Philosophy of Science and the Spirit Active in the World

March 12th, 2012 / 9 Comments

Research in science and theology is chock full of philosophical presuppositions. We need to look at a few as we think about how best to talk about the Spirit’s activity in the world.

Unfortunately, scientists and theologians rarely identify their presuppositions explicitly or examine them carefully. Very few engage the discipline of philosophy of science and the metaphysical issues pertaining thereto. While a fully adequate engagement of philosophy of science is beyond the scope of this blog essay, a few brief comments seem necessary.

Theology of Nature

Some in the past and present think they must first prove God exists before they engage in thinking about how science and theology relate. In particular, they believe they can prove God exists by arguments based on the natural world.

This approach is not altogether wrong. For believers in God certainly have good reasons for their beliefs. But time and again, the attempt to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God exists has been a failing enterprise. Instead, it is more common today to present a cumulative case for why it seems more plausible than not God exists.

In the science-and-religion dialogue, the attempt to prove God’s existence through proofs of nature is typically called “natural theology.” By contrast, the attempt to understand nature under the assumption God exists is typically called a “theology of nature.” Because I think we have plausible reasons God exists, I follow the theology of nature approach.

Research Programs

Imre Lakatos is a favorite among those who think about presuppositions and philosophy of science. While the particulars of Lakatos’s work are appreciated by some and not by others, the main idea Lakatos advanced pertains to the guiding principles of what he called “research programs.”

Research programs in science identify presuppositions and hypotheses both essential and nonessential to the scientific work they support. These presuppositions and hypotheses become the framework in which one works when thinking about issues of science.

Lakatos reminds us that scientists make assumptions about the world, and many of those assumptions cannot be proven. For instance, the vast majority of scientists presuppose some metaphysical view of cause and effect, but they do not believe it necessary to prove this causal presupposition before doing their work.

Scientists also presuppose that some explanations are better than others, but they do not attempt to prove the values that support their claim about what is “better.” Such values are simply assumed.

No Need for Certainty

The Lakatos research program also helps us avoid the temptation to attempt the impossible: prove with certainty one’s metaphysical presuppositions. Rather than proving these presuppositions, one believes he or she has justified reasons for affirming their truthfulness from the start.

This approach is helpful, in large part because arriving at such certainty seems impossible. Alfred North Whitehead points out the problems with such certainty:

“Philosophy has been haunted by the unfortunate notion that its method is dogmatically to indicate premises which are severally clear, distinct, and certain; and to erect upon those premises a deductive system of thought. But the accurate expression of the final generalities is the goal of the discussion and not its origin.… Metaphysical categories are not dogmatic statements of the obvious; they are tentative formulations of the ultimate generalities” (Process and Reality, page 8).

I refer to Lakatos and Whitehead to justify my endeavor to talk, in general, about the relations between science and theology and, in particular, to speculate about divine action. While I think Christians can make good arguments for why it is more plausible than not that God exists, I will set aside such metaphysical arguments.

For my blogs on the Spirit acting in nature, I will assume God exists. I will proceed “as if” this is the case.

Perhaps more importantly, I offer tentative formulations of what kind of God exists and how this God acts. These issues make a whale of a difference!

My hope is to secure greater plausibility for my particular view of how the Spirit creates, sustains, and redeems creation. Future blogs will lay out my arguments.

Add comment

Comments

John King

Great post.  I have spent some many years thinking about “presuppositions”, it seems weird to me that there are many in both science and religion that really do not think about their presuppositions.  Wow!  Can it be true or do they “hide” their presuppositions?


Austin Lamos

I had never thought about the difference (I suppose never really knew the difference) between natural theology and theology of nature. This blog post helped me to see what that difference is. I agree with Tom that theology of nature is the way to go, especially in light of the final part of this post
I think that the idea that we need to prove “with certainty” the existence of God has caused many to get frustrated. No matter how many proofs or evidences we can come up with that God exists we will never be able to prove to anyone beyond a shadow of a doubt, this side of heaven, that God exists. I agree that we have reasonable cause to believe in God’s existence rather than his non-existence. This frees the believer up to pursue more important and critical arguments.


