One of the most important contemporary theologians is Franciscan sister, Ilio Delio. She has doctoral degrees in both theology and science. I have appreciated her thinking and writing about the nature of our world and human nature. I like her fresh approach and, yet, her willingness to bring some of the earlier church tradition into a contemporary framework. This is important work, because we cannot expect modern folks to adhere to out-of-date perspectives. That is how I prefer to see old church teachings. They are not wrong, so much as out of date.
In the first place, I like Delio’s perspective that humans are co-creators with the Creator of our universe. This is both an important and responsible role to play along with God. It says something both about God and about ourselves. Here is how Delio outlines our task as problem solvers in this world. “As co-creators, we can begin to resolve some of the problems by better integrating theology and science.”
Integrating theology and science is imperative in our age. Let’s allow her to show us what this means and how to do it. She relies on the twentieth century scholar, Teilhard de Chardin, to chart her course. She acknowledges, “He rightly stated that religion cannot be done outside or apart from the basic insights of modern science.” While not all religious folks will agree with this, I think it is the only way contemporary theologians can operate. To do theology---to think about God and humans---outside the context of scientific thinking is irresponsible.
The first point Delio makes is science is not a complete story. It is always evolving, learning, growing and changing. Perhaps tongue-in-cheek, she says if science did not take chances and test hypotheses, “we would not have electricity, running water, and certainly not computers and cellphones. We would live agrarian lives, travel by horse and buggy, and die at young ages.” To me that is a pretty good idea for doing theology in our scientific context. Theology is in process, as much as science. I am ok with that.
Science is willing to proceed with a hypothesis, which is tested and proven helpful or erroneous. She notes, “Science has never waited until all the data is in because the data is ongoing; there is no terminus ad quem. However there does come a point when a sufficient amount of new data corresponds to experience and the prevailing paradigm shifts in a new direction.” Science does not have a terminus ad quem---a specific point that is known ahead of time and reached. It is more open-ended.
I would argue that our thinking about God and even human nature should follow the same kind of process. We are learning more and this calls for new and fresh ways of understanding who God is and how God works. What we will learn about God and human nature probably will align in some fashion with earlier teachings of the church, but some modifications no doubt will be needed. Besides, we need to be committed to truth---truth as it unfolds---rather than tradition alone.
Delio speaks to this point with these words. “The scientist, like the theologian, must work through the tools and methods at hand to see if the insight is true, that is, if it is consistent with other data and with the larger phenomena of experience. But there is no arriving at a final set of set of data with 100% approval by scientists. She implies the same thing will be true for theologians---those thinking about God and human nature.
This will be true for academic theologians---those teaching in universities---and for ordinary folks in the pews who also are thinking about God and human nature. Theology is not the province of professionals. It is what all folks who somehow have experienced the Holy One do when the think about that experience. For example, when I think about my experience with the Holy One, I realize I have not experienced God as an old white guy dressed in white robes. I am ok using this image, if it is still helpful for folks. But theologically, that is not how I understand God. There is no 100% approval among theologians, any more than there is among scientists. I am ok with that.
I really like her closing thought. She observes, “Rather, every insight is a new beginning and every discovery is a new question.” I hope theologians and people in the church can see it this way. We are in the process of discovery. We live in a world that can well be explained by science. And theology adds its own understanding. Our work is to integrate these. Theology needs to continue to evolve, as science does. Every new experience of God is an insight---a new beginning.
If we fail to do this, we are opting, as Delio comments, for life “somewhere in the Dark Ages.” Of course, this is both funny and sad. I can’t imagine anyone really wanting to live in the Dark Ages and, likely, no one thinks he or she actually does. But if we want to live in the present time, our theology and science both need to be contemporary---and integrated.
In the first place, I like Delio’s perspective that humans are co-creators with the Creator of our universe. This is both an important and responsible role to play along with God. It says something both about God and about ourselves. Here is how Delio outlines our task as problem solvers in this world. “As co-creators, we can begin to resolve some of the problems by better integrating theology and science.”
Integrating theology and science is imperative in our age. Let’s allow her to show us what this means and how to do it. She relies on the twentieth century scholar, Teilhard de Chardin, to chart her course. She acknowledges, “He rightly stated that religion cannot be done outside or apart from the basic insights of modern science.” While not all religious folks will agree with this, I think it is the only way contemporary theologians can operate. To do theology---to think about God and humans---outside the context of scientific thinking is irresponsible.
The first point Delio makes is science is not a complete story. It is always evolving, learning, growing and changing. Perhaps tongue-in-cheek, she says if science did not take chances and test hypotheses, “we would not have electricity, running water, and certainly not computers and cellphones. We would live agrarian lives, travel by horse and buggy, and die at young ages.” To me that is a pretty good idea for doing theology in our scientific context. Theology is in process, as much as science. I am ok with that.
Science is willing to proceed with a hypothesis, which is tested and proven helpful or erroneous. She notes, “Science has never waited until all the data is in because the data is ongoing; there is no terminus ad quem. However there does come a point when a sufficient amount of new data corresponds to experience and the prevailing paradigm shifts in a new direction.” Science does not have a terminus ad quem---a specific point that is known ahead of time and reached. It is more open-ended.
I would argue that our thinking about God and even human nature should follow the same kind of process. We are learning more and this calls for new and fresh ways of understanding who God is and how God works. What we will learn about God and human nature probably will align in some fashion with earlier teachings of the church, but some modifications no doubt will be needed. Besides, we need to be committed to truth---truth as it unfolds---rather than tradition alone.
Delio speaks to this point with these words. “The scientist, like the theologian, must work through the tools and methods at hand to see if the insight is true, that is, if it is consistent with other data and with the larger phenomena of experience. But there is no arriving at a final set of set of data with 100% approval by scientists. She implies the same thing will be true for theologians---those thinking about God and human nature.
This will be true for academic theologians---those teaching in universities---and for ordinary folks in the pews who also are thinking about God and human nature. Theology is not the province of professionals. It is what all folks who somehow have experienced the Holy One do when the think about that experience. For example, when I think about my experience with the Holy One, I realize I have not experienced God as an old white guy dressed in white robes. I am ok using this image, if it is still helpful for folks. But theologically, that is not how I understand God. There is no 100% approval among theologians, any more than there is among scientists. I am ok with that.
I really like her closing thought. She observes, “Rather, every insight is a new beginning and every discovery is a new question.” I hope theologians and people in the church can see it this way. We are in the process of discovery. We live in a world that can well be explained by science. And theology adds its own understanding. Our work is to integrate these. Theology needs to continue to evolve, as science does. Every new experience of God is an insight---a new beginning.
If we fail to do this, we are opting, as Delio comments, for life “somewhere in the Dark Ages.” Of course, this is both funny and sad. I can’t imagine anyone really wanting to live in the Dark Ages and, likely, no one thinks he or she actually does. But if we want to live in the present time, our theology and science both need to be contemporary---and integrated.
Comments
Post a Comment