The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology
and Science
by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen
Published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998
303 pages, $35
reviewed by
Dan Simon
Innovatia Software
dansimon@innovatia.com
Van Huyssteen is a
Professor of Theology and Science at Princeton Theological Seminary. He is the
author of two other books and numerous papers on theology and science. In this
book, van Huyssteen discusses the nature of human rationality, and how it can
successfully bridge varied domains of life (e.g., science and theology). The
view that we have inherited from modernity is that the impressive performances
of the hard sciences stand in stark contrast to the relative irrationality of
religion. But the real issue between science and religion has not been one of
propositions, but rather of power – claims to authority. Both science and
religion, however, now find themselves challenged by postmodernism's
irrationalism. We must not let rationality slip away or we will lose that which
gives us our uniqueness as human beings.
The first chapter explores
the nature of postmodernism. Postmodernism challenges science's claims of
objectivity. For example, scientists compete subjectively for the acceptance of
their individual results and theories. The direction of scientific research is
influenced by the politically driven distribution of research funds. The list
goes on and on. Although on the surface it appears that postmodernism improves
the relationship between science and theology by blurring disciplinary
boundaries, postmodernism actually challenges rationality and thus removes any
possibility for science and theology to relate to one another.
Chapter Two focuses on
nonfoundationalism as an important root of postmodernism. Modernism's
foundationalism claims that knowledge rests on a few self-evident facts.
Postmodernism's nonfoundationalism claims there are no fundamental bases of
truth. Nonfoundationalism is devastating to the attempt to relate science and
theology because it removes any possibility for common ground. But
foundationalist scientists and theologians have disagreed on the foundations of
knowledge, which has also removed any possibility of dialogue.
Van Huyssteen argues for what he calls postfoundationalism. Theological
and scientific truth claims must be viewed as fallible and provisional but
rationality provides the common ground on which science and theology can meet. This
trust in human rationality is distinctly modernist.
Chapter Three details
postfoundationalism. Postfoundationalism avoids postmodernism's
nonfoundationalism, and also avoids modernism's claim for a single unified
knowledge – a "splitting of the difference" between modernism and
postmodernism. The classical notion of rationality has been decidedly
scientific in its emphasis on universality and its lack of emphasis on values.
Van Huyssteen calls for a broader model of rationality that includes
problem-solving ability and an awareness of experience and social surroundings.
This model of rationality can be applied equally well to science, theology, and
their relationship.
Chapter Four shows how the
richness of human rationality reaches both science and theology and thus can be
used to break down the traditional modernist separation between the two.
Scientific knowledge differs from religious knowledge only in degree. Science
and theology offer complementary interpretations of our experience. The common
evangelical belief that commitment precedes religious understanding is a form
of fideism that erects a barrier between science and theology. The view that
science and religion are complementary because science answers "how"
questions while religion answers "why" questions results in the
privatization of religion. Science and religion differ in many ways but they
share the same rationality.
Chapter Five argues that
the dialogue between science and religion begins with opinions and values.
Theology, like science, does not have a single focus or overriding concern that
defines its current image. Theology and science need to deal with this
fragmentation by avoiding the arrogance of prescribing foundationalist rules
for interdisciplinary dialogue. Both sides must accept the fact that others
will not only differ, but that it may be perfectly rational for them to do so.
Both sides must embrace intellectual honesty, which will be different for each
person because of varying experiences and traditions. However, this postfoundationalism
escapes relativism by claiming that rationality is only conditioned (rather
than determined) by context.
This treatise is an
in-depth treatment by an eminent scholar. It has over 150 bibliographic
references, and I came away with the impression that it was written more for
the specialist than the layperson. The author makes no attempt to communicate
in an easily accessible style or vocabulary. There are other books on the topic
that are less difficult, but for those willing to put some work into it, this
book is full of subtle yet crucial themes on the relationship between science
and theology.
Home Credentials Publications White Papers
ã
1999–2001 Innovatia. All Rights Reserved.
Email Address: dansimon@innovatia.com
Phone Number: (330)665-9629
Last Revised: March 13, 2001