What do you think?
Rate this book
Christian Theology of Science: Reimagining a Theological Vision of Natural Knowledge
An author on the cutting edge of today's theology and science discussions argues that creedal Christianity has much to contribute to the ongoing conversation. This book contains an intellectual history of theology's engagement with science during the modern period, critiques current approaches, and makes a constructive proposal for how a Christian theological vision of natural knowledge can be better pursued. The author explains that it is good both for religion and for science when Christians treat theology as their first truth discourse. Foreword by David Bentley Hart.
224 pages, Paperback
Published August 16, 2022
10 people are currently reading
62 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 25, 2022
I am an Engineer (aka Man of Science). I am also a practicing Christian (aka Man of Faith) … so I was intensely interested in this ambitious attempt to integrate the two (where I have traditionally seen the two in completely different domains of knowledge). Unfortunately … I am NOT a Philosopher (ergo I eschew sesquipedalianism) … and that makes this book a struggle. The nearly complete lack of simple and/or common language in the treatment of this topic makes it primarily accessible to academics (and probably a small subset of those). This alone makes it difficult to recommend the book.
But wait … there is more. Unless I have totally missed the principle argument here, the author is basically complaining that our society places more emphasis on science to understand our world than theology/philosophy … without coming straight out as a fundamentalists fanatic that denies the advantages provided by science. Any time there is a confirmed advantage to a scientific approach, the author seems compelled to call out how dangerous this is as well … without ANY specific examples of how or why. It just is ‘cause. And that is not likely to convince anybody of anything. Even outside of the prodigious use of fancy allegories, I found no clear answers to any of the questions posed … especially the big one asking if science and theology are even compatible.
In fact … the author specifically condemns my personal approach that limits the application of science to those questions that lend themselves to the scientific method (aka reductionism and patterns) and theology to those questions that deal with existential meaning and “first order truths” (truth is another term thrown around so much that I started hearing in my head the meme from A Few Good Man saying “You can’t handle the Truth”). Obviously science has no purview in adjudicating the ultimate meaning of life or even one-off miracles that have few analogs in the natural world. Asking it to do so and then claiming science is somehow flawed is simply sophistry.
I was given this free advance review copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#AChristianTheologyOfScience #NetGalley.
But wait … there is more. Unless I have totally missed the principle argument here, the author is basically complaining that our society places more emphasis on science to understand our world than theology/philosophy … without coming straight out as a fundamentalists fanatic that denies the advantages provided by science. Any time there is a confirmed advantage to a scientific approach, the author seems compelled to call out how dangerous this is as well … without ANY specific examples of how or why. It just is ‘cause. And that is not likely to convince anybody of anything. Even outside of the prodigious use of fancy allegories, I found no clear answers to any of the questions posed … especially the big one asking if science and theology are even compatible.
In fact … the author specifically condemns my personal approach that limits the application of science to those questions that lend themselves to the scientific method (aka reductionism and patterns) and theology to those questions that deal with existential meaning and “first order truths” (truth is another term thrown around so much that I started hearing in my head the meme from A Few Good Man saying “You can’t handle the Truth”). Obviously science has no purview in adjudicating the ultimate meaning of life or even one-off miracles that have few analogs in the natural world. Asking it to do so and then claiming science is somehow flawed is simply sophistry.
I was given this free advance review copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#AChristianTheologyOfScience #NetGalley.
June 16, 2022
As a Christian who is also a 5th year Ph.D. candidate in Genetics and Molecular Biology, I am always interested in books that purport to examine the intersection between Christianity and science. This book by Dr. Paul Tyson seeks to walk the reader through the philosophical underpinnings of science and Christianity.
Tyson makes the argument that pre-Victorian times theology was seen as the foundation for science and post-Victorian times led to a shift to science as the foundation and theology was relegated to a private and personal matter. He argued this point very well and highlighted that a lot of conversations about science and Christianity focus on individual issues (creation/evolution, ethics, genetic engineering) without acknowledging the shift that happened in the 1900s.
Towards the end of the book, Tyson asserts that Christians need to hold to theology as their foundation and not hold to science 'too seriously' since many scientific 'truths' morph and shift over time and that 'scientific knowledge is not theologically and ethically neutral knowledge'. This quote sums up his position pretty well: "Science is not a natural object in the world that can be defined; rather, it is an ever-changing, historically situated, and culturally, philosophically, linguistically, and politically embedded human activity.'
I appreciated many of the points made in this book and was encouraged by the emphasis to embrace the tension that comes with being both a Christian and a scientist. This book is different from any other I've read on the topic and it acknowledges more of the grey elements of harmonizing Christianity and science.
It is clear that this book is written by an academic and it was hard to wade through some sections - especially because I was not as well versed on philosophical terms. Tyson's favorite word is 'tacit' and I did become tired of seeing it multiple times in every chapter.
Thanks to Netgalley and Basic Books for this ARC!
Tyson makes the argument that pre-Victorian times theology was seen as the foundation for science and post-Victorian times led to a shift to science as the foundation and theology was relegated to a private and personal matter. He argued this point very well and highlighted that a lot of conversations about science and Christianity focus on individual issues (creation/evolution, ethics, genetic engineering) without acknowledging the shift that happened in the 1900s.
Towards the end of the book, Tyson asserts that Christians need to hold to theology as their foundation and not hold to science 'too seriously' since many scientific 'truths' morph and shift over time and that 'scientific knowledge is not theologically and ethically neutral knowledge'. This quote sums up his position pretty well: "Science is not a natural object in the world that can be defined; rather, it is an ever-changing, historically situated, and culturally, philosophically, linguistically, and politically embedded human activity.'
I appreciated many of the points made in this book and was encouraged by the emphasis to embrace the tension that comes with being both a Christian and a scientist. This book is different from any other I've read on the topic and it acknowledges more of the grey elements of harmonizing Christianity and science.
It is clear that this book is written by an academic and it was hard to wade through some sections - especially because I was not as well versed on philosophical terms. Tyson's favorite word is 'tacit' and I did become tired of seeing it multiple times in every chapter.
Thanks to Netgalley and Basic Books for this ARC!
March 12, 2023
Summary: Rather than simply another treatment of the way science and religion ought relate, begins with creedal Christianity, develops a theology of science, and argues that Christians treat theology as their “first truth discourse.”
There have been many books written about theology and science. This is not one of them. The author proposes instead to develop a theology of science. He considers the existing theology and science discussion, marked by adaptation, withdrawal, and appropriation as a failed project. He begins with definitions, considering theology as prescriptive thinking about God and reality, and science as descriptive thinking of the physical universe. He notes for the first time here that science has largely taken the place of theology as a “first truth discourse” relegating theology to a largely supernatural “upper story,” in the process, eliminating grounds for both meaning and ethics.
Tyson will eventually discuss the theological roots of modern science, but first he begins with how science as a first truth discourse assesses historic creedal Christianity, particularly the incarnation, the virgin birth, the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. By scientific criteria of rationalism and empiricism, only the historic death of Christ may survive. Tyson notes how this has influenced historical-critical reading of the Bible, de-supernaturalizing the text. He then turns the tables and considers science through the lens of theology as a first truth discourse.
He begins with God as source of all created essence and existence. This distinguishes theology as theocentric ontological foundationalism (TOF) as opposed to science’s egocentric epistemological foundationalism (EEF). The first believes in order to know, the latter must first know in order to believe. He notes how after Kant, the EEF project is subject to radical skepticism. How can we be certain we know anything? By contrast, TOF believes both in a God who creates the world and “communicates actively with our own minds” bridging the object-subject divide making at least the partial and progressive understanding of truth about all of reality, metaphysical and physical, possible, and giving warrant to the scientific enterprise. He goes on to critique nominal and voluntarist reductionism.
He then revisits the history, and how theology and the science birthed out of it grew increasingly apart, to the point of a great reversal in which science became privileged as the first truth discourse. He notes the philosophical challenges of Voltaire, Hume, Wolff, and Kant, as well as the advent of historical-critical studies in the seventeenth century which eroded confidence in the supernatural creedal elements of Christianity. The year 1870 demarcates a significant turning point as empiricist accounts of origins and the cosmos supplant a supernatural account already weakened from within. He then recounts efforts to reconcile science and Christianity: functional demarcations that do not overlap, Polkinghorne’s autonomous overlap, and integration approaches (which suffer a double truth problem).
Tyson considers what it means to think “after” science but not “after” theology. He notes the problems that have resulted from science’s hegemony in the environmental devastation, and the threats of nuclear destruction, the capabilities of surveillance capitalism, and more and begins to develop a theology of science as first truth discourse. He begins with theological epistemology, that is “Christian philosophical theologies concerning the matrix of divine grace, human sin, an intelligible and ordered world, sensory perception, mental illumination, meaning, and scientific and other truth” (p. 100). He does this by elaborating Plato’s four levels of awareness within a Christian framework: noesis, dianoia, pistis, and eikasis.
