Scientific Theology

The publication of the three volumes of Alister McGrath's A Scientific Theology (2001-3) has generated a high degree of interest in its themes and distinctive approach. The three volumes – subtitled Nature, Reality and Theory respectively – set out an approach to theology which respects the unique nature of that discipline, while at the same time drawing on the insights of the natural sciences in a process of respectful and principled dialogue. The projects represent the most sustained and extended attempt to date by a single author to “explore the interface between Christian theology and the natural sciences, on the assumption that this engagement is necessary, proper, legitimate and productive”. While the work can be read both as a treatise on the relation of Christian theology and the natural sciences and a full-blown work on theological methodology, it is probably best seen as a defence of the entire theological enterprise itself. Christian theology is argued to be a distinct legitimate intellectual discipline in its own right, with its own sense of identity and purpose, linked with an appreciation of its own limitations and distinctive emphases within the human quest for wisdom as a whole.

The first of these landmarks dealt with the pressures which lead for the formulation of Christian doctrines in the first place, and the factors which account for at least some aspects of their subsequent development. This allowed me to begin a critical engagement with the theories of George Lindbeck, which is consolidated in the second volume of A Scientific Theology.

The second landmark takes the form of a considerably expanded version of a lecture I was invited to deliver at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, in January 1997 on “The Relation of the Natural Sciences and Christian Theology”, and sets out – although in a rather tentative manner – some of the themes that will be more fully and confidently developed in the three volumes of A Scientific Theology

The third landmark represents my growing interest in, and appreciation of, Thomas F. Torrance, whose 1969 work Theological Science seemed to me to open up a new way of approaching the theological appropriation of the methods of the natural sciences. In investigating his ideas, I found myself researching the human being behind these ideas, leading to the publication of his biography in 1999. Torrance’s careful and perceptive engagement with Barth’s views on natural theology seemed to me to represent a major advance. I also found myself agreeing strongly, for both theological and scientific reasons, with his emphasis on theological science engaging with reality kata physin – according to its own distinctive nature. Readers will find that I engage with Torrance extensively in the first and second volumes of A Scientific Theology (indeed, I dedicate the first to him).

I explain much of the background to the emergence of my scientific theology in the introductory volume The Science of God: An Introduction to Scientific Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

The three volumes of Alister McGrath's A Scientific Theology (2001-3) were subjected to detailed scrutiny in both theological and scientific journals. The following reviews are the most thorough, extensive, and critical, and may be recommended as critical introductions to, and evaluations of, the project:

Elmer Colyer, “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 1 - Nature.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 226-31; idem, “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 2 - Reality.” Pro Ecclesia 12 (2003): 492-7; idem, “Alister E. McGrath, a Scientific Theology, Volume 3 - Theory.” Pro Ecclesia 13 (2004): 244-40. [A thorough and critical account of the approach, expressing some significant concerns about some aspects of the project.]

James F. Keating, “The Natural Sciences as an Ancilla Theologiae Nova: Alister E. McGrath’s A Scientific Theology.” The Thomist 69 (2005): 127-52. [A Catholic assessment of my approach, offering a fair evaluation of its strengths, while critical at important points - for example, my account of human nature.]

Karen K. Abrahamson, "Review Article: Alister McGrath's A Scientific Theology." Andrews University Seminary Studies 44 (2006): 341-55. [A thorough and sympathetic account of my approach.]

Ross H. McKenzie, “Foundations of the Dialogue between the Physical Sciences and Theology.” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56 (2004): 242-54. [A critical evaluation of my approach leading up to the three volumes of A Scientific Theology, making some pertinent criticisms of my earlier volume The foundations of dialogue in science and religion.]

Benjamin Myers, “Alister McGrath’s Scientific Theology.” Reformed Theological Review 64 (2005): 15-34. [An ideal starting point for those wishing to get an overview of my approach. A very lucid piece of writing.]

Heiner Schwenke, “Epistemischer Partikularismus als Weg der Theologie? Warum Alister McGraths ‘naturwissenschatliche Theologie’ nicht naturwissenschaftlich ist.” Theologische Zeitshcrift 63 (2007): 58-78. [An interesting, though at times puzzling, evaluation of my approach, in response to my article in the same number of this journal (and perhaps unduly dependent on this single piece): “Theologie als Mathesis Universalis? Heinrich Scholz, Karl Barth, und der wissenschaftliche Status der christlichen Theologie.” Theologische Zeitschrift 63 (2007): 44-57.]

Brad Shipway, “The Theological Application of Bhaskar’s Stratified Reality: The Scientific Theology of A.E. McGrath.” Journal of Critical Realism 3 (2004): 191-203. [A significant assessment of my appropriation of Roy Bhaskar's 'critical realism' from within the Critical Realist movement.]