Dialogue Between Theology and Science: Present Challenges and Future Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remarks and comments refer to specific parts of the article. I suggest taking them into account in order to improve the quality of the paper.

Part 3:

The Author may mention here that dialogue between science and philosophy could be placing in the context of already existing concepts of interdisciplinary philosophy, like „philosophy in science” idea (see e.g.: Heller, How is philosophy in science possible?, Philosophical Problems in Science” 66: 231-249 (2019). This concept, developed for many years, is already used even in the context of technology. See, for example: Polak, Philosophy in technology: A research program, " Philosophical Problems in Science" 75:59-81 (2023). In Polak’s paper, it is worth paying attention to chapter “7. Framework for technology–theology (technology–religion) relationships analysis”, which may be of interest to the Author due to the issues raised in his paper.

Part 4:

The philosophical legacy of Thomas Aquinas and his successors (neo-Thomism) was – in the opinion of scholars and many philosophers – already far out of date in the 19th century, and the development of physics at the turn of the 20th century only deepened this process of outdatedness. The renewal of Thomism proposed by Pope Leo XIII (Aeterni Patris, 1879) turned out to be, from the perspective of the dialogue between science and theology, definitely insufficient, as a result of which many scholars of the Catholic Church began to depart from the Thomistic line. Aquinas' philosophy is not only considered outdated, but also – as a systemic philosophy – raises certain metaphilosophical reservations. The pursuit of developing a "new" systemic Thomistic philosophy seems to have little prospects. Constructing a similar system of knowledge on the whole world - which at the same time would not be anachronistic – is simply unrealistic, considering that scientific knowledge about the world is already too extensive and specialized.

Part 5:

I suggest that the Author in this chapter refer to a well-known 20th century philosophy of science "the internalism-externalism debate".

Part 6.2:

It should be emphasized that the idea of ​​"theology of science" began to develop in the 1980s and initially had an impact on the local Polish philosophical milieu thanks to the works of Michał Heller and Józef Życiński. This is mentioned, among others, in the article by M. Oleksowicz (2020) cited by the Author. See also: Paweł Polak & Jacek Rodzeń (2022): The Theory of Relativity and Theology: The Neo-Thomist Science–Theology Separation vs. Michael Heller’s Path to Dialogue, Theology and Science, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2022.2155917

Part 6.2.1:

It is worth adding here that in the 20th and 21st centuries, the panentheistic concept of God and His relationship to the world is gaining in importance. Theologians sympathetic to this concept (such as A.N. Whitehead, Ch. Hartshorne, A. Peacocke, J. Życiński) place their theological views in the context of the results of science. This is an interesting example how the dialogue between theology and science can have a stimulating effect on reflection on the Christian concept of God.

Author Response

From Reviewer n. 1 – Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remarks and comments refer to specific parts of the article. I suggest taking them into account in order to improve the quality of the paper.

>>> I warmly thanks the anonymous referee for the useful suggestions. Here are, below, my replies.

 

Part 3:

The Author may mention here that dialogue between science and philosophy could be placing in the context of already existing concepts of interdisciplinary philosophy, like „philosophy in science” idea (see e.g.: Heller, How is philosophy in science possible?, Philosophical Problems in Science” 66: 231-249 (2019). This concept, developed for many years, is already used even in the context of technology. See, for example: Polak, Philosophy in technology: A research program, " Philosophical Problems in Science" 75:59-81 (2023). In Polak’s paper, it is worth paying attention to chapter “7. Framework for technology–theology (technology–religion) relationships analysis”, which may be of interest to the Author due to the issues raised in his paper.

>>> In Section n. 3, I inserted the following paragraph:

Regarding the need for a dialogue between science and philosophy, it should be mentioned that several decades ago some authors proposed a new approach called “philosophy in science,” which should be developed alongside an already existing “philosophy of science.” While the former is concerned with the critical evaluation, from outside, of the knowledge associated with the scientific method, the latter seeks to highlight the philosophical reflections that arise from within scientific or technological activity (see Heller 2019; Polak 2023). In the 1980s, this perspective gave rise to the journals Philosophy in Science, published in Tucson, AZ, and Philosophical Problems in Science, published in Krakow, and promoted by scholars such as Andrzej Pacholczyk, Michael Heller, Joseph Zycinski, and William Stoeger.

