Philosophy of Science and the Spirit Active in the World

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.