SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY.

In this article ‘science’ is

taken to mean the systematic study of the natural world, an
activity at once intellectual, practical and social. It is thus to
be distinguished from the vast corpus of empirical ‘facts’
accumulated by that activity and o en called ‘science’ by the
layman. e precise character of the scientific enterprise
and its methodology have varied with time. ‘Modern
science’ may be said to have originated in Western Europe at
about the time of the Renaissance and Reformation. Since
then its relationship with theology has been conceived in a
variety of ways.

1. Models of the relationship between science and

theology

Some have imagined a model of total independence, thus

eliminating any of the possibilities (and problems) dis-
cussed below. Such a zero-interaction model is irreconcil-
able with historical evidence, which points to a continuous
series of strong interactions over many centuries.
Secondly, there is a conflict model which was assiduously
developed a er Darwin by those who wished science to
snatch cultural supremacy from the church in late-Victo-
rian Britain. On the basis of undeniable episodes in which
scientific evidence did undermine received traditions that
were apparently based on the Bible (e.g. Galileo and Dar-
win), a generalized, triumphalist image for science was cul-

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 1
tivated, owing much to the positivist philosophy that only
scientific knowledge was ultimately meaningful. Despite
much evidence for the gross historical distortions intro-
duced by such a pre-emptive generalization, its survival in
popular literature even today testifies to its hold on the pub-
lic mind.
A third model is that of complementarity which (though
not by that name) may be dated back to Francis Bacon
(1561–1626) in the 17th century. He spoke of ‘two books’, the
book of nature and the book of Scripture, each of which had
to be read and understood. Because both came from the
same author they could not be in conflict. But because each
had a different purpose it was idle to mix ‘philosophy’ (sci-
ence) and divinity, and to seek scientific data in the pages of
Scripture. Problems arose, however, where biblical and
scientific evidence appeared to clash, and in those circum-
stances it was necessary to recognize the complementarity
of their modes of explanation. Calvin, drawing on the
Augustinian concept of ‘accommodation’, assumed that the
Holy Spirit accommodated his language to that of common
speech in order to teach spiritual principles. Hence biblical
accounts of the days of creation, of the structure of the
cosmos, of the sun (as opposed to the earth) standing still
and of a literally universal flood would be susceptible to a
non-literal interpretation. In other words, the biblical and
scientific accounts of natural phenomena have purposes
that are complementary rather than contradictory, the

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 2
Bible’s concerns being spiritual and eternal. is approach
has continued to our own day and may be fruitfully applied
to later problems, not least the creation debate.
For all its merits the ‘complementarity’ model by itself
fails in a number of respects, particularly by ignoring the
considerable network of relationships between science and
theology disclosed by recent historical scholarship. A fourth
model which takes these into account may be termed sym-
biosis. is recognizes that historically, scientific and theo-
logical thinking have owed much to one another and that
their growth has been mutually promoted. It conforms with
a widespread acknowledgment that much human knowl-
edge is culture-dependent, but it does not prejudice the
independence of data either in the Bible or in the natural
world. It merely recognizes that in the interpretation of
such data, theological and scientific ideas are o en inter-
mingled in one brain, as they are indeed in one society.
Hence one might expect some degree of mutual influence;
and such turns out to be the case.

2. Influence of science on theology

e responses of theology to science have been legion. One

of the earliest was natural theology. From Robert Boyle
(1627–91) to Paley, English literature is replete with
a empts to make discoveries of science the basis of a Chris-
tian apologetic; it has been argued, somewhat doubtfully,
that underlying such efforts lay a quest for social stability

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 3
which might be bolstered by a strong Anglican church. Its
unchanging formularies were to be confirmed by the
unchanging laws of science. Be that as it may, the ‘argument
from design’ survived, albeit in a weakened form, even the
onslaughts of Darwinism. With today’s greater knowledge
of the intricacies of the natural world, a empts have been
made to revive it, though not with conspicuous success.
It was in fact the awesome regularity of the mechanical
universe as emphasized by Isaac Newton that raised urgent
questions of divine intervention. Did God intervene in the
running of the machine he had created, or did he not? e
dilemma was crystallized in the (probably apocryphal)
remark by Laplace (1749–1827) that he had ‘no need of that
hypothesis (God)’ in his cosmology. us arose a powerful
stimulus to the growth of deism and its derivatives such as
unitarianism. A recognition that all natural events (not
merely those explicable by known scientific laws) must be
seen as God’s activity was not absent in the late 18th century.
But a God-in-the-gaps theology proved surprisingly
resilient and represents another popular misunderstanding
of the science/religion relationship.
A third response of theology to science has come in the
area of biblical interpretation. It goes at least as far back as
Galileo’s famous quip of 1615 that, in Scripture, ‘the inten-
tion of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven,
not how heaven goes’—a response engendered at least in
part by his own telescopic discoveries in vindication of

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 4
Copernicus. Since that time the discoveries and theories of
science have not infrequently led to a revision of traditional
interpretations of Scriptures. ese include ancient views
on the age of the earth, the structure of the universe, the
extent of Noah’s flood and the origins of biological species
(including human beings). Few commentators disagree
when this happens over cosmology, but application of an
identical methodology to questions of human origins is still
controversial.
It is important not to imply a unique role for science in
the reinterpretation of Scripture, but it cannot be neglected.
Where a theological response to science has been claimed
with much less justification is in the ‘demythologization’ (see
Myth) programme prescribed by Bultmann and others. e
assertion that ‘miracle’ is incredible in a scientific age is as
unphilosophical as it is unhistorical. It ignores the fact that
science is, by definition, concerned only with regularities
and can therefore make no pronouncement on their breach;
and it neglects to note that, at the very time when
demythologization came into vogue, old-fashioned, posi-
tivistic scientific dogmatism was in decline. For this a vari-
ety of causes may be cited, notably the demise of the deter-
ministic world of Newtonian mechanics in the face of suc-
cessive challenges by thermodynamics, relativity and quan-
tum theory.
Finally it may be briefly noted that the process theology
of Whitehead, Hartshorne and others sprang, at least osten-

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 5
sibly, from a concern to understand God’s relationship to
the world of nature as studied by science.

3. Influence of theology on science

e origins and growth of science may be fruitfully considered

in terms of a response to biblical insights liberated at, and
since, the Reformation (Hooykaas, Russell). is response
may be seen in the writings of many men of science and in
the morphological similarity between scientific and reli-
gious theories. Five such insights may be identified:
1. e elimination of myth from nature: an animate,
even ‘divine’, nature is not susceptible to scientific enquiry,
nor compatible with biblical injunctions to treat nature
instead as a dependent creation of God (Pss. 29, 89, 104, 137,
etc.) who alone is to be worshipped (Dt. 26:11; Is. 44:24; Je.
7:18; etc.). e replacement of an organismic by a mechanis-
tic universe (nature’s own ‘demythologization’) coincided
with a renewed awareness of such teaching.
2. e laws of nature: the emergence of ‘laws of nature’
in the 17th century has been shown by Zilsel (Physical
Review 51, 1942, pp. 245–279) as a derivative of biblical doc-
trines, citing inter alia Jb. 28:26 and Pr. 8:29. Later writers
(Whitehead, Oakley, etc.) have strengthened this thesis.
3. e experimental method: both in English Puritanism
and continental Calvinism the questioning manipulation of
nature was strongly encouraged as an alternative to the
abstract reasoning of ancient pagan cultures. It was seen as

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 6
fully compatible with biblical injunctions to ‘test’ all things
(1 es. 5:21; Rom. 12:2; Ps. 34:8; etc.).
4. Controlling the earth: Bacon and his followers saw in
Scripture (Gn. 1:26; Ps. 8:6–8, etc.) a clear mandate for alter-
ing the natural world for human benefit.
5. To the glory of God: that scientific research could add
lustre to the divine name was believed even by patristic
writers, but it most strongly emerged in the 17th century.
us John Kepler (1571–1630), in studying those heavens
which declared the glory of God (Pss. 8, 19, 50), exclaimed
he was ‘thinking God’s thoughts a er him’. is of itself was
a powerful motive for the scientific exploration of nature.
If science may, without exaggeration, be seen as histori-
cally dependent for its emergence on Christian theology,
then, in an age when this has been largely forgo en, biblical
theology has an even more important contribution to make.
is is in the area of ethical direction. Crucial to such an
impact is a renewal of the biblical concept of stewardship
which may be seen as the only key to current dilemmas over
areas of concern ranging from the pollution of the bio-
sphere to a possible nuclear holocaust. All of these arise
from a technology now made possible by science. Moreover,
many aspects of modern science have been seen as eroding
human dignity and worth, whether in the extrapolations of
biological science to the so-called ‘sociobiology’, or in the
naive reductionism that, in the manner of the Greek atom-
ists, sees all phenomena in purely material terms. To an

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 7
allegedly ‘scientific’ world-view so devoid of comfort and
hope theology surely has much to say.

See also: MACKAY, DONALD M .; NATURE, THEOLOGY OF;

POLYANI, MICHAEL; T ORRANCE, T HOMAS F.

Bibliography
I. G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (London,
1966); J. Dillenberger, Protestant ought and Natural Science
(London, 1961); R. Bube, e Human Quest (Waco, TX, 1971);
R. Hooykaas, Christian Faith and the Freedom of Science
(London, 1957); idem, Religion and the Rise of Modern Science
(Edinburgh, 21973); M. A. Jeeves (ed.), e Scientific Enter-
prise and Christian Faith (London, 1969); D. M. MacKay, e
Clockwork Image: A Christian Perspective on Science (London,
1974); idem, Human Science and Human Dignity (London,
1979); H. Montefiore (ed.), Man and Nature (London, 1975);
A. R. Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science (Oxford,
1979); A. Richardson, e Bible in the Age of Science (London,
1964); C. A. Russell, Crosscurrents: Interactions between
Science and Faith (Leicester, 1985).
C.A.R.

C.A.R. C. A. Russell, Ph.D., D.Sc., C.Chem., F.R.S.C., Professor of

History of Science and Technology, e Open University, Milton

Keynes.

Sinclair B. Ferguson et J.I. Packer, New dictionary of theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000).
Exporté à partir de Logiciel biblique Logos, 11:12 22 juillet 2021. 8