A Christian Theology of Science, by Paul Tyson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2022. xiv + 208 pp. $24.99.
Paul Tyson is a senior research fellow at the institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. This book is an outgrowth of his work in the After Science and Religion Project, an interdisciplinary effort involving philosophical theologians, historians of modern science, and scientists. Tyson’s goal is twofold. First, he traces the shift within western society from Christian theology to science as a first truth discourse (“the interpretive lenses through which we understand our experience of the world and its meaning,” 18). Second, he addresses how Christians should respond to it.
Science studies physical phenomena based on observation and precise measurements. To that end, science formulates a hypothesis which it then tests by means of controlled experiments. If the hypothesis regarding these phenomena is confirmed by repeated experimentation and observation, then the original hypothesis will be considered accurate. The process depends on observation coupled with mathematical and logical reasoning and is necessarily limited to knowledge about physical phenomena.
The means of discovering truth for Christian theology are, of course, quite different. As Tyson explains, “Christian theology takes the idea of revelation…as the primary basis for true theological knowledge” (12). Belief and trust in God are required and, most importantly, knowledge of God is never provable using the methods of modern science (38).
Theology and science therefore operate according to different methodologies. If science were to limit itself to describing how the physical universe operates while also conceding that God cannot be studied in this way, they could peacefully coexist. Truly Christian scientists have operated and continue to operate in this fashion, and Tyson helpfully articulates how this type of science should proceed with an overriding commitment to Christian theology in place. In the modern world, however, science has displaced Christian theology in the thinking of most people as the standard by which by which to judge truth claims. “Theology is backward and bad as a primary truth discourse; science is progressive and good as a primary truth discourse” (157). Practically speaking, theology is judged based on the criteria of science, and the results are disastrous.
Tyson provides a helpful illustration of how science cannot prove the Bible or the existence of God: Christology. Christianity asserts five core truths about Christ, all of which must be accepted as true: the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension. The only one of these that could be established based on the truth commitments of a scientific study of history is that a man Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate. The other four all involve direct divine miracles and must be accepted by faith based on the testimony of Scripture. Atheistic scientists, however, will reject the miraculous because miracles and non-repeatable and unique acts of God are not subject to study by experimentation.
The middle chapters of the book are more philosophical in nature. They assess the truth claims of both theology and science using philosophical and theological categories articulated by Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. Naturally, Greek philosophy gives different explanations for the nature of reality than either science or religion, yet it also provides helpful categories for understanding how science and theology operate. A good deal of attention is also devoted to tracing how the once universally accepted theistic orientation of the western world was undermined by secular philosophers and atheistic scientists.
At several points in the discussion, Tyson raises the inevitable scientific questions confronting any reader of Scripture: young earth creationism (YEC) and the historicity of Adam and Eve. He seems quick to distance himself from the former. His discussion of Adam and Eve proceeds by noting how their story functions similarly to myth. Though some readers will object to the use of the term myth, there is a valid comparison to be drawn between the function of myth and the function of factual history to provide a first truth discourse for a culture. In the end, he affirms both the historical reality of Adam and Eve and the superiority of the Bible’s claims to those of modern science or pagan myth.
Having argued for the superiority of Christianity over science, Tyson ends by seeking for an “integrative zone” between them. The task is difficult. Atheistic scientists have completely closed their minds to the possibility that theology might have some legitimate claim to truth. Nonetheless, he ends with a call for “Christian theology to stop trying to adapt itself to [science’s claims of ultimate truth] … and rather to go on the front foot and reconfigure the interpretive lens of natural philosophy so that it is compatible with the first truths of Christian theology” (176).
Overall, the book has several strengths. First, it accurately assesses the vastly different epistemological foundations of science and theology and the roles that both should play in our understanding. Second, it correctly argues that Christian theology cannot adapt itself to atheistic science. Finally, its discussion of the relationship of both Greek philosophy and Aristotle/Aquinas to the issue is helpful. I suspect those committed to presuppositional apologetics will find much with which to agree. For those less familiar with philosophy and apologetics (including myself), a helpful glossary is included.
Negatively, however, the book has two weaknesses. First, it is overly critical of young earth creationism. I do, of course, recognize the problems of some holding to a young earth. One cannot assert that science can prove the Bible. Neither should one be as dogmatic about the precise age of the earth as some YEC’s are. Nevertheless, whether scientists argue for a 6,000-year-old earth or a 10,000-year-old earth, they may still meet Tyson’s broad criteria for true Christian science and do credible work.
The second weakness, albeit a lesser one, regards the program Tyson lays out for finding an integrative zone for science and religion. He seems to argue that some new philosophy of science might be articulated that would allow Christianity to regain its voice in the scientific community. Though he does not use the term intelligent design, it seems that he is calling for it or something similar to provide the basis of that voice. Even if intelligent design does become an accepted truth in the academy, however, it might not produce the result Tyson hopes for.
Despite those two minor limitations, I highly recommend the book. The average church member probably has an imprecise view of the relationship of theology and science. Some unwisely view science as a key to proving the Bible. Others have unknowingly adopted science as their first truth discourse. When they encounter a scientific pronouncement they cannot answer, their faith may be shattered. As for unbelievers, science is the realm of fact, religion the realm of make-believe. Pastors and teachers must understand these dominant cultural trends and help people assess them from Scripture. Failure to do so often proves disastrous.
