Science begins and ends with theology

In Ancient Greece, science was intimately connected with philosophy. Aristotle wrote about physics and metaphysics. They informed one another. Until the nineteenth century, science was known as natural philosophy. Peter Harrison has argued that theological ideas were central to the emergence of modern science. In that sense, science began with theology. However, due to the influence of Modernity, including naturalism, theology came to be considered irrelevant to science. But, scientific knowledge raises philosophical questions. Why does science work? What is the relationship between theory and reality? Why is there something rather than nothing? What is the relationship between mind and brain? Do we have free will? Can science provide meaning, purpose, and values? Hence, science begins and ends with philosophy.

Sean Carroll claims that science leads to naturalism, which has the ultimate lesson:  “Purpose and meaning in life arise through fundamentally human acts of creation, rather than being derived from anything outside ourselves” (p. 9, The Big Picture). This creates a need for “existential therapy” and leads to “the hardest problem of all”, which is “how to construct meaning and values in a cosmos without transcendent purpose” (p. 5). Hence, he ends up back at theology, in the sense of finding ways to avoid it.

Another atheist physicist who could not escape theological questions was Fred Hoyle. He resisted the idea of the Big Bang theory because he could not accept the idea of “creation” and of “causes unknown to science.” Yet, in the end he had to accept where science led: there was a beginning to the universe. Furthermore, his own work on the synthesis of carbon in stars led to the concept of fine-tuning. The questions it raises struggle to avoid being theological in nature.

I claim these ultimate philosophical questions are also theological, as Christian theology can address them. It does not provide definitive answers, but neither does philosophy.  

The atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel caused a controversy in 2012 with his book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.  Nagel published a helpful short summary of the book in The New York Times. He noted how the scientific revolution “depended on a crucial limiting step at the start: It depended on subtracting from the physical world as an object of study everything mental – consciousness, meaning, intention or purpose.” Consequently, physics is not a “theory of everything” as it cannot describe the mental dimension to reality. Nagel argued that there is a need to move beyond the current materialist presuppositions of science.

“This means that the scientific outlook, if it aspires to a more complete understanding of nature, must expand to include theories capable of explaining the appearance in the universe of mental phenomena and the subjective points of view in which they occur – theories of a different type from any we have seen so far.

There are two ways of resisting this conclusion, each of which has two versions. The first way is to deny that the mental is an irreducible aspect of reality, either (a) by holding that the mental can be identified with some aspect of the physical, such as patterns of behavior or patterns of neural activity, or (b) by denying that the mental is part of reality at all, being some kind of illusion (but then, illusion to whom?). The second way is to deny that the mental requires a scientific explanation through some new conception of the natural order, because either (c) we can regard it as a mere fluke or accident, an unexplained extra property of certain physical organisms – or else (d) we can believe that it has an explanation, but one that belongs not to science but to theology, in other words that mind has been added to the physical world in the course of evolution by divine intervention.

All four of these positions have their adherents.  I believe the wide popularity among philosophers and scientists of (a), the outlook of psychophysical reductionism, is due not only to the great prestige of the physical sciences but to the feeling that this is the best defense against the dreaded (d), the theistic interventionist outlook. But someone who finds (a) and (b) self-evidently false and (c) completely implausible need not accept (d), because a scientific understanding of nature need not be limited to a physical theory of the objective spatio-temporal order. It makes sense to seek an expanded form of understanding that includes the mental but that is still scientific — i.e. still a theory of the immanent order of nature.

That seems to me the most likely solution. Even though the theistic outlook, in some versions, is consistent with the available scientific evidence, I don’t believe it, and am drawn instead to a naturalistic, though non-materialist, alternative. Mind, I suspect, is not an inexplicable accident or a divine and anomalous gift but a basic aspect of nature that we will not understand until we transcend the built-in limits of contemporary scientific orthodoxy. I would add that even some theists might find this acceptable; since they could maintain that God is ultimately responsible for such an expanded natural order, as they believe he is for the laws of physics.”

My goal in raising the views of Nagel here is modest. It is not to claim that of his four options (d) is the correct option, i.e., that the only possible explanation for the existence of mind is divine intervention. That is a God of the Gaps perspective. Rather, my point is that science leads to theological questions and that theological answers to the philosophical questions should be seriously considered. Again, there are competing traditions at play and ultimately, which we choose to give authority to is a matter of trust (faith).

A metaphor for traditions

Traditions are a reality. We are immersed in them. We cannot escape them. We need to be aware of them and see their strengths and weaknesses. Previously, I introduced tradition as a potential guide (along with experience, reason, and transcendence) to help make sense of science, God, and life. In this chapter, I explore in more detail different dimensions of traditions, including culture, worldview, narratives, institutions, and hermeneutics. Culture shapes the way we see things, how we do things, and what we think makes sense.

