A slow initiation into the truth

Meanwhile the vocation debate rages, no doubt to the chagrin of those family members keeping up with things from the shadows. My options seem to be academic engineering, consulting engineering, and (almost non sequitur) theology. H is frustrated that all those folks from whom I ask for advice are themselves already vocationally biased toward the latter choice. I'm not getting a fair external appraisal, she worries. That's an honest grievance, I admit. On the other hand, consider first that it is not particularly easy to find people who have experience in both camps and then that the bias from the two camps is not exactly symmetric. That is, the bias toward dismissiveness is much stronger from the science/engineering camp toward theology than vice versa. The overwhelming social presumption is that theology dismisses science at its own peril while science dismisses theology almost by virtue of its own (science's) integrity. People who worry about where the twain shall meet are at best an oddity, perhaps epistemologically schizophrenic, or at worst just engaging in quackery.

I am against quackery, imminently concerned with the unity of my psyche, and admittedly desirous of being viewed as no more of an oddity than I am at present.

That said, I think there is good reason for theologians to start taking science to task. Granted, this won't make a lick of sense to anyone who is not Christian. Not a lick. At least not unless they have significant empathic potential and a willingness to put on the Christian shoe for a while. You simply cannot boil Christianity down to a scientific position because clearly in doing so you have already presumed that Christianity does not fundamentally challenge the "scientific" position as such. That is, the act of translation precludes the ability of the Christian to fundamentally challenge science. When Christians accept those terms at the outset they have effectively committed rational suicide in the debate.

This leaves us paralyzed, does it not? The Christian cannot speak to the scientist nor vice versa (and this violates what we know from experience). Well, as usual it is more complicated than just this. But, in a way, that is the gist of it, or at least that's where much of the contemporary debate is stalled.

But let me start from another vantage. Implicitly we seem to think that Christianity is about the supernatural or the spiritual while science is about the natural or physical. So, the Christian needs the scientist in order to say true things about, well, things; while the scientist needs the Christian in order to be able to say true things about ethics. I am not sure that such categories should be accepted by the Christian (in fact I feel much more strongly about it than just that). From a theological standpoint "science", if we mean the systematic investigation of causes and effects via our experience, is naturally a rigorous approach to investigating creation. The fundamental distinction from a Christian standpoint is that between creature and creator rather than natural/supernatural. And insofar as theology has a category for creature, then it seems that theology should be engaged in the investigation of creatures within the scope of all other Christian inquiry. And, in fact, this is largely how Science (in the way we mean the word today) found its genesis. Unfortunately, I do not think that the church was as adept theologically at discerning heresy (as distinct from proclaiming heresy for base ends like retention of political influence, say) early in the investigation of creation (i.e., around Galileo, Newton, etc.) as it was, say, in the Christological controversies. The result, I think, is the rise of scientific materialism and (fast forward) the present friction between Science and the church.

This is to say that there is no formal reason why Science (as we know it) is the only way to describe the world we call physical. Does this mean that there is another scientific method out there somewhere that could be the Christian one? Well, that seems a bit silly. It's probably silly to claim that there is a single "scientific method" at all (despite high school textbook claims), but far sillier to think that the basic methods of experiential learning would be drastically altered. While we would in all probability learn about creation in much the same experiential way, one fundamental difference is that theologically such activity could never be abstracted from the rest of the theological project. Or, to be less lofty, it could never be abstracted from the pursuit of the Christian life. How might this be different? A devastating difference might be that the means to scientific advancement cannot be overlooked in light of the result. The utilitarian notion that the sacrifice of an individual's family life for the sake of scientific advance that would save millions of lives might just be irrational within a theological framework. A theology of creation would not, I think, have as its end mechanical effectiveness or utilitarian salvation (which is fundamentally about ratios). Virtue would almost certainly trump technological advance. The ability to care for a dying person through loving service would almost certainly trump the drive for a cure (Christianity is, after all, about a revolution against the power of death). By "the ability to care" I mean the community raising and training virtuous people into the capacity of doing so. Loving service takes work.

In short, a Christian-based "science", that is, a robust theological enquiry into creation, would be subordinated to liturgical time and practice, indeed to the development of the understanding of virtues in light of such new knowledge, and as such would almost certainly proceed at a comparative snail's pace when compared to that innovative capacity with which we are now accustomed. Innovation for its own sake is not rational theologically. A scientist who does not pray cannot speak faithfully (and thus truthfully) even if he speaks effectively.

One might ask whether the world wouldn't be worse off if I had my way with science. Fewer vaccines, slower travel, fewer mechanical conveniences. Wouldn't that suck? The only answer from the Christian, I think, is to ask which option is more faithful. The Christian's goal, after all, is faithfulness and not effectiveness or comfort. It is the Christian predicament that faithfulness is to God and that all truth cannot be truth abstracted from the worship of God. So the question of curing more people through a mode of life that is less faithful is just to ask the Christian to engage in knowing deceit, to bear witness against Jesus Christ of cross. Indeed, it is the predicament of the Christian that "knowledge" is never independent of worship, that knowledge must be true to be known and no truth comes but by faithfulness to the Son who is truth. There is simply no way for the Christian to hold that a bunch of "facts" are in any way "true".

That striving for faithfulness, it seems to me, extends to learning about the creation.

I'll end with this summary paragraph:

Knowledge, for the Christian, is about participation. Learning about the creation, as for all Christian learning, is ultimately about becoming more faithful and not about becoming more powerful. Learning is the slow initiation into a life that bears witness to truth. Studying creation is in this way no different than studying scripture, each is the process by which we are initiated into the truth that will transform all life. This, I think, is a starting point for science understood theologically. Such a notion is fundamentally ascetic. But just read Romans 5 again:

"Through him we have also obtained access into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."