillich and his notion of religion being defined as ultimate concern). Moreover, Chalker is advocating what Barbour historically depicted as the Independence Model regarding the relation between theology and science. Thus, according to Chalker, both science and theology have their proper realms – and the two are not to interface. As a result, there is the possibility to have theological truth, as well as scientific truth, even if the two are apparently contradictory (as the theological truth is concerned with the ultimate purpose characterized in the assertion, whereas scientific truth is concerned with the utility of the assertion, as well as its actuality). Chalker therefore suggests that apparent conflict arises only when we discuss science in terms of ultimate purposes (i.e., theology’s proper rubric), and/or discuss theology in terms of utility (i.e. science’s proper rubric).
Chalker is a diehard empiricist of the first rank. In the first chapter, the thesis of the overall project is explicated, and the claim is made that absolutely all knowledge arises out of experience. In the second chapter, Chalker sets forth examples of how his two proposed rubrics (i.e. utility and ultimate purposes) are pervasively displayed throughout Western civilization’s history. Chapter’s three through six are the real ‘meat’, if you will, of the volume, as Chalker offers his analysis of the scientific method, which I honestly have reservations about. As Chalker is a trained theologian, his argument-building regarding the scientific method leaves a little to be desired (as a scientist by training, I could detect flaws in his coverage and explication of the scientific method). Moreover, if one truly presses the issue, one could make the assertion that upon logical extension ‘utility’ collapses into ‘ultimate purpose’. Indeed, teleology is, despite the efforts of some hostile authors in the natural sciences, still a viable concept, as well as one that will seemingly not ‘go away’, no matter how much some people may desire for it to do so.
Yet another weakness that I perceive regarding Chalker’s science is his complete disavowal of metaphysical realism (admittedly, whereas there are some scientists who are anti-realists, that position is miniscule and quite atypical). As a result, Chalker dismisses any sort of the correspondence theory of truth, finding truth value instead in pragmatic terms (i.e., what works). These weaknesses not withstanding, I found his approach and argument regarding the theological portion of the book to be crisp and convincing. In chapters seven through nine, Chalker tests, if you will, the second portion of his main thesis: that theology employs the rubric of ultimate meaning in its pursuit of knowledge. In so arguing, Chalker freely admits to God having an apriori telos (goal, purpose, etc.) for the whole creation. Another strength to be found within the text is Chalker’s setting forth of a dozen ‘rules or principles’ regarding the relation between theology and science, of which I will mention a few. In so doing, Chalker notes that experience is not only primary, but it is also never problematic, never false, nor never true, as per se. In contrast, it simply ‘occurs’. Whereas the human is the ‘seeker’ in science, God is the ‘seeker’ in theology. The scientist seeks the laws of nature, whereas the theologian seeks that which is behind the laws of nature (God).
Chalker admits that his book contains few novel ideas; however, I submit to the readers of this Journal that Chalker’s unique application of the (so-called) independence model of the theology and science dialog is a desirable read. Indeed, this volume was written in an engaging manner, and as such should be welcomed both by the general reader and by students in undergraduate and seminary classes.
Bradford McCall, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA.