Theology and Science in the Thought of Ian Barbour

1. Introduction

In his Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis, offers a timely reminder to the universal Church on the importance of relating the Christian faith and the natural sciences. He writes,

Dialogue between science and faith also belongs to the work of evangelization at the service of peace. Whereas positivism and scientism “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge¹ other than those of the positive sciences,”² the Church proposes another path, which calls for a synthesis between the responsible use of methods proper to the empirical sciences and other areas of knowledge such as philosophy, theology, as well as faith itself, which elevates us to the mystery transcending nature and human intelligence.³

←1 | 2→

Two paragraphs later, the Holy Father echoes the Catholic commitment to ecumenical dialogue that received great emphasis at the Second Vatican Council.⁴ A stance of humility and openness is important for Catholics when relating to other Christians because, as Francis writes, “We must never forget that we are pilgrims journeying alongside one another.”⁵

Similarly, Pope Saint Paul VI declared that “dialogue … is a recognized method of the apostolate. It is a way of making spiritual contact.”⁶ In this monograph, we strive to adhere to his four principles for dialogue: perspicuitas, lenitas, fiducia, et prudentia. Paul VI encourages clarity in expression, Christ-like meekness and the avoidance of all arrogance, trust in God and confidence in the good will of the other, and prudence in how one engages the partner in dialogue. The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, teaches that there exists a “lawful variety” of “differences in theological expression of doctrine.”⁷ In addition, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, exhorts theologians to “seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine to the men of their times; for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding, is another.”⁸ This important relationship of unity and plurality in faith was also a topic of a 1972 document of the International Theological Commission.⁹

The highly influential German philosopher and theologian, Karl Rahner, SJ, in his 1981 essay, “Naturwissenschaft und vernünftiger Glaube,” later published in English as, “Natural Science and Reasonable Faith: Theological Perspectives for Dialogue with the Natural Sciences,”¹⁰ expresses regret that “in recent decades, theology has not occupied itself very intensively with borderline questions between the natural sciences and itself.”¹¹ As a first step toward facilitating a dialogue, Rahner suggests that fundamental theology must engage in a serious conversation with the natural sciences on essential epistemological issues. (In addition, we ←2 | 3→would add inquiry into metaphysical questions.) Rahner’s perspective is hopeful for a harmonious relationship. In his view, science and theology cannot, in principle, contradict each other as their areas of investigation and methodologies are distinct.¹²

In light of the recent Papal and Conciliar Magisterium, and given the scope of fundamental theology to cast its gaze not merely within the confines of the Catholic Church, but also to engage truth wherever it may be found, we strive to carry out a substantial study in the thought of the late Professor Ian Graeme Barbour. In this book, we analyze Ian Barbour’s distinctive approach to the relationship of theology and science, largely unexplored in the Catholic tradition, according to fundamental theological criteria. Our goal is to investigate the possibility for Barbour’s epistemic, metaphysical, and theological principles to enrich the dialogue and integration (to use Barbour’s terms) of the Catholic doctrine of creation with the natural sciences. Barbour’s corpus and contributions are vast, so we use the theology of creation as a lens, or “limit,” to focus this research.¹³

Ian Graeme Barbour (1923–2013) was a prominent American theologian and physicist who served for many years on the faculty of Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota, USA. As a scholar, Ian Barbour has a certain je ne sais quoi. His highly significant research on the relationship of theology and science led to an invitation to deliver the esteemed Gifford Lectures in Scotland (1989–1991) and won him the prestigious Templeton Prize in 1999. Born in Beijing, the son of an American Episcopalian mother and a Scottish Presbyterian father, Barbour eventually found his ecclesial home in the United Church of Christ.¹⁴

Barbour’s quest begins in an Anglophonic, Protestant world still deeply influenced by the “conflict” hypothesis between Christianity and science instigated in the nineteenth century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Draper, a distinguished chemist and physician who was also virulently anti-Catholic, published History of the Conflict between Religion and Science in 1874.¹⁵ In ←3 | 4→this work, Draper posits that his perceived conflict between religion and science in the United States was a direct result of the Catholic Church’s perpetual battle against reason and science. Not surprisingly, this anti-historical work was placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1876.¹⁶

White was a historian, politician, and co-founder of Cornell University. In 1896, he published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.¹⁷ Although baptized an Episcopalian, he became extremely hostile to any form of “revealed religion.” Regrettably, White’s book became enormously popular in the United States and was eventually translated into German, French, Italian, Swedish, and Japanese. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom greatly popularized the conflict hypothesis.

Emerging as an enthusiastic, young scholar in the mid-twentieth century, one of Barbour’s goals was to revive and reposition the reputation of the natural sciences among American and British Protestant Christians. He approached this task with great élan. A fundamental principle for Barbour is that theology and science are separate truth-producing activities that can be considered in varying forms of relationship to one another. Barbour’s work in theology and science has had a profound impact on the field and stimulated scholarly work throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, and beyond.

Barbour’s four-fold typologies of interaction between theology and science, his development of a common epistemological approach of “critical realism,” and his metaphysical commitment to Whiteheadian process thought indubitably merit an evaluation according to the methods and principles of Catholic theology. Given his epistemic, metaphysical, and ultimately theological foundations, what are the implications for a Catholic reception of his thought? The fundamental research question is: Can Ian Barbour’s approach for the interaction of theology and science promote a more fruitful dialogue and integration between the natural sciences and the Catholic doctrine of creation?

The metaphysical concept of creation has been a subject of reflection by the most inquisitive minds since the great, ancient pre-Christian civilizations to the present.¹⁸ It is also very germane to the contemporary theological engagement with the natural sciences. For example, two distinguished physicists, James ←4 | 5→Hartle and Stephen Hawking, developed a well-known cosmic origin hypothesis that describes a “spontaneous quantum creation of the universe.”¹⁹ In a Gedankenexperiment, Hartle and Hawking consider the Big Bang cosmic expansion in reverse. As one goes back in time, the cosmos contracts. Eventually one reaches the Planck epoch²⁰ (approximately 10⁻⁴³ seconds after the Big Bang) where it is not clear in what sense, if any, the concept of time retains meaning.²¹

At this point, Hartle and Hawking theorize that particles spontaneously appear and disappear as space becomes separated from time. Hawking offers an image from everyday life as an analogy, stating that it “would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.”²² Prior to the Planck epoch, the theorized “Hartle–Hawking state” has no “beginning” because it has no initial boundaries in time and space. In The Grand Design, Hawking writes that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing … Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”²³ (emphasis added) A Catholic may ask, What is the relationship between the “creation” described by Hawking (whether or not the physical theory has merit), and the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council which solemnly declared that God created the material and spiritual order de nihil condidit et ab initio temporis?²⁴ In order to ←5 | 6→answer that question, and the more general question of relating Catholic belief in creation with the natural sciences, we present the fundamentals of the doctrine in the next section.