Book Review: The Limitations of Scientific Truth

[hopperace]

Book Review: The Limitations of Scientific Truth: Why Science Can’t Answer Life’s Ultimate Questions, by Nigel Brush (2005, Kregel Publications).

Since before I even knew what it was, I have always considered theology the queen of the sciences. As a practicing scientist (geologist, anthropologist, archeologist) and a Christian, Nigel Brush has perhaps been trained to a somewhat different view, and is willing to put science and religion on an even footing as they pertain to “life’s ultimate questions”.

The Limitations of Scientific Truth is an up-to-date historical evaluation of just where science stands in rational comparison to Christianity (and philosophy) on the quest for ultimate answers and the search for absolute truth. Nigel’s comments are a welcome tool in the scientific arsenal of human support for the Creator and His revelations in the Bible. Reviewing several scientific disciplines in nice detail, Brush concludes, “If the God of the Bible is indeed the Creator of the universe, then science will find, if it ever approaches absolute truth, that its truths converge with the truths of Christianity. The God who revealed Himself through Christ and the Scriptures is also the God who reveals Himself through purposeful design in the physical universe.”

While affirming the great value of scientific research and theory, Brush is adept at pointing out the limitations within various disciplines of science. But he is also quick to add, “It is unfortunate that with human understanding and interpretation of Scripture come all of the perils of human ignorance, willful blindness, and cultural bias that we have already documented regarding scientific understanding and interpretation of facts in the physical world. Thus, theological truth, like scientific truth, also has its limitations.”

Limitations is a clear, concise, and direct layman’s guide to many of the pressing issues facing today’s dialog between rational Christians and those of a scientific bent, even if they happen to be the same person. It makes for some logical acknowledgements and valuable honesty, and should be considered a ‘must read’ for those involved in current dialog on matters of faith and science.

 

[KerrMetric]

When did theology become a science, I missed that one. Certainly every theologian missed it too.

 

[Catherineanne]

Since before I even knew what it was, I have always considered theology the queen of the sciences. As a practicing scientist (geologist, anthropologist, archeologist) and a Christian, Nigel Brush has perhaps been trained to a somewhat different view, and is willing to put science and religion on an even footing as they pertain to “life’s ultimate questions”.

Thanks for the review, but I don't think I will be dashing to Amazon.

Science and religion are not on an even footing. They are completely different. This is like comparing chalk and cheese, and then saying cheese can solve all the problems of chalk. Maybe it can, but the answers will be meaningless.

Theology is not the queen of the sciences. Theology is hardly a science at all, in that it is impossible to establish experiments which are capable of being disproven; you simply cannot set up a control alongside the existing universe. There may be elements of analysis and deduction, as there is indeed in working on English Literature, but I think nobody would claim that Literature Studies is a science.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

theology is the queen of the sciences

it is an ancient quote, even a paragraph from the wiki on it

"the queen of the sciences"

Einstein may have called math "the queen of the sciences", but Gauss said so first. -- Gruepig 07:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both Gauss and Einstein borrowed the 'queen of the sciences' quote from Thomas Aquinas. The original quote is 'Theologia scientiarum regina est, et philosphia serva suae est' (Theology is the queen of the sciences, and philosophy is her handmaid). It seems that this view was based on Boethius, who used the imagary of being a queen in describing philosophy. Gaus and Einstein were merely extending the metaphor to modern epistemology: classical philosophy, mediaeval theology and modern mathematics. Immanuel Kant described metaphysics as the queen of the sciences. I don't think mathematics can claim this title outright: such would lead to much feuding intra-campum. Gareth Hughes 13:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In case there is ever dispute. . .a monarch need not be of the same race as the subjects. Mathematica may be queen of the sciences, but this does not imply that she IS a member of that category. Dpr 03:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematics/Archive3#.22the_queen_of_the_sciences.22

the usage of the term sciences here long predates the modern definition.
give the author a break, he is quoting Aquinas.

 

[Willtor]

Barth argued that theology was a science. His protege, Torrance, follows that tradition, today. That said, if this is an accurate review of the book, it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. One of the consequences of treating theology as a science is that one is not going to yield theological truths while studying biology.

But however you treat theology (science or otherwise), arguing that science will yield Christian truths is to suggest that God's revelation is unnecessary and that, left to our own devices, we will eventually discover Him ourselves. This is fairly contrary to the Word, as I understand him.

 

[Catherineanne]

the usage of the term sciences here long predates the modern definition.
give the author a break, he is quoting Aquinas.

Thanks for the quote. However it does not improve matters at all. The translation 'science' is inappropriate, and would be better termed 'knowledge'.

If people are going to quote Aquinas, then first of all credit the quote, and then either use the original Latin, or else translate properly. Scientiarum is not 'science'; it is the total sum of all known knowledge; or perhaps paraphrased as, 'that which can be known.'

Theology might, indeed, be regarded as the Queen, not of science, but of all that can be known.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Please don't let anyone discourage you from writing book reviews and posting those on topic here. i even wish we have a sticky just for those reviews. post all your reviews to amazon. work on them, polish them, respond to critics, do a couple of important pull quotes, something people might google into your review with. share your reading with the world.
you will prosper and we will benefit.


--
to the particulars of your review.
it doesn't make me want to read the book it is a must read, but i know you want me to. why not?

