 |
| Munich-Facebook |
Theodicy: Its Relation to Science
GANZEVOORT, R. RUARD (2004)(2005) ‘Van der Ven’s Empirical/Practical Theology and the Theological Encyclopedia’, in Hermans, pp.53-74, C.A.M. & Moore M.E. (eds), Amsterdam.
HEIMBROCK, HANS-GUNTER (2005) ‘From Data to Theory: Elements of Methodology in Empirical Phenomenological Research in Practical Theology’ in International Journal of Practical Theology, Volume 9, December, Berlin, Walter D. Gruyter.
By evaluating free will, sovereignty and
soul-making theodicy with the use of practical theology, it shall be examined to
what degree the theological assumptions and concepts within these perspectives
are understood and accepted empirically by questionnaire respondents.[1]
As noted, Francis writes that the disciplines of the social sciences will be applied as methodology for studying practical and empirical theology.[2] He reasons that the work of practical and empirical theology can be tested by the social sciences.[3] R. Ruard Ganzevoort (2004)(2005) explains his view that theology is a forum where various scientific disciplines meet.[4] Theology is like science in that various theological disciplines investigate language and other symbols in relation to religious experiences, beliefs, and actions,[5] and therefore are concerned with understanding how ‘God speaks.’[6]
This thesis, within its methodology accepts that the theoretical, philosophical views within the reviewed theodicy[7] shall be examined theologically within the Chapters,[8] but also shall be reviewed practically, sociologically, and psychologically to some degree. This is done by examining the empirical questionnaire results and statistics within social science.[9] Theological theories therefore, within this thesis, are not only presented for and by professional theologians and philosophers, but also by respondents that attend Christian Churches from various denominations and church groups.[10]
This thesis therefore, in the context of theodicy related ideas, shall to some extent bridge the intellectual gap between professional theology/philosophy in regard to the problem of evil, and how persons that attend Christian Churches respond to these theories.[11] Theology does not exist primarily for theologians and philosophers, but for all church attendees and members.[12] Therefore, any mistrust or misunderstanding of theology in regard to theodicy within the church by laypersons needs to be corrected and the use of questionnaires and empirical data provides a vehicle for correction.
As noted, Francis writes that the disciplines of the social sciences will be applied as methodology for studying practical and empirical theology.[2] He reasons that the work of practical and empirical theology can be tested by the social sciences.[3] R. Ruard Ganzevoort (2004)(2005) explains his view that theology is a forum where various scientific disciplines meet.[4] Theology is like science in that various theological disciplines investigate language and other symbols in relation to religious experiences, beliefs, and actions,[5] and therefore are concerned with understanding how ‘God speaks.’[6]
This thesis, within its methodology accepts that the theoretical, philosophical views within the reviewed theodicy[7] shall be examined theologically within the Chapters,[8] but also shall be reviewed practically, sociologically, and psychologically to some degree. This is done by examining the empirical questionnaire results and statistics within social science.[9] Theological theories therefore, within this thesis, are not only presented for and by professional theologians and philosophers, but also by respondents that attend Christian Churches from various denominations and church groups.[10]
This thesis therefore, in the context of theodicy related ideas, shall to some extent bridge the intellectual gap between professional theology/philosophy in regard to the problem of evil, and how persons that attend Christian Churches respond to these theories.[11] Theology does not exist primarily for theologians and philosophers, but for all church attendees and members.[12] Therefore, any mistrust or misunderstanding of theology in regard to theodicy within the church by laypersons needs to be corrected and the use of questionnaires and empirical data provides a vehicle for correction.
Hans-Gunter Heimbrock (2005) notes that since
religion and faith is experimental within empirical theology,[13] the social sciences have been used to examine social
dynamics, conditions and contexts of religious life.[14]
He reasons that pastoral work has also been assisted in this process.[15] There has been increased discussion involving standards
and criteria for appropriate empirical research in theology.[16] Philosophically, I do not view Christian faith and
philosophy as primarily experimental,[17] although I can
grant Heimbrock’s point that the social sciences can deal with the existing
experimental aspects of religion and assist in understanding.[18]
The experimental nature[19] of empirical theology can not only lead to a better understanding of practical theology within the Christian Church, but when applied the theodicy related questions in this project, can help to explain how the theoretical theories of theologians and philosophers are being understood and accepted by persons that attend church. If there are misunderstandings and disagreements between professionals and amateurs in regard to theodicy concepts, the empirical aspect within this thesis allows for both pastoral work[20] and theoretical theology to be assisted by feedback from church attendees of various denominations and groups.[21] The professional teacher within Christianity is therefore given the opportunity, after reading my work, to better explain and/or reconsider the presentation of certain doctrines based on results of the empirical data.
The experimental nature[19] of empirical theology can not only lead to a better understanding of practical theology within the Christian Church, but when applied the theodicy related questions in this project, can help to explain how the theoretical theories of theologians and philosophers are being understood and accepted by persons that attend church. If there are misunderstandings and disagreements between professionals and amateurs in regard to theodicy concepts, the empirical aspect within this thesis allows for both pastoral work[20] and theoretical theology to be assisted by feedback from church attendees of various denominations and groups.[21] The professional teacher within Christianity is therefore given the opportunity, after reading my work, to better explain and/or reconsider the presentation of certain doctrines based on results of the empirical data.