A good metaphor for traditions may be farms. Farms are a reality and won’t go away, as we need food, and they are a means to provide it. Each farm has an origin and history. But even with diligent historical investigation, there will be some level of uncertainty about that origin and history. For example, where does one begin? With the first owner of the land? Or indigenous people? Or the ecological history of the land? Farms are dynamic as they continually change due to both internal and external forces. Farms are diverse in scale, crops, animals, buildings, workers, institutional structure, types of engagement with the external world, sense of identity, and goals. They are multifaceted and can be described in terms of agriculture, ecology, biology, economics, politics, and culture. 

The value assigned to different types of farms, from a small family organic farm to a megafarm owned by a multinational corporation, is subjective and contested. Farms can be associated with idealism, romanticism, or a harsh struggle for survival. The value of farms is tied up with the knotty concept of efficiency. It is unrealistic for most of us to individually grow all our own food, and so we choose to benefit from the hard-won experience and expertise of farmers. We cannot start from scratch. Modernity in the form of science, technology, and capitalism threatens the existence and viability of many types of farms.

Over time, a farm might remain fruitful, or it may become barren and unproductive. Some farms produce wonderful and nutritious food. The produce of other farms may be toxic because of disease, pesticides or contaminated soil. Remember mad cow disease? Farms cannot be separated from their context: the climate, environment, adjacent farms, economics, culture, and politics. Interactions between a farm and its context may be positive or negative. To be productive and sustainable, farms need custodians who both preserve them and adapt to their context. Successful and productive farms may be taken over by people who see them as a means of personal gain and have little interest in preserving the history or what the custodians saw as valuable.

In the paragraphs above, the word “farm” could be replaced with “tradition.” Like models, all metaphors are wrong, but some are useful. Farms are simpler and less controversial than traditions. I like the metaphor because it provides insights into the multifaceted character of traditions and the issues they raise, while possibly protecting us from our strong feelings, either positive or negative, about specific traditions. 

Four dimensions to making sense of science, life, and God

Reality and our experience of it are rich and complex. How do we make sense of it? How do we find meaning in life, God, and science? Where do we start? 

To explore such questions I find it helpful to consider four different dimensions: experience, tradition, reason, and transcendence. I have drawn inspiration from the Wesley quadrilateral in theology, but stress that I consider a broader application and perspective.

This quadrilateral is both descriptive and prescriptive. I believe it provides a good description of the different dimensions that people do use to make sense of things, whether science, theology, or ethics, even if they are not explicitly aware of what they are doing. People place different values and emphasis on each of the four dimensions, but they may all be present in their discussions. I also think the quadrilateral is also prescriptive.  For a broad range of topics, considering these four different dimensions is a good way to proceed, particularly when explicitly stating how one employs and prioritises each of the different dimensions. 

In this post, I briefly explain what I mean by each of the four dimensions and the strengths and weaknesses of each. The four dimensions are complementary. A strength of each dimension is that it can compensate for the weaknesses of some of the other dimensions. On the other hand, the four dimensions are not independent of one another.

Experience

In some sense, as individuals, this is all each of us has. We each have a unique personal history: family, education, employment, travel, church, and personal relationships. Associated with our history are experiences of joy, pain, confusion, insight, success, failure, and disappointment. Experience includes books we have read, movies we have seen, and music we have listened to. These experiences shape us: who we are, what we believe, and what we value. The influence of experience plays out at every level: individual, family, community, institution, and nation. Experience is not determinative but it is influential, perhaps more than we might like to acknowledge. Experience influences the relative priority we place on reason, tradition, transcendence, and experience!

A philosophical perspective that puts the highest priority on elements of experience is empiricism. We should only believe to be real what we can experience through sensation (sight, touch, hearing, smell) and measurement.

Experience is central to modern science. Theories are tested by experiments and independent observations (experiments) by different groups have to agree. Experience is validated by others having the same experience. 

In contrast to empiricism, romanticism was a movement in the eighteenth century that put a different emphasis on experience, valuing intense emotions, individualism, nature, intuition, inspiration, and subjectivity.

Strengths. Experience can help us engage with reality, tempering fantasy and wishful thinking. Experience can expose us to a diverse range of perspectives, including the life experience of others. In some sense, this engagement with others enables us to go beyond the limitations of our own individual experiences, abilities, personalities, and perspectives.

Weaknesses. Our own experience is finite and limited, particularly relative to all of humanity and all of history. Our experience is subjective and may not be accurate. For example, two individuals may observe the same event but have contradictory perspectives on what actually happened. Optical illusions, such as that shown below, show that even simple observations can be wrong. Experiences do not stand alone or speak for themselves but need to be interpreted. Any interpretation will involve reason, tradition, and likely transcendence.

In the picture above is the vertical line longer, shorter, or the same length in the left or right panel?

Reason

Reason is an intellectual activity. It means thinking and writing down arguments about what we think is true and why we think it is true. The essential form of a rational argument has two components. First, a set of assumptions (axioms) that are considered "reasonable" (e.g., because they are based on observations or a principle that every "reasonable" person can agree on) are stated. Then one investigates the conclusions that follow from these assumptions, using rules of logic. Reason is central to science, and plays the greatest role in the natural sciences through theories that can be formulated mathematically.

A philosophical perspective that