For all you Torrance scholars out there; you might be interested in David Munchin’s provocative essay in the most recent publication of the Scottish Journal of Theology. Here is the title and abstract.
‘Is theology a science?’ Paul Feyerabend’s anarchic epistemology as challenge test to T. F. Torrance’s scientific theology SJT (4): 439-455 (2011) doi.: 10.1017S003693061100024X
Abstract
To answer in the affirmative Barth’s question ‘Is theology a science? is to acknowledge both that such a question has a history and that the predicate ‘scientific’ is a contested one. T. F. Torrance in Theological Science and subsequent publications, seeks to proceed with a minimalist conception of science, as a study whose methods are directed by ‘faithfulness to object’. Paul Feyerabend, in Against Method and subsequent publications, contends that such a minimalism amounts to an admission that there is no such thing as ‘the scientific method’, and that therefore the predicate ‘scientific’ lacks coherence and substance. According to Feyerabend, philosophers like Michael Polyani (an important influcence upon Torrance) are simply not bold enough to see their work through to the radical conclusions which it demands and he provides. For Feyerabend, science’s reference to qualities such as ‘objectivity’ and ‘rationality’ are simply a smoke-screen for decisively influential vested interests of power and wealth — it is these which ultimately determine what we mean by science, and these which therefore must be unmasked in the cause of humanism. However, in the course of this dialogue we reveal that Feyerabend is too careless a thinker, given to rushing prematurely and too willingly to unwarranted and simplistic dichotomies. Thus Torrance’s notion of the ‘scientific’ emerges intact, but not without Feyerabend’s stimulating challenge raising important questions, not least to theology as a science. For here, above all, ‘human’ factors are likely unduly to influcence scientific knowledge. Thus Feyerabend also points to areas where Torrance’s project needs further development and closer scrutiny.
As the abstract makes clear, Munchin comes out on the Torrancean side of things; and for good reason. OneΒ of the quotes that stand out (from memory) is ironically not from Feyerabend nor Torrance, it is from Anthony Thistelton, at a point where Munchin is critiquing Feyerabend’s method; it is, ‘that suspicion is great for asking questions, but is terrible as a worldview.’ Munchin lifts Feyerabend as a Postmodern epistemologist as an antagonist of TorranceΒ (in contrast to some of Torrance’s logical positivist ones). Again, Munich demonstrates how the PoMo critique of Torrance’s scientific theology (as imperialist or power-mongering) sinks on rocky shores. Anyway, give it a read.
As much as I love theology, this is just not even close to Calvin, nor even Theodore Beza, who of course was chosen by Calvin to head up the Genevan academy (after Calvin). Postmodern epistemology, ugh! In my opinion, the only decent book written somewhat on the subject was Stanley Grenz’s book: Renewing The Center, Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era. Maybe I am just too Anglican, catholic, and even biblicist?
Fr Robert,
I am unsure about what gave you any indication that this had anything to do with Calvin. Munich placed Torrance’s scientific theology into conversation with Feyerabend’s and found the latters’ critique wanting on multiple fronts. In other words, the PoMo critique is lifeless. So you should see this in a favorable light instead of negative relative to your disdain (which I have as well) for all things so called PoMo.
Btw, whatever Torrance is? He’s not PoMo, or imperialist, but perhaps just something theologically dialectic, and somewhat Hegelian and antithetical? For logic is not outside of the antithetical. Just thinking out loud. We can note too that Tertullian used antithesis in his theology and doctrine of God!
Bobby: I was just thinking how far “Calvin”, and even the second generation of Calvin/Calvinism is from this whole affair! After all you do use the term Calvinism in your “Evangelical” moniker! π
Bobby: I know you don’t always like my blog replies, but we must be trying to “think”, and not just critically, but in some sense of the Church Catholic. As a conservative Anglican, I am always “thinking” as a historical Churchman. At least this is my desire!
Fr Robert,
This post was simply to direct anyone interested to the journal essay at hand. Nothing more.
Bobby: When ya throw something down on the open blog, without specification, ya get people thinking, just the nature of the blog. π
Yes, I know. And then I get to choose how much I want to interact or not; that’s the nature too π .