Professor of philosophy and religion, Karl E.
Peters (1992) comments in his abstract that empirical theology is in contrast to
science in that it seeks to understand the nature and source of human
fulfilment,[22] and science seeks to understand the world
regardless of the implications of human welfare.[23] Empirical theology is like science in that it affirms
naturalism,[24] accepts limitations on human knowledge,
and therefore makes all religious knowledge tentative.[25] Both scientific causal and religious
explanations are sought for meaning in life, and a key criterion for justifying
ideas is to explain experience and to focus on new research.[26]
Within my Reformed perspective there is an acknowledgement that science is dependent on the use of naturalism.[27] Y. Krikorian (1944)(2007) explains naturalism is part of nature, contains nothing supernatural,[28] and that the scientific method should be used to explain all aspects of reality, including those assumed to be ‘spiritual’ in nature.[29] C.A. Dubray writes that naturalism is not primarily a special system as much as a view held by many within philosophy and religion.[30] It is not so much a set of positive or negative doctrines, but a general attitude which influences many ideas.[31] Nature is viewed as the fundamental and original source for all that exists,[32] and therefore all reality needs to be explained in terms of nature.[33]
All events find an adequate explanation within nature itself.[34] I can accept that science must use natural and not supernatural means[35] and is clearly often a discipline with different methods than theology or philosophy. One should not expect scientific method to be religious in nature.[36] Many Christians of moderate positions and various traditions would disagree with the concept that nature is the fundamental and original source for all that exists.[37] James W. Sire (1977) notes there have been theistic critics that have found fault with naturalism.[38] This was based on the conviction that a personal God was behind the universe and that naturalism in itself did not provide an adequate reason why human beings were valuable.[39] Human beings are unique, but so are gorillas, and there remains the problem of establishing the value of human beings within naturalism, according to Sire.[40]
Within my Reformed perspective there is an acknowledgement that science is dependent on the use of naturalism.[27] Y. Krikorian (1944)(2007) explains naturalism is part of nature, contains nothing supernatural,[28] and that the scientific method should be used to explain all aspects of reality, including those assumed to be ‘spiritual’ in nature.[29] C.A. Dubray writes that naturalism is not primarily a special system as much as a view held by many within philosophy and religion.[30] It is not so much a set of positive or negative doctrines, but a general attitude which influences many ideas.[31] Nature is viewed as the fundamental and original source for all that exists,[32] and therefore all reality needs to be explained in terms of nature.[33]
All events find an adequate explanation within nature itself.[34] I can accept that science must use natural and not supernatural means[35] and is clearly often a discipline with different methods than theology or philosophy. One should not expect scientific method to be religious in nature.[36] Many Christians of moderate positions and various traditions would disagree with the concept that nature is the fundamental and original source for all that exists.[37] James W. Sire (1977) notes there have been theistic critics that have found fault with naturalism.[38] This was based on the conviction that a personal God was behind the universe and that naturalism in itself did not provide an adequate reason why human beings were valuable.[39] Human beings are unique, but so are gorillas, and there remains the problem of establishing the value of human beings within naturalism, according to Sire.[40]
Bloesch reasons naturalism philosophically
reduces humans to creatures that commit instinctual drives.[41] Wheaton professor, Henry Clarence Thiessen (1956)
explains that since naturalism holds that nature is the whole of reality,
everything that occurs is due to the laws of nature.[42]
He comments Scripture recognizes the existence of the laws of nature, but it is
reasoned they do not operate independently of God.[43]
God concurs with the laws he has established,[44] and
Thiessen reasons that miracles and revelation can occur when God operates
outside of laws he established.[45] William W. Klein,
Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (1993) suggest miracle stories in
the Gospels serve to demonstrate who Jesus Christ was and that God was breaking
into human history.[46] Miracles are not typical, but
were primarily used in the New Testament to highlight the ministry of Christ.[47]
Naturalists and moderate Christians would not necessarily disagree on scientific facts, but many Christians would accept a revealed supernatural source behind nature,[48] the naturalist would deny.[49] It can be reasoned therefore that Christians can embrace the similarities that science has with empirical theology,[50] without a necessary abandonment of the belief that God revealed himself and his plan of salvation within history.[51] Empirical theology within practical approaches[52] can therefore without necessary contradiction, complement philosophical theology in the context of theodicy.
Science has made discoveries that have assisted humanity and has helped persons understand many realities. My Reformed perspective deduces that human corruption cannot be entirely corrected scientifically but human beings are changed permanently to avoid evil only by the completed regeneration work of God. I reason that scientific progress has helped humanity tremendously to live better quality lives, but human beings are capable of committing as grotesque and intense evils as ever in the twenty-first century. This is so, in my view, because scientific knowledge has not as of yet, been able to change the essential nature of human beings. Even if science could perfect the physical nature of persons to avoid evil actions, assuming for the sake of argument human beings have a spirit, it needs to be considered if materially based science could perfect the human spirit as well to avoid all wrong actions. This would appear doubtful.
Philosophy and theology have assisted human beings throughout history to better understand life, but neither of these disciplines can provide a remedy to the problem of evil; however, they can help to explain evil and suffering through effective theodicy.
Naturalists and moderate Christians would not necessarily disagree on scientific facts, but many Christians would accept a revealed supernatural source behind nature,[48] the naturalist would deny.[49] It can be reasoned therefore that Christians can embrace the similarities that science has with empirical theology,[50] without a necessary abandonment of the belief that God revealed himself and his plan of salvation within history.[51] Empirical theology within practical approaches[52] can therefore without necessary contradiction, complement philosophical theology in the context of theodicy.
Science has made discoveries that have assisted humanity and has helped persons understand many realities. My Reformed perspective deduces that human corruption cannot be entirely corrected scientifically but human beings are changed permanently to avoid evil only by the completed regeneration work of God. I reason that scientific progress has helped humanity tremendously to live better quality lives, but human beings are capable of committing as grotesque and intense evils as ever in the twenty-first century. This is so, in my view, because scientific knowledge has not as of yet, been able to change the essential nature of human beings. Even if science could perfect the physical nature of persons to avoid evil actions, assuming for the sake of argument human beings have a spirit, it needs to be considered if materially based science could perfect the human spirit as well to avoid all wrong actions. This would appear doubtful.
Philosophy and theology have assisted human beings throughout history to better understand life, but neither of these disciplines can provide a remedy to the problem of evil; however, they can help to explain evil and suffering through effective theodicy.
[1] This provides an empirical balance to theoretical
theology.
[2] Francis (2005: 2-3).
[3] Francis (2005: 4).
[4] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 2).
[5] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 2).
[6] Ganzevoort (2004)(2005: 2).
[7] Three basic theodicy and four exemplars and
approaches.
[8] Mainly Chapters Two to Four.
[9] Francis (2005: 4).
[10] Christian theology should not only be created
and exist for professional theologians and scholars, but also for church members
and attendees. Practical and empirical theology can be created through
questionnaire responses by those within the church that shall never be
professionals.
[11] I am not a professional sociologist or
psychologist, but the questionnaire respondents will quite naturally not only
deal with theological and philosophical responses to questions, but also
practical ramifications that deal with issues within the social
sciences.
[12] Therefore this is a need for practical
theology.
[13] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299).
[14] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Francis (2005:
4).
[15] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299).
[16] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299).
[17] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299).
[18] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299). Francis (2005:
4).
[19] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299).
[20] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299).
[21] Heimbrock (2005: 273-299).
[22] Peters (1992: 297-325).
[23] Peters (1992: 297-325).
[24] Peters (1992: 297-325).
[25] Peters (1992: 297-325).
[26] Peters (1992: 297-325).
[27] Peters (1992: 297-325).
[28] Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1).
[29] Krikorian (1944)(2007: 1).
[30] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1).
[31] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1).
[32] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1).
[33] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Krikorian
(1944)(2007: 1).
[34] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Krikorian
(1944)(2007: 1).
[35] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Krikorian
(1944)(2007: 1).
[36] God is revealed in Scripture to be spiritual
in nature as described in John 4:24, therefore God could never be proven to
exist through the empirical, scientific testing of matter. Science is therefore
a discipline outside of the realm of the supernatural.
[37] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1).
[38] Sire (1977: 74).
[39] Sire (1977: 74).
[40] Sire (1977: 74).
[41] Bloesch (1987: 174).
[42] Thiessen (1956: 186).
[43] Thiessen (1956: 186).
[44] Thiessen (1956: 186).
[45] Thiessen (1956: 186).
[46] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993:
340).
[47] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993:
340).
[48] Thiessen (1956: 186).
[49] Dubray (1911)(2007: 1). Krikorian
(1944)(2007: 1).
[50] Peters (1992: 297-325).
[51] Weber (1955)(1981: 381-382).
[52] Francis (2005: 1).
BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.
FRANCIS, LESLIE J. and Practical Theology Team
(2005) ‘Practical and Empirical Theology’, University of Wales, Bangor website,
University of Wales, Bangor.
DUBRAY, C.A. (1911)(2007) ‘Naturalism’ in New
Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, Robert Appleton
Company.
HEIMBROCK, HANS-GUNTER (2005) ‘From Data to Theory: Elements of Methodology in Empirical Phenomenological Research in Practical Theology’ in International Journal of Practical Theology, Volume 9, December, Berlin, Walter D. Gruyter.
KLEIN, WILLIAM W. CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND
ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction
to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word
Publishing.
KRIKORIAN, K. (1944)(2007) (ed.), Naturalism
and the Human Spirit, New York, Columbia University Press, in Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University.
PETERS, KARL, E. (1992) ‘Empirical Theology in the Light
of Science, in The Journal of Religion and Science, Volume 27 Issue 3
Page 297-325, September, Oxford, Zygon, Blackwell Publishing.
SIRE, JAME W (1975) The Universe Next Door, Downers
Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in
Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L.
Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
 |
| Munich-Facebook |