 

Part 4:

The philosophical legacy of Thomas Aquinas and his successors (neo-Thomism) was – in the opinion of scholars and many philosophers – already far out of date in the 19th century, and the development of physics at the turn of the 20th century only deepened this process of outdatedness. The renewal of Thomism proposed by Pope Leo XIII (Aeterni Patris, 1879) turned out to be, from the perspective of the dialogue between science and theology, definitely insufficient, as a result of which many scholars of the Catholic Church began to depart from the Thomistic line. Aquinas' philosophy is not only considered outdated, but also – as a systemic philosophy – raises certain metaphilosophical reservations. The pursuit of developing a "new" systemic Thomistic philosophy seems to have little prospects. Constructing a similar system of knowledge on the whole world - which at the same time would not be anachronistic – is simply unrealistic, considering that scientific knowledge about the world is already too extensive and specialized.

>>> In Section n. 4, the reference to Thomas Aquinas is appropriate, I think, because the article is meant to provide a “snapshot” of what is happening in the field of dialogue between science and theology. I quote from the article’s text:

«Today, Aquinas’ philosophy is used in the dialogue between science and theology by a limited number of Catholic scholars, mainly in France, Spain, and Italy. There is a significant revival of Aquinas in the Dominican schools of the United States…»

I have omitted some adjective and stressed that these authors look at Aquinas as a source of inspiration, to do today what Aquinas did in his epoch. I also mention, in the article, the problems that Aquinas’ scholars have to face, which are more or less those mentioned by the reviewer.

 

Part 5:

I suggest that the Author in this chapter refer to a well-known 20th century philosophy of science "the internalism-externalism debate".

>>> I have a poor knowledge of the authors involved. I confined myself introducing a new sentence that mentions that this debate could also play a role within a framework intended to study the relation between the epistemological and the anthropological dimensions of scientific knowledge.

A symptom of this state of affairs can also be seen in the rise of the “internalism-externalism debate” within some currents in the philosophy of science (Kornblith 2001).

Part 6.2:

It should be emphasized that the idea of "theology of science" began to develop in the 1980s and initially had an impact on the local Polish philosophical milieu thanks to the works of Michał Heller and Józef Życiński. This is mentioned, among others, in the article by M. Oleksowicz (2020) cited by the Author. See also: Paweł Polak & Jacek Rodzeń (2022): The Theory of Relativity and Theology: The Neo-Thomist Science–Theology Separation vs. Michael Heller’s Path to Dialogue, Theology and Science, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2022.2155917

>>> I introduced a new sentence acknowledging the original suggestion of a Theology of science made by Heller and Zycinski.

Theology of science, which began to develop in the 1980s and initially had an impact on the local Polish philosophical milieu thanks to the works of Michael Heller and Józef Życiński, should also have its own status and object (Oleksowicz 2019 and 2020; Tyson 2022; Harris 2024).

 

Part 6.2.1:

It is worth adding here that in the 20th and 21st centuries, the panentheistic concept of God and His relationship to the world is gaining in importance. Theologians sympathetic to this concept (such as A.N. Whitehead, Ch. Hartshorne, A. Peacocke, J. Życiński) place their theological views in the context of the results of science. This is an interesting example how the dialogue between theology and science can have a stimulating effect on reflection on the Christian concept of God.

>>> I have introduced a new paragraph explicitly mentioning this perspective.

In relation to God’s manifestation in nature, in the last decades the panentheistic concept of God and His relationship to the world is gaining in importance. Authors sympathetic to this concept, such as A.N. Whitehead, Ch. Hartshorne, A. Peacocke, J. Życiński, place their theological views in the context of the results of science. This perspective deserves an important place on the theologian's agenda as an interesting example of how the dialogue between theology and science can stimulate reflection on the Christian concept of God.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay is overall well-done: it is rigorous, thoughtful, precise, and well researched. I've suggested some edits here and there, but overall it's ready for publication (see the copy I've annotated).