This is followed by a case study argument of myth and history around the Edenic fall, contending that while the tension cannot be eliminated, affirmation of the biblical doctrine of the fall, cannot be jettisoned. He deals with the tension by being agnostic about the natural history, that one cannot know from the natural history whether there was a fall, which does not warrant dismissing such a belief.
He concludes, arguing for an integrative zone of knowledge (science) and understanding (theology) based on the theological epistemology already discussed. He contends that this approach, both undergirding and informing science within a wisdom framework can be vital in addressing everything from the framing of theory to the uses (technology) to which science is put. I would like to have seen some discussion of the apprehensions scientists have that granting theology a first truth discourse status would lead to declaring certain areas of research “off limits” beyond the current internal processes of institutional review boards, particularly in our current (US) context where political power yoked to religious interests are used to constrain certain avenues of investigation.
I appreciated the author’s commitment to theology as a first truth discourse, and what this would look like vis a vis science. I was gladdened when seeing so many Christians deny the fall of Adam in light of evolutionary theories that Tyson affirmed this and other elements of the creed, modelling how this might be done in a theology of science framework. The work on theological epistemology addresses the skepticism faced by egocentric epistemological foundationalism and complements methodological naturalism with a theological perspective that accounts for meaning and ethics and informs empirical research and rationalist deductions. He helps move the conversation beyond our current theology and science models, encouraging a proper and humble confidence in Christian truth that may actually renew science and protect it from some of its worst excesses.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
There have been many books written about theology and science. This is not one of them. The author proposes instead to develop a theology of science. He considers the existing theology and science discussion, marked by adaptation, withdrawal, and appropriation as a failed project. He begins with definitions, considering theology as prescriptive thinking about God and reality, and science as descriptive thinking of the physical universe. He notes for the first time here that science has largely taken the place of theology as a “first truth discourse” relegating theology to a largely supernatural “upper story,” in the process, eliminating grounds for both meaning and ethics.
Tyson will eventually discuss the theological roots of modern science, but first he begins with how science as a first truth discourse assesses historic creedal Christianity, particularly the incarnation, the virgin birth, the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. By scientific criteria of rationalism and empiricism, only the historic death of Christ may survive. Tyson notes how this has influenced historical-critical reading of the Bible, de-supernaturalizing the text. He then turns the tables and considers science through the lens of theology as a first truth discourse.
He begins with God as source of all created essence and existence. This distinguishes theology as theocentric ontological foundationalism (TOF) as opposed to science’s egocentric epistemological foundationalism (EEF). The first believes in order to know, the latter must first know in order to believe. He notes how after Kant, the EEF project is subject to radical skepticism. How can we be certain we know anything? By contrast, TOF believes both in a God who creates the world and “communicates actively with our own minds” bridging the object-subject divide making at least the partial and progressive understanding of truth about all of reality, metaphysical and physical, possible, and giving warrant to the scientific enterprise. He goes on to critique nominal and voluntarist reductionism.
He then revisits the history, and how theology and the science birthed out of it grew increasingly apart, to the point of a great reversal in which science became privileged as the first truth discourse. He notes the philosophical challenges of Voltaire, Hume, Wolff, and Kant, as well as the advent of historical-critical studies in the seventeenth century which eroded confidence in the supernatural creedal elements of Christianity. The year 1870 demarcates a significant turning point as empiricist accounts of origins and the cosmos supplant a supernatural account already weakened from within. He then recounts efforts to reconcile science and Christianity: functional demarcations that do not overlap, Polkinghorne’s autonomous overlap, and integration approaches (which suffer a double truth problem).
Tyson considers what it means to think “after” science but not “after” theology. He notes the problems that have resulted from science’s hegemony in the environmental devastation, and the threats of nuclear destruction, the capabilities of surveillance capitalism, and more and begins to develop a theology of science as first truth discourse. He begins with theological epistemology, that is “Christian philosophical theologies concerning the matrix of divine grace, human sin, an intelligible and ordered world, sensory perception, mental illumination, meaning, and scientific and other truth” (p. 100). He does this by elaborating Plato’s four levels of awareness within a Christian framework: noesis, dianoia, pistis, and eikasis.
This is followed by a case study argument of myth and history around the Edenic fall, contending that while the tension cannot be eliminated, affirmation of the biblical doctrine of the fall, cannot be jettisoned. He deals with the tension by being agnostic about the natural history, that one cannot know from the natural history whether there was a fall, which does not warrant dismissing such a belief.