Bobby,
I don’t follow philosophy too well, but I know of scholars who have been instructive to my disciple formation mention names that you do in this post. One is Michael Polyani. Lesslie Newbigin interacts with him in his book “Foolishness to the Greeks.” His books have been helpful to understand what I have taken as an axium (if that is the correct term): “one should not argue one’s faith assumptions in the arena of another’s faith assumptions.” Rather than that statement making everything relative for me, it gives a proper humility that we all do indeed have underlying faith commitments that at least have to be recognized to move forward in any given discussion – issues of science included.
In following various debates on any number of issues related to science, I am finding that the greatest hinderance to getting at truth is this lack of recoginition of one’s faith assumptions.
I don’t know if this has anything to do with what you are talking about in the above post, but given my acquaintance with some of what you talk about, it might (correct me if I am wrong).
One name that comes to mind in all this is Thomas Kuhn and his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Would his take of realizing that faith assumptions and the necessity to continually test them against accumulated evidence be along the lines of the challenges made by Paul Feyerabend?
Mark
Bobby have you ever read Nancey Murphy’ “Theology in the age of Scientific reasoning” She did her PHd. under Paul Feyeraband at Berkeley. She doesn’t follow him in the anarchist direction but follows in the direction of Imre Lakatos’ philosophy of science/theology, anyway I thought you might check her out.
Btw, talking philosophy, every serious student here, that wants to understand the making of modern and even the so-called aspect of Christian philosophy, at least that which tried to master Holy Scripture. Sould get a copy of Jonathan Israel’s: Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650 – 1750. (Oxford) This is very good and historical!
*should (my poor type)
Hi Mark,
I agree; it is important to recognize the informing faith traditions that help to shape each and everyone of our belief systems (at some level). This is really what Immanuel Kant noticed about the power of presuppositions (to say it plainly); we all have them, but that does not mean that we can’t get at reality because of them, per se. As far as Kuhn, yes, in this essay Munchin highlights how Feyerabend was a Kuhnian of sorts. I don’t know that much of Fey. or Kuhn; haven’t read them directly (don’t plan on it!). I like Torrance π , and yes he has appropriated “some” of Polyani, but has taken him his own unique way too (as Munich also mentions in the essay). I haven’t really read much Newbigin, but know of him (of course).
Btw, don’t buy any of Israel’s books, if you don’t want to see lots of Spinoza! Certainly Israel sees Spinoza as the “man” of the European Radical Enlightenment! Also the Dutch Spinoza was given the boot by Dutch Judaism, as well as his books put on the forbidden list in the RCC of his day, and later. Sometimes called the Father of modern biblical criticism.
*Since I gave the suggestion of the Radical Enlightenment book, etc. by Jonathan Israel, I felt I needed to pass this along. Sorry Bobby, but thanks for the space to share this.
Hey Kenny,
I have read bits and pieces of Murphy, and know of her trajectory. I’m not really a fan, and so probably won’t spend much time reading her (if any). I’ve only got so much time π .Thanks for the heads up.
Fr Robert,
Thank you for the book lead.
Well, since we are talking philosophy, and I’m writing a book review for the Pacific Baptist Research Journal (in New Zealand) on the book Analytic Theology; I thought I would recommend that to you all as well. That is if you’re interested in understanding how Analytic Philosophy is being used to do Christian Theology today. I am not a fan of this method (at all), but I think it’s a great book, and informative for those interested in this approach (or at least in understanding why and how its done).
I think Bobby’s right — faithfulness to Calvin, or any 16th- or 17th-century thinker, on epistemology isn’t a relevant question. You might say the same about Barth — I’ve found that building on his prolegomenon and my own experience in modern science landed me in Torrance well before I ever read him. And yet there is a basic faithfulness to Calvin — when we understand that theology is a discipline that proceeds from the two foci of God and the human creature. God and the world, and the best respective knowledge of each.
Feyerabend has a basic problem — because the nature of science is minimalist! “Faithfulness to object” combines well with the rudimentary scientific method: a cyclic process of gathering data, modeling from the data, and then testing the model against the data. The nature of the object, and the state of our knowledge about it, determines the nature of the data set. Certainly he is correct to point out the ways ideology damages our pursuit of good modeling language — but “objectivity” and “rationality” are nothing but shorthand for “data-driven, logical, and reproducible.”
Matt,
Yes, TFT is faithful, I think, to much of Calvin; to me the best of Calvin!
I think, from what I know of Feyerabend, that he has problems too.