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your notes inserted in the text. I have corrected the text accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

First of all, the article deals with a subject that can be considered very important, at least in some circles. From the general tone of the whole work it can be concluded that the author - probably - sympathises, at least to some extent, with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If it is the case, some of critical remarks could be of special importance to improve the work.

The following points are critical remarks that will hopefully help to improve the quality of the paper.

1.      Overall impression is that the paper is versy similar to the book "Sciences et théologie. Les figures d’un dialogue" written by Dominique Lambert. However, it does no share the clarity, soundness of argumentation and carefullness of the book. In some parts the paper can be even seen as popular summary of the book, e.g. when the Author is presenting potential interaction between understanding of catholic dogmas and cosmology. It by no means does mean that the work is a plagiarism. It is possible, that the Author of the paper has more or less the same insights as Dominique Lambert has, what would be not surprising.

2.      In line 162 Athor refers to technology. However, much depends on how Author understands technology. It should also be added that indeed, even putting theology aside, the debate on social consequences is not easy because of many factors:

a.      media hype;

b.      the lack of understanding of what technology is;

c.      many ethical positions;

d.      serious engagement of big tech;

e.      dependence on field of technology

-          to name only a few ones.

3.      In line 242 Author refers to acquaintance of philosophical and historical context of scientific activity. Here one can oppose: why not also the sociological one? Of course, one could inflate  list of demands infinitely. Despite of this, sociological context is - from time to time - important, but exaggeration in using of sociological perspective usually darkens the philosophical one.

4.      Lines 296-298: Full agreement, it would be nice to have clergy trained in science, however it following points also should be taken into account:

a.      If one sympathises with Roman Catholic Church, it could be good idea to take a look at fundamental calling of clerics, which is most important, and their personal gifts;

b.      Time!

c.      It cannot be done at the expense of pastoral work in general, not necessarily in case of particular cleric (see point a.)

d.      Specialization, flood of information, pace of life, etc.

5.      Lines 307-314: The problem is that gradually we are facing:

a.      less and less interesting in science as whole, and lack;

b.      rapid development of technology;

c.      what is potentially dangerous - dimnishing the role of humanities as such

d.      some cultural shifts, part of them are surely destructible for culture which "generated" sciences and the notion of truth – vide:
UK’s first decolonising philosophy toolkit for secondary schools and universities launched | SOAS

Not for citation or dissemination until 00:01 on 13th June 2024 (soas.ac.uk)

6.      Lines: 390-393: few words of justification would be very welcome;

7.      Lines: 659-661: When referring to Einstein while discussing about God, one could be very careful because this concept, when it comes to Einstein’s position, is very vague and complex. Usually one highlights that God is for Einstein more or less the same as Universe or Nature, nonpersonal (Calaprice, Einstein, Pais);

8.      Line: 714 (and others): here Authors introduces the notion of “information”. It is by no means obvious, what information is, and the literature in this field is hopelessly vast. However, it could be good idea to give some description or explanation here, how it is understood by Author;

9.      Lines: 759-760: Here Author poses a claim about strong identity, however, it is not really clear what it does mean in this context. Few words of explanation could solve the problem, as well as in the case of the notion of universality. If Author sympathises, to some extent at least, with Thomas Aquinas, probably it would be helpfull to adopt also his position on total difference between Creator and creation (all created beings). It could be fruitful to re-considering the problem of relation of the Incarnate Logos and physical reality (lines: 759-770). In the same passage it is not really clear, what cosmos is. Is this notion (cosmos) the same as universe, understood as the object that can be described by means of contemporary physics?