While affirming the great value of scientific research and theory, Brush is adept at pointing out the limitations within various disciplines of science. i'm not sure these are your words. they clash "affirming great value" with "adept at pointing out", it makes me wonder if this is garbage pointing out all the faults of science or just what. this is where you need a good example from the book. a few line example that will either justify my suspicions or alleviate them. the quote that follows just makes me more anxious that this is not a worthwhile book, for even though i agree that both science and theology have limitation i wonder(again) what he means by we have already documented.

so what your review does is not to lessen the worry that this is another creationist who misses all the major points in the discussion and finds one or two good minor points to discuss and gets everything else wrong (my customary feeling after reading YECist) especially the science, but to heighten it.

you need to present evidence that this guy knows what he is talking about.

look at an amazon review at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/08...f=pd_bbs_1/102-8502438-2478522?_encoding=UTF8

in the one labelled "finally" s/he writes
Moreover, scientific truth is a moving target; the "facts" tend to change as more information is discovered and examined and warning flags for me go up.

scan to the next one "thought provoking"

As an educator, I took notice that Dr. Brush succintly points out that the constantly changing "truth" offered in science should at very least give us pause. In one class I took the textbook was updated every year with no buyback because the text used the previous year was already outdated and considered too flawed for the current course. The "science" I learned many years ago in high school is now considered an embarrassing chapter in ancient history by the science of today. Something that is in such a constant state of flux must be presented with the humbling realization that there are significant limitations to the "truth" discovered and presented by science, just as there are serious limitations to the "truth" presented in personal and cultural interpretations of religious truth.
first, it helps to id himself as an educator, he is covering the same principles from the book that the previous author did. he puts truth in quotes, i ask myself, what is he getting at? is this what the book says, that science because of the flux is unreliable? or tentative? they are different ideas, which one does the author of your book believe science is?


well anyhow. i really really like book reviews and appreciate any discussion of them we can get and keep going here. it will help us all save money from not buying the junk and getting the really valuable stuff into our heads.


so despite everything above, thanks for posting the book review. i still don't know if i will order it, convince me!!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Barth argued that theology was a science. His protege, Torrance, follows that tradition, today. That said, if this is an accurate review of the book, it sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. One of the consequences of treating theology as a science is that one is not going to yield theological truths while studying biology.

But however you treat theology (science or otherwise), arguing that science will yield Christian truths is to suggest that God's revelation is unnecessary and that, left to our own devices, we will eventually discover Him ourselves. This is fairly contrary to the Word, as I understand him.

Both the Hodges considered theology a science not as much in the modern definition of the domain (the natural world) but in the methodology, taking Scripture as the datum and building theories and finally a systematic theology. in fact, it is a criticism directed at hodges _systematic theology_ that it takes science as a model, is overly rationalistic etc. that i hear/read rather commonly.

hear Hodge himself define this notion

§ 1. Theology a Science.

IN every science there are two factors: facts and ideas; or, facts and the mind. Science is more than knowledge. Knowledge is the persuasion of what is true on adequate evidence. But the facts of astronomy, chemistry, or history do not constitute the science of those departments of knowledge. Nor does the mere orderly arrangement of facts amount to science. Historical facts arranged in chronological order, are mere annals. The philosophy of history supposes those facts to be understood in their causal relations. In every department the man of science is assumed to understand the laws by which the facts of experience are determined; so that he not only knows the past, but can predict the future. The astronomer can foretell the relative position of the heavenly bodies for centuries to come. The chemist can tell with certainty what will be the effect of certain chemical combinations. If, therefore, theology be a science, it must include something more than a mere knowledge of facts. It must embrace an exhibition of the internal relation of those facts, one to another, and each to all. It must be able to show that if one be admitted, others cannot be denied.

The Bible is no more a system of theology, than nature is a system of chemistry or of mechanics. We find in nature the facts which the chemist or the mechanical philosopher has to examine, and from them to ascertain the laws by which they are determined. So the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other. This constitutes the difference between biblical and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture. The office of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency. This is not an easy task, or one of slight importance.

from: http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeV1/Int_C01.htm

 

[Willtor]

Both the Hodges considered theology a science not as much in the modern definition of the domain (the natural world) but in the methodology, taking Scripture as the datum and building theories and finally a systematic theology. in fact, it is a criticism directed at hodges _systematic theology_ that it takes science as a model, is overly rationalistic etc. that i hear/read rather commonly.

hear Hodge himself define this notion

from: http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/HodgeV1/Int_C01.htm

I haven't read Hodge, so I feel a little bit inadequate in responding at all. But it is not so much a systematic theology that I'm discussing. Barth actually didn't even like the term, "systematic theology." He thought it was self-contradictory ("wooden iron" is the exact comparison). Certainly, just reading this quote and reading the chapter names on the link you provided, I can already identify some substantial differences.

Now, as to my inadequacy, I can't say whether the differences are relevant to theology's acceptance as a science. But if it's the definition of science, and not the methods, that exclude theology, then this is just a question of our semantics. It is also conceivable that you and I have different views of what goes into theology. And. . . I'm not really prepared to argue that matter because as you can see I'm still not well-versed enough in the various schools of thought.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I'm not really prepared to argue that matter because as you can see I'm still not well-versed enough in the various schools of thought.

i think that the word science has evolved and was even evolving in Hodges time (late 19thC) to something particular that theology does not fit into.

there are lots of people, versed in Hodge that disagree with the scientific nature of his work and disagree that it is even possible, or desirable.

 

[Willtor]

What are some of the arguments against? What is an alternative basis for thinking about God?