Susanne Blake

This is a great post.  I like the way Oord makes clear the difference between “Natural Theology” and the “Theology of Nature.”  Natural theology in itself has some merit.  Nature is a beautiful display of God’s handiwork.  Yet to prove the existence of God is very much a continuing process of change.  New species of plants and animals are being discovered everyday.  The categorizing of these are new discoveries. Yet this still does not give absolute proof of the existence of God.  What I understand is that nature is has been and continues to be in a state of change.  The “Theology of Nature” however makes the assumption that God does exist and therefore new discoveries are all given credibility that God is in and has made all things.  I agree that I am probably a person who leans toward the “Theology of Nature.” position.


Mark Mounts

After reading your post I am intrigued by the idea that people, in general, have their own faith and proof.  Science and religion seem to have their own faiths about things and their own truths or proof.  As I was reading, I thought about how each, religion and science, often are trying to prove their beliefs.  Some presumptions are just not going to be proven because it is open to a persons interpretation and perspective.  Hiding your presumptions seems interesting when given the task of science and religion to share their evidence with outsiders.


Matthew Henman

I certainly love the approach outlined in this essay concerning nature. “The attempt to understand nature under the assumption God exists is typically called a ‘theology of nature.’” (Oord) As I look and explore nature, there is something so awesome about how God meets us in His creation. For Christian’s coming to nature with the mindset that God will meet us there, and that He exists certainly allows us to have a deeper appreciation and quite frankly to take the time to listen to God, pray with Him in his beautiful creation. Many times nature also allows us to retreat from the distractions of the city, allowing for a more clear and profound ability to connect with Him.
I always come back to the lesson that I learned in my personal relationship with God, that in His beautiful creation he reveals himself to us. God is always looking for us to react to Him, to listen to Him, and to be in relationship with Him. Nature to me is the place I have always cherished this interaction.


Brian

Presuppositions are a natural part of everyone’s existence. We all have them. They come from our upbringing, our background, our teaching, our families, our input.
I share the presupposition that there is a God. I also find Dr. Oord’s last couple of questions quite interesting. What kind of a God are we talking about? These are certainly the delineating aspects of Who or What we are talking about.


Rebekah Adams

I like what you had to say about no need for certainty. If you have to prove your presuppositions than do you really believe in it to begin with? Or rather, do we as intelligent beings create a need to justify our beliefs and therefore become tempted by the impossible argument? We are creating for ourselves a quest which involves theology of nature.
You really have me thinking and contemplating how and why we debate the existence of God. It is a discussion that I have previously felt ill prepared for most likely due to my history in the church and my proof of God coming from experiences with healings and blessings, not nature etc. Which can make it difficult when discussing with someone who is unchurched.


Topher Taylor

I don’t think we will ever really be at a place where we can prove the absolute existence of God. Even when we get into the discussion of natural theology and being able to see the evidence of God through our “attempt to understand nature under the assumption God exists” can be dangerously close to making nature an idol. I tend to think that nature is a great way to see the evidences of God but it isn’t enough to provide proof. However, I do think there are enough reasons to believe that our presuppositions are true even when it doesn’t necessarily mean we have certain proof that God exists, but it does provide a place we can begin to look at the world and try to make sense of nature.


Cassandra Wynn

Great post. It is tempting to try to prove the existence of God prior to explaining creation and its origins. We want people to understand what we believe and why we believe it. This comes from a good place. People want to reach others for the kingdom and feel they need to formulate proofs in order to do so. You wrote in your blog post that people think they must first prove God’s existence before thinking of the relation between science and theology. I think that we must engage in the relationship between science and theology in order to better understand creation and the world God created.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Type in all 5 of the digits below to leave a comment. * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.