Clayton then proceeds to explain that he is attempting to articulate an approach to theology, and to critical faith, that does not yet exist, but which is necessitated by the current context within which theology is done (p.23). He takes it as an encouraging sign that attacks against such a position come from both sides: conservatives criticizing the embracing of doubt and the revision of traditional theological positions, radical liberals criticizing the preservation of so much from the Christian tradition (p.25). One of the greatest challenges to an honest faith is \u201cto acknowledge the possibility of the impossibility of religious belief<\/i>\u201d (p.25) \u2013 in other words, to accept that even the question of the existence of God must be subjected to scrutiny, and its status as controversial<\/i> in our time must be acknowledged (p.26).<\/p>\n
As an example of this sort of approach, Clayton turns to the writings of Wolfhart Pannenberg (pp.26-29). Pannenberg acknowledges that, if history proves unable to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus, \u201cfaith\u201d cannot do what history cannot. Looking for assistance for those who do not find Pannenberg\u2019s historical arguments for the resurrection persuasive, Clayton next turns to Charles Peirce (pp.29\u201332), advocating his approach to truth as a guide to the theological enterprise. Peirce\u2019s view reminded me of John Hick\u2019s notion of \u201ceschatological verification\u201d \u2013 truth is defined as that which those who investigate a question are ultimately fated to agree upon, but in the mean time, we may be left in the midst of the process of seeking truth, as yet unable to be certain about the outcome of the process. One consequence of understanding the quest for truth \u2013 and thus the task of theology \u2013 as a process is the inevitablity of the need for ongoing reformation and reformulation of doctrines and theological concepts (p.33). The risk in such an approach is acknowledged, but the alternative represents for Clayton a return to the Dark Ages, an attempt to use the scriptures of one\u2019s religious tradition to justify basing theology on \u201coutdated scientific cosmologies and empirically false claims about the world, rather than basing theological reflection on the best available knowledge we have about the universe\u201d (p.35).<\/p>\n
Clayton argues (p.36) that this approach is inherently Christian<\/i> because it takes seriously Jesus\u2019 call to serve rather than be served<\/i> (Mark 9:35):<\/p>\n The theology that exists in the midst of the sciences is a kenotic<\/i> discipline, from the Greek kenosis<\/i>, \u201cself-emptying\u201d (see Phil 2:5-8)\u2026We will find that the stance that is most<\/i> foreign to theology is to \u201clord it over\u201d others (Mark 10:42) \u2013 to stand, as it were, above the fray of the human pursuit of knowledge and to claim for oneself, a mere mortal, that final position of authority that belongs to God alone. Yet is that not precisely what one does when one dismisses the best results of the human pursuit of knowledge from the standpoint of (one\u2019s particular understanding of) divine revelation? Far better to have acted in humility and to have claimed less for oneself than one might otherwise have done, leaving it to history and to the progression of knowledge to vindicate, or to falsify, one\u2019s own position in the end.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In chapter 2, Clayton compares religious and theological truth, asking what the unique methods of theological inquiry are and how we know what we know about God. In other words, he explicitly raises some of the most challenging questions about the basis of the theological enterprise. After some consideration of the question of how science is defined and what its methods are, Clayton suggests that religious truth should not simply be defined as the opposite of science, however easy it has proved to do so. Examining the nature of science and religion in light of recent studies, Clayton eventually notes the irony that a significant number of contemporary religious believers have significant doubts about the truth claims of their tradition, and thus it may be that many \u201creligious believers may actually evidence a more<\/i> tentative, hypothetical stance toward their beliefs than many scientists do\u201d (p.47). As the chapter nears its conclusion, Clayton suggests that religion and science have more common ground than has often been acknowledged, but neither are they simply identical in their methods and approaches (pp.49-51).<\/p>\n Chapter 3 turns to a tough question for the contemporary dialogue between religion and science: is it really a \u201cnew adventure for theology\u201d or merely an attempt to hijack science in a quest for religion\u2019s legitimacy? Unless core religious beliefs are opened to scrutiny as part of the dialogue, the question becomes a legitimate accusation (p.52). The advantage of a critical approach is that, even though there is no guarantee that the results will be true, nevertheless \u201crational discourse offers our best available means for recognizing and eliminating bias and prejudice and for maximizing the odds of holding true beliefs about the world\u201d (p.53). Using the notion of \u201ctraction\u201d to illustrate the importance of seeking to substantiate one\u2019s claims, Clayton then describes three possible stages in the dialogue between science and religion. The first stage is \u201cmere dialogue\u201d, while the second stage involves a \u201ccommittment to withdraw those assertions that are counter-indicated by the overall available evidence\u201d (p.54). The third stage is a \u201cmost demanding type of science-religion discourse\u201d which \u201cembraces the full intent of the Peircian-Habermasian procedural account of rationality\u201d, not merely withdrawing claims that are counter-indicated by the evidence, but actively seeking to maximize traction between religion and science, and seeking those conversations that can lead to this end (p.56). Such a stage-three committment to rationality will require \u201ca religious faith that can co-exist with high levels of uncertainty and openness to change<\/a>\u201d (p.57), and Tillich is shown to have already anticipated many characteristics of what such a faith would need to look like. The sort of religion that engages science in this way is not that of the private sphere of personal experience and preference, but is in essence metaphysics<\/i>. \u201cThe theology (or metaphysics) that comports with science must be hypothetical, pluralistic<\/a>, fluid in its use of empirical and conceptual arguments, continually open to revision\u201d (p.61).<\/p>\n Stage three discourse means that \u201cThe scientist and the religious believer can share the same motivation: to extend human understanding as far as it will go\u2026If the mystery of reality is infinitely deep, no progression of understanding threatens it\u201d (p.62).<\/p>\n The remainder of the book represents Clayton\u2019s own attempt to put his approach into practice, and it is appropriate to emphasize at this stage that, regardless whether one finds this or that individual conclusion in the remainder of the book persuasive, the approach<\/i> to theology in the present age set forth thus far is provocative, challenging, insightful, and compelling.<\/p>\n Blog posts on parts 2-5 will follow. If you can\u2019t wait, Bob Cornwall<\/a> is already way ahead<\/a> of me\u2026<\/p>\n In Part One of his book Adventures in the Spirit: God, World, Divine Action, Philip Clayton explores the methods of philosophy and theology. Chapter 1 is entitled \u201cCritical Faith: Theology in the Midst of the Sciences\u201d, and it begins by setting forth the goal of the studies included here, which is \u201cto develop and defend […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":136,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-7559913956964350164?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")