Science and the Trinity by John Polkinghorne

[筆是大遲]

先寫summary，有時間再討論一下。

Chapter one: Four Approaches to the Dialogue between Science and Theology

In this chapter, Polkinghorne gives a brief summary of the four type of interaction between science and theology proposed by Ian Barbour: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue and Integration. Similarly, John Haught proposed a 4-quadrant scheme of Conflict, Contrast, Contact and Confirmation. He mentions in passing some postfoundational proposal but does not discuss in depth. (Some menbers might find this annoying :haha: ) He focuses himself on the second half of both schemes which postulate more positive interaction between science and theology and asks what type of theological character could be distinguished in the current science and theology interchange. His proposal consists also of four categories (he said it is open to add a few more and foreseen a fifth, i.e. Systematic).
The first type is of a Deistic character. A representative is Paul Davis. Davis is prepared to recognize the validity of the meta-question of the laws of nature and is prepare to accept a Deistic God at the end of the scientific enquiry. For Davis, science offers a surer path to God than religion. Polkinghorne finds this kind of interaction is theologically thin and is not Christian enough.
The second type is of a Theistic character. A representative is Ian Barbour. This route would take more characteristic Christian foci into dialogue, such as incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this will also made use of a scientific theory to articulate basic Christian doctrine. Yet Polkinghorne finds the theistic content is basically governed by a prior committed theistic philosophy (in case of Barbour, it is process philosophy) which may not be easily fit with characteristically Christian doctrines, e.g. redemptive significance of Christ. In particular, Polkinghorne finds the process metaphysics does not seem consonant with the physical basis provided by modern quantum theory and the process God is soteriologically insufficient.
The third type is of a Revisionary character. A representative is the late Arthur Peacocke. Peacocke maintained the right of theology to speak with its own voice without being reduced to a function of scientific discourse. Peacocke is willing to explore the concept of creation continua in the light of evolution. But when come to Christology, Polkinghorne judges that Peacocke is too restricted to depicting the incarnation from an emergence-from-continuity perspective resulting at his belief that “what we have affirmed about Jesus is not, in principle, impossible for all humanity.” The trend in this type of interaction will lead to radically revise the traditional Christian doctrines within the limit of science.
The fourth type is of a Developmental character. Polkinghorne makes himself as a representative. The interaction between science and theology is understood as a continuously unfolding exploration rather than a process of radical change. Theology is a diachronic discipline whereas science is synchronic. Continuity with the past is more important in theology. Theology is under development in a sense different to science under development.
Polkinghorne uses the virgin conception of Christ as an illustration. Barbour, who subscribed to a certain process philosophy, did not discuss the topic at all. Peacocke concerned whether the exceptional status of Jesus (if the virgin conception is factual) would deprive Jesus of identification with the rest of us who have been naturally conceived. Peacocke then rejected virgin conception. Polkinghorne, who sees the whole force of Christian incarnational belief as deriving from the fusion of the power of symbol with the power of actual history, maintained the traditional doctrine. The difference between the revisionary and the developmental approaches lies in difference in estimating the probability of a specific belief in view of scientific expectation and theological interpretation.

[筆是大遲]

Chapter Two: The Role of Scripture

In this chapter, Polkinghorne explains his view of scripture as a scientist-theologian and a priest. He is addressing Peacocke's fear he mentioned in last chapter. That is, intellectual exchange will be hampered if theological practice relies principally on an authoritative book, an authoritative community and an appeal to a priori truth. To begin with, he quotes Peacocke approvingly that a more trusting attitude to the scripture is preferred. He urges reader to take seriously the central claim of the writers of the New Testament is that they are responding to a divine initiative and to a revelatory event that are without precedent. He finds an analogy to the sort of historico-observational sciences such as evolutionary biology and physical cosmology where unrepeatable events find their interpretation by making overall sense of the data available. This is the evidential use of the scripture.

Next, he postulates a spiritual use of scripture in which the scripture made alive in our lives through liturgy or like to meet with a different level of human experience. [P.S. I find this somewhat unexpected but I guess Polkinghorne is trying to open up a wider scope for application of scripture to allow deeper religious experience be taken into consideration in his construction of “reality”. ]

Thirdly, he describes the contextual role of scripture. By “context” he means what Moltmann said of “who exist within the orbit where the Bible is interpreted.” [P.S. Here Polkinghorne is not entirely clear (in my view). My interpretation is that he is talking about the communal context within which the Bible is being interpreted set up another context for it the Bible is further interpreted. In other words, I guess Polkinghorne is talking about the traditions. ]

Polkinghorne further delineates several factors that should control our reading of the bible. Firstly, he says we should identify the genre of the particular biblical text. His examples are the creation stories in Genesis and wisdom writings. Secondly, he rejects the divine dictation of the scripture and highlights the culture embedded-ness and thereby timebound-ness of the scripture. Therefore, Polkinghorne points out the developing insight coming out by sifting and testing of scripture within the community of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, Polkinghorne acknowledges the dark side of the scripture where unedifying stories are mentioned and unedifying command even purportedly ordained by God. Here he once again calls for critical discernment of the believing community. Polkinghorne proposes that the believing community could exert some sort of control over the legitimacy of a certain reading of scripture thus his proposal is not open unrestrictedly to individual manipulation. Concerning prophecy, Polkinghorne approves Moltmann’s saying, “God promises but does not prophesy.” God does not yet know the unformed future, simply because it is not yet there to be known. Overall, Polkinghorne is advocating a flexible hermeneutic which he finds support in the way New Testament writers like Paul employed in his own creative scripture interpretation seen in his letters. Polkinghorne is wrestling with the authority of the scripture, which if taken absolutely would suffocate interaction with other disciplines, if taken loosely would dissolve the core of Christian belief. He is trying to mediate a middle position.