10. Lines: 831-832: few words of justification would be very welcome;

11. Lines: 914-915: a few words of explanation, how theology can take advantage of improved scientific knowledge would be welcome;

12. The same remark refers to next line and possible better understanding;

13. Lines: 928-929 – it is no really hard to imagine. One should remember, that the content of dogmas shall be conserved. Better or deeper understanding is – to be cautious – possible, but one should be careful and precise, when making the claims like this one;

14. General remark: when discussing the possible interaction between findings of scientific work, it is probably good idea to get acquinted and make reference to works Vincent of Lérins and Melchior Cano, which are fundamental for the subject. Not to mention, that their openess and carefulness can be very inspiring. It is of particular importance, when dealing with scientific knowledge. It’s because of its continuous change, and one has to be very aware of that fact. It’s one of the reasons why it is hard to make a metaphysical system which bases on newest findings of science. However, it doesn’t mean that one shall not take those findings into account at all. We need here a good meta-platform, and usually, what Athor noticed, it was philosophy of nature;

15. General remark: when it comes to deal with truth or Truth, it is good idea to give a brief explanation, what is the meaning of those notions. Specially if scientific effort is seen as pursuit for truth;

16. Certain carefulness could be good, when dealing with programs similar to scientific humanism (paragraph 5.2). It does not mean that it is completely not useful. However:

a.      It could be easily confused with sociology of science and additional explanations that it is not the case, would be hopeless. Sociology of science is much tempting because of its reference to sociology and, apparent connection with “hard scientific tools”, what can be misleading. Not to mention the problem of replication in social sciences..

b.      It could easily happen, that someone would demand to construct more scientific scientific humanism. That is, that we need to engage more scientific methods to make humanism more scientific. Is there a limit of such possible recursion? Would it not be good idea to highlight that nowdays, with some exceptions, we have rather tendency to confuse humanities with social sciences, not to mention that humanities (not understood as soft-skills or social sciences) are rather pushed to the margin of academic life.

The challenge which Author has took up is huge and complex. The more attention it demands, as well as carefulness and courage.

 

Author Response

From Reviewer n. 3 – Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Remarks and comments refer to specific parts of the article. I suggest taking them into account in order to improve the quality of the paper.

>>> I warmly thanks the anonymous referee for the useful suggestions. Here are, below, my replies.

 

First of all, the article deals with a subject that can be considered very important, at least in some circles. From the general tone of the whole work it can be concluded that the author - probably - sympathises, at least to some extent, with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. If it is the case, some of critical remarks could be of special importance to improve the work.

>>> I am a Christian Catholic theologian (it will be clear from the Author’s address, when the article is published), and I put an emphasis on this theological perspective. I quote from the article: «In the following sections I will offer, in a rather schematic way, a number of suggestions that might inspire the future work to be made, with some emphasis on Catholic theology.»

 

The following points are critical remarks that will hopefully help to improve the quality of the paper.

1. Overall impression is that the paper is versy similar to the book "Sciences et théologie. Les figures d’un dialogue" written by Dominique Lambert. However, it does no share the clarity, soundness of argumentation and carefullness of the book. In some parts the paper can be even seen as popular summary of the book, e.g. when the Author is presenting potential interaction between understanding of catholic dogmas and cosmology. It by no means does mean that the work is a plagiarism. It is possible, that the Author of the paper has more or less the same insights as Dominique Lambert has, what would be not surprising.

>>> I know Dominique Lambert's book, and I am a good friend of his. We have common insights because of the intellectual tradition we share. But I didn't have Lambert's book at hand when I wrote my article.

 

2. In line 162 Author refers to technology. However, much depends on how Author understands technology. It should also be added that indeed, even putting theology aside, the debate on social consequences is not easy because of many factors:
3. media hype;
4. the lack of understanding of what technology is;
5. many ethical positions;
6. serious engagement of big tech;
7. dependence on field of technology

-          to name only a few ones.

>>>The anonymous reviewer, then, agrees with the Author on the fact that a debate on ethical issues raised by contemporary technology is not the best place to discuss the dialogue between theology and science. This is precisely what I do in my article.

 

3. In line 242 Author refers to acquaintance of philosophical and historical context of scientific activity. Here one can oppose: why not also the sociological one? Of course, one could inflate list of demands infinitely. Despite of this, sociological context is - from time to time - important, but exaggeration in using of sociological perspective usually darkens the philosophical one.

>>>I agree that sociology should mentioned as well. I have modified the sentence in this way:

In fact, only a better acquaintance with the historical, philosophical, and even sociological context of scientific activity, can lead scientists to appreciate the role that a particular theological worldview may have played in the study of nature

 

4. Lines 296-298: Full agreement, it would be nice to have clergy trained in science, however it following points also should be taken into account:
5. If one sympathises with Roman Catholic Church, it could be good idea to take a look at fundamental calling of clerics, which is most important, and their personal gifts;
6. Time!
7. It cannot be done at the expense of pastoral work in general, not necessarily in case of particular cleric (see point a.)
8. Specialization, flood of information, pace of life, etc.

>>> We (the reviewer and the author) agree and share the same thoughts.

 

5. Lines 307-314: The problem is that gradually we are facing:
6. less and less interesting in science as whole, and lack;
7. rapid development of technology;
8. what is potentially dangerous - dimnishing the role of humanities as such
9. some cultural shifts, part of them are surely destructible for culture which "generated" sciences and the notion of truth – vide:
   UK’s first decolonising philosophy toolkit for secondary schools and universities launched | SOAS

Not for citation or dissemination until 00:01 on 13th June 2024 (soas.ac.uk)

 

 

>>> As far as I understand, the reviewer’s thoughts are his own comments on the social and intellectual situation, not remarks or criticisms addressed to the article’s content.

 

6. Lines: 390-393: few words of justification would be very welcome;

>>> Reviewer n. 2 also addressed the same remark. The paragraph has been modified.

 

7. Lines: 659-661: When referring to Einstein while discussing about God, one could be very careful because this concept, when it comes to Einstein’s position, is very vague and complex. Usually one highlights that God is for Einstein more or less the same as Universe or Nature, nonpersonal (Calaprice, Einstein, Pais);

>>> I agree. In fact, I include Einstein among those authors who have been studied more in depth, not among those who acknowledge the existence of a God Creator (see my text in the article).

 

8. Line: 714 (and others): here Authors introduces the notion of “information”. It is by no means obvious, what information is, and the literature in this field is hopelessly vast. However, it could be good idea to give some description or explanation here, how it is understood by Author;

>>> I use the notion of information, basically, in section 6.2.2. I prefer not to give “my” definition of information, but to confine myself to point out that literature on the relationship between science and theology uses to consider “information” as a promising field of dialogue. The collective work by Davies and Gregersen 2010, which I refer as first entry, provides enough matter on the different ways to understand information.

 

9. Lines: 759-760: Here Author poses a claim about strong identity, however, it is not really clear what it does mean in this context. Few words of explanation could solve the problem, as well as in the case of the notion of universality. If Author sympathises, to some extent at least, with Thomas Aquinas, probably it would be helpfull to adopt also his position on total difference between Creator and creation (all created beings). It could be fruitful to re-considering the problem of relation of the Incarnate Logos and physical reality (lines: 759-770). In the same passage it is not really clear, what cosmos is. Is this notion (cosmos) the same as universe, understood as the object that can be described by means of contemporary physics?

>>> I have enriched the sentence in this way:

Created by an intentional and personal Word, and in the sight of the Word made flesh, the whole cosmos is indeed a uni-verse, that is, its laws and physical properties must show a strong identity and a clear universality, because of the unity of its Cause and the universal extension of His power.

 

10. Lines: 831-832: few words of justification would be very welcome;

>>> The sentence has the only finality to remind that we have to begin by knowing what is true, then arguing about what is good. In any case, I have changed a bit the paragraph in this way:

«Ethical issues demand to be read and framed within an appropriate epistemology: What can we know? Can we think rationally in terms of truth, nature, ultimate ends? Can we argue about what is good or evil before knowing what is true or false? Moreover, we should discuss human nature and its ultimate ends also in light of what we know about the physical, biological, and historical evolution of human life.»