He concludes, arguing for an integrative zone of knowledge (science) and understanding (theology) based on the theological epistemology already discussed. He contends that this approach, both undergirding and informing science within a wisdom framework can be vital in addressing everything from the framing of theory to the uses (technology) to which science is put. I would like to have seen some discussion of the apprehensions scientists have that granting theology a first truth discourse status would lead to declaring certain areas of research “off limits” beyond the current internal processes of institutional review boards, particularly in our current (US) context where political power yoked to religious interests are used to constrain certain avenues of investigation.
I appreciated the author’s commitment to theology as a first truth discourse, and what this would look like vis a vis science. I was gladdened when seeing so many Christians deny the fall of Adam in light of evolutionary theories that Tyson affirmed this and other elements of the creed, modelling how this might be done in a theology of science framework. The work on theological epistemology addresses the skepticism faced by egocentric epistemological foundationalism and complements methodological naturalism with a theological perspective that accounts for meaning and ethics and informs empirical research and rationalist deductions. He helps move the conversation beyond our current theology and science models, encouraging a proper and humble confidence in Christian truth that may actually renew science and protect it from some of its worst excesses.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
December 16, 2025
An interesting book about the idea of the "first truth discourse" in the West. By this Tyson means the fundamental criteria against which all public knowledge must be tested to be valid. He describes how until the 19th century this was Christian theology - all knowledge was assumed to be reconcilable to the teachings of the Church. Then, as the functionally materialist methodology of science began to metastasise into a theoretical viewpoint (rather than simply working "as if" all that was real was the material, scientists began really to believe that all that was real was the material), physically reductive materialism took Christian theology's throne. Once this had occurred - in the late 19th century - the criteria of what constituted public knowledge became - is it physically verifiable?
Tyson traces the genealogy of this line of thought, beginning most significantly with medieval nominalism. This was the rupturing idea that "categories" exist only in our subjective appreciation of physical reality - they are themselves not objectively real in the way instances of categories are. This may seem on the surface a slightly trivial shift. But in fact it has profound implications. Suddenly, meaning and value is a by-product of consciousness - a subjective interpretation of a reality which itself does not contain such things. This is not a far cry from - in fact is almost the same as - denying the transcendent source of value. Without categories there can be no telos, for the category is the ideal against which the particular is to be measured, is to strive towards.
We end up in a reversal of relations between transcendence and immanence. For the Christian, all creation is dependent on the Creator. Supernature precedes nature. After the 19th century, nature precedes (and invents) supernature. It is not Man who is made in the image of God, but rather God who Man has made in his image.
Tyson does attempt at times to tease out the practical implications of this reversal - but I don't think he does so in a compelling fashion. (Gestures to war crimes and climate change are all well and good, but this is vague).
On some level perhaps this is because it is quite simple and straight forward. If we as a culture adopt an instrumentalist/materialist approach to knowledge and truth (something is "true" if it is "useful" (profitable)), then we are going to allow ourselves to produce things which make people wealthy or comfortable at the expense of our deeper wellbeing as a species. But is this really downstream of a theological/metaphysical belief? Or is it the natural development of our spirit - to want to delve deeper, to see what more can be ventured? Etc.
I think this would be a good primer before reading David Bentley Hart's recent book which covers similar ground with much greater depth. Ultimately I think Tyson's book is better when looking back than when looking forward - or even when considering the present.
Tyson traces the genealogy of this line of thought, beginning most significantly with medieval nominalism. This was the rupturing idea that "categories" exist only in our subjective appreciation of physical reality - they are themselves not objectively real in the way instances of categories are. This may seem on the surface a slightly trivial shift. But in fact it has profound implications. Suddenly, meaning and value is a by-product of consciousness - a subjective interpretation of a reality which itself does not contain such things. This is not a far cry from - in fact is almost the same as - denying the transcendent source of value. Without categories there can be no telos, for the category is the ideal against which the particular is to be measured, is to strive towards.
We end up in a reversal of relations between transcendence and immanence. For the Christian, all creation is dependent on the Creator. Supernature precedes nature. After the 19th century, nature precedes (and invents) supernature. It is not Man who is made in the image of God, but rather God who Man has made in his image.
Tyson does attempt at times to tease out the practical implications of this reversal - but I don't think he does so in a compelling fashion. (Gestures to war crimes and climate change are all well and good, but this is vague).
On some level perhaps this is because it is quite simple and straight forward. If we as a culture adopt an instrumentalist/materialist approach to knowledge and truth (something is "true" if it is "useful" (profitable)), then we are going to allow ourselves to produce things which make people wealthy or comfortable at the expense of our deeper wellbeing as a species. But is this really downstream of a theological/metaphysical belief? Or is it the natural development of our spirit - to want to delve deeper, to see what more can be ventured? Etc.
I think this would be a good primer before reading David Bentley Hart's recent book which covers similar ground with much greater depth. Ultimately I think Tyson's book is better when looking back than when looking forward - or even when considering the present.
October 18, 2022
Макар да обяснява подробно и много ясно всичко, което казва книгата никак не е лесна за разбиране - особено от хора, които нямат достатъчно задълбочени познания по философия. Аз самият започнах да губя нишката някъде около средата, макар че оснонвните идеи да ми стахана достатъчно ясни.
В определен смисъл книгата е брилятна. Вместо да гледа на отношенията вяра-наука по обичайния начин - т.е. как вярата се съотнася спрямо вярата авторът преобръщ категории и разглежда как знауката се съотнася спрямо християнското богословие. Под наука той има предвид съвременните научни принципи, които стоят в основата на научното изследване.
Макар да нямам достатъчно познания да преценя дали някои твърдения (например несвместимостта на номинализма с християнската вяра) са верни основната насока и идея за мен е добре поставена и много, много важна.
В определен смисъл книгата е брилятна. Вместо да гледа на отношенията вяра-наука по обичайния начин - т.е. как вярата се съотнася спрямо вярата авторът преобръщ категории и разглежда как знауката се съотнася спрямо християнското богословие. Под наука той има предвид съвременните научни принципи, които стоят в основата на научното изследване.
Макар да нямам достатъчно познания да преценя дали някои твърдения (например несвместимостта на номинализма с християнската вяра) са верни основната насока и идея за мен е добре поставена и много, много важна.
April 11, 2023
I absolutely love Tyson and read any of his work when it comes out. In this book, he frames the problems of the “science and religion” debate so well, especially in the context of first-truth discourse. His illustration of the transformation of the divided line into the present and the recent historical prioritization of knowledge (existence) over understanding (essence) is brilliant. Lastly, he hints at some necessary conditions for a way forward in a discourse-pluralistic society. The one drawback to the book was the redundancy: his repeated need to illustrate the problem. And yet, this may be a problem of misunderstanding by the reader rather than the author.
February 21, 2023
Exciting.
March 4, 2023
Paul Tyson needs to be read!
December 22, 2022
Tyson, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland, explores the role of science as the "first truth discourse" in "secular academic modernity." He suggests that science has replaced theology as a first truth discourse. However, this is not always the case - there is a distrust of theology but also a distrust of science - even though during the Covid pandemic we were told: “we are following the science”. Yet there is a distrust not only of scientists but also experts.
Tyson in this book attempts to understand science theologically. He “seeks to presuppose Christian theology as a first truth discourse when thinking about science; it seeks to recover and reimagine the theology of science.”
We might well as the question: Why a theology of science? Why not a philosophy of science? Isn’t theology just as much an academic discipline as science?
The book is written in an academic style as so won’t be accessible to the “layperson in the pew”. It presupposes some knowledge at least of philosophy.
There is much in this book that is good - for example, he shows how “modern science is the love child of Christian theology and a devotion to the Creator by means of understanding the wonders of creation.” He shows the false presuppositions that underlie much of the science and religion debate which sees them in conflict. He exposes the reliance of modern science on “three foundational philosophical and methodologically applied commitments: empiricism, rationalism, and physical reductionism”. And the absence of focus on specific scientific results or ideas is the book's most notable flaw. Instead, the book deals with how science affects our thinking. His development of a Christian theological epistemology is to be applauded.
There is a helpful glossary of key terms and a 9-page bibliography.
Tyson in this book attempts to understand science theologically. He “seeks to presuppose Christian theology as a first truth discourse when thinking about science; it seeks to recover and reimagine the theology of science.”
We might well as the question: Why a theology of science? Why not a philosophy of science? Isn’t theology just as much an academic discipline as science?
The book is written in an academic style as so won’t be accessible to the “layperson in the pew”. It presupposes some knowledge at least of philosophy.
There is much in this book that is good - for example, he shows how “modern science is the love child of Christian theology and a devotion to the Creator by means of understanding the wonders of creation.” He shows the false presuppositions that underlie much of the science and religion debate which sees them in conflict. He exposes the reliance of modern science on “three foundational philosophical and methodologically applied commitments: empiricism, rationalism, and physical reductionism”. And the absence of focus on specific scientific results or ideas is the book's most notable flaw. Instead, the book deals with how science affects our thinking. His development of a Christian theological epistemology is to be applauded.
There is a helpful glossary of key terms and a 9-page bibliography.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews