Christian thinkers have long employed insights from sociology, literature, and other fields to augment their ideas of how God works in the world.
Yet despite the world-changing insights of science, very few theologians have drawn on physics, biology or geology in the same way.
Renowned Anglican physicist-theologian John Polkinghorne wants to change all that. His new book, “Theology in the Context of Science,” examines what topics like space and time can teach us about God, and how a scientific style of inquiry can benefit theologians.
Polkinghorne, who was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2002 and knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for his work reconciling science and faith, spoke about his new book from his home in England. Some answers have been edited for length and clarity.
Q: Theology and science are highly specialized, often complex disciplines. Is it feasible for someone to become fully versed in both?
A: I’m not saying that every theologian has to approach theology through the context of science any more than a liberation theologian would say that everyone has to live in base community in South America.
I wrote the book to encourage theologians to take the context of science more seriously … without having to master all of the technical details.
Q: You write that theologians should be happy to operate in the “questioning” context of science, but they are often not. Why is that?
A: I’m puzzled by that. That kind of thinking impoverishes theology.
Science and theology are cousins on a quest for truth. The insight of science is to move from evidence to understanding, not to start with general principles that will control the whole discussion. Scientists learn that the world is quite often surprising and doesn’t match our expectations. I am very happy to practice my religious beliefs in that sort of way.
Q: Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori says physicists opened the door for her own faith, because they speak of the mysteries of the universe and, like theologians, often work with intangible evidence. Did something like that happen for you?
A: That’s a fairly common experience; but no, I don’t have a dramatic story to tell. A word that is commonly used among scientists is wonder, though you won’t often see that word used in their scientific papers.
Doing research is laborious, and often the reward for all that is the sense of wonder that people get from time to time. Scientists’
experience of wonder is, in a sense, an act of worship.
Q: A common perception in the U.S. holds that science and religion are at war. Is it the same in England?
A: To some extent. But if you’re caught in the sort of warfare, with one side constantly issuing challenges to the other, it’s not very fruitful. Each side has something to contribute to the conversation.
Q: Why should theologians read church fathers like Augustine, but scientists skip early figures like Newton?
A: Augustine and Aquinas know things about the reality of God that we need to learn. There’s not a presumption that 20th-century music is better than 18th- century music; in fact, I think it’s the other way around. There are insights that we may very well only be able to learn by apprenticing ourselves to them. Science is linear, it answers questions cumulatively. We think about creation in a different way, and I think a more helpful way, after Darwin then before Darwin.
Q: Contextual theologies like liberation theology or feminist theology are often concerned with power. Is it the same for scientific theology?
A: The use of power is less central in the context of science than the ones you mentioned, though certainly it is there. Science through technology offers us power, which can be an ambiguous gift. Theology’s role is to help science make ethically responsible judgments.
Q: There’s a lot of talk these days about so-called “God spots” in the brain. What do you make of such research?
A: I don’t think it’s terribly significant. It simply reflects the fact that we’re embodied beings; that when I think about science I use this part of my brain, when I thinking about God I use a different part.
It doesn’t tell me anything about the nature of a scientific or religious experience.
By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.



posted April 17, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I’m intrigued by this gentleman I certainly could read more my appetite is wet.
posted April 17, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I’m a little curious, too.
posted April 18, 2009 at 12:52 am
I recommend his “Chaos, Quarks, and Christianity”–short and sweet. Most of Polkinghorne’s books are fairly short and simple. Other authors like him, who draw together theology and the sciences in different and interesting ways, include Arthur Peacocke, Nancey Murphy, Alexei Nesteruk, and Philip Hefner.
posted April 18, 2009 at 2:46 am
Thanks, Nate. Maybe I’ll check the library.
posted April 18, 2009 at 11:16 am
Sounds like a fascinating man! Obviously very intelligent. The combination of physicist and theologian…neat.
posted April 18, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Thanks Nate will read more now I have your recommendations.
posted April 18, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Wow I read a little and I am blown away how could I have missed out so long he is a jewel; what brilliant intellectual exercises.
posted April 18, 2009 at 8:14 pm
There’s been a lot of great interaction between science and theology lately, with several of the contributors having formal training in both fields. Needless to say, it’s far more interesting than the debates that tend to capture the public attention: the anti-evolutionists pushing for ID in the public schools, the Richard Dawkinses ranting about how theology is the sworn enemy of scientific truth, etc. Hopefully more of this work will make its way into the public consciousness, and we can move beyond the shallowness of most of the science and religion talk taking place right now in our society.
posted April 19, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Sounds interesting. As a Christian with a physics background, I find it unfortunate that so many people, on both sides of the issue, and even many on the sidelines, buy into a “God of the gaps” mentality. That is, our inability to explain some phenomena is evidence of God’s existence. And vice versa, the more we understand, the less need we have to believe in God, as if God were a scientific hypothesis. I find both of these to be non sequiturs. For centuries people saw the existence of order in the cosmos as evidence of a rational creator, but somehow that’s gotten all twisted around in the modern mind.
posted April 20, 2009 at 10:59 am
I have saved this post until I had some time to digest it. This guy is completely intriguing. His book has shot toward the top of my list. There is a dinner table at which I wish I could have sat. That was with Elaine Pagels and her late husband, Heinz. He was a noted physicist and she is a biblical scholar. Their conversation, when not focused on the mundane matters of married and family life, must have been amazing (at least as I think it should have been). It brings to mind the Marry Russell, Sherlock Holmes books by Laurie King (Russell is a theologian and Holmes is, well – Holmes).
I look forward to reading Polkinghorne’s work.