11. Lines: 914-915: a few words of explanation, how theology can take advantage of improved scientific knowledge would be welcome;
12. The same remark refers to next line and possible better understanding;

>>>The two sentences are intended to recall a well known perspective, familiar to all those who work in science and theology: science helps theologians to do a better theology and I know what a creature is also thanks to science. I could put here one or more references, but there are lot of authors and essays which back this perspective. I prefer leaving the phrase as it is now.

 

13. Lines: 928-929 – it is no really hard to imagine. One should remember, that the content of dogmas shall be conserved. Better or deeper understanding is – to be cautious – possible, but one should be careful and precise, when making the claims like this one;

>>> Admitting a homogeneous development of Christian dogma is a position shared by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. I comment on this view in many articles and books of mine. You are right, we should be more precise, but this requires to enter into theological definitions and specifications, which are not the object of present article.

 

14. General remark: when discussing the possible interaction between findings of scientific work, it is probably good idea to get acquainted and make reference to works Vincent of Lérins and Melchior Cano, which are fundamental for the subject. Not to mention, that their openess and carefulness can be very inspiring. It is of particular importance, when dealing with scientific knowledge. It’s because of its continuous change, and one has to be very aware of that fact. It’s one of the reasons why it is hard to make a metaphysical system which bases on newest findings of science. However, it doesn’t mean that one shall not take those findings into account at all. We need here a good meta-platform, and usually, what Author noticed, it was philosophy of nature;

>>> Lines 898-905 contain reference to my works who are extensive comments of Vicent of Lerin’s doctrine. Reviewers are not allowed to see these references because of blind review policy

>>> In the article I never maintain that we have to change our metaphysics due to advancement of science; I maintain, rather, that we have to change our language and frameworks in order to teach the unchanging contents of dogmas.

15. General remark: when it comes to deal with truth or Truth, it is good idea to give a brief explanation, what is the meaning of those notions. Specially if scientific effort is seen as pursuit for truth;

>>> Along the whole article I use Truth (with capital T) only once, namely at line 943. In that case I do explain the meaning (commitment to truth as commitment to a Person)

 

16. Certain carefulness could be good, when dealing with programs similar to scientific humanism (paragraph 5.2). It does not mean that it is completely not useful. However:
17. It could be easily confused with sociology of science and additional explanations that it is not the case, would be hopeless. Sociology of science is much tempting because of its reference to sociology and, apparent connection with “hard scientific tools”, what can be misleading. Not to mention the problem of replication in social sciences..
18. It could easily happen, that someone would demand to construct more scientific humanism. That is, that we need to engage more scientific methods to make humanism more scientific. Is there a limit of such possible recursion? Would it not be good idea to highlight that nowadays, with some exceptions, we have rather tendency to confuse humanities with social sciences, not to mention that humanities (not understood as soft-skills or social sciences) are rather pushed to the margin of academic life.

The challenge which Author has took up is huge and complex. The more attention it demands, as well as carefulness and courage.

>>> Thank you for your warning. The many bibliographic references offered in this Section 5.2 are intended to clarify what do we mean here, by “scientific humanism”. There also some articles of mine (invisible to referees because of the policy of blind review) which deals with the subject.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'd like to draw Author's attention to one more thing:

Dealing with panetheism, as well as dealing with problematic interpretations contected with logos, one has to seriously face following issues:

1. Teaching of the Council of Chalcedon about the Incarnation, that is that it is „inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter”, which means without confusion, without change, without division, without separation;

2. Those places of Thomas Aquinas which present his view on absolute difference between Creator and creation (especially "De Ente et Essentia", "De Potentia" as well as STh).

It could be idea to present some critical look at concept of panentheism, that is to take into account both its advantages as well as certain very problematic points. As such it would make the paper much better.

Author Response

I have improved the manuscript according to the notes inserted by the reviewer n. 2 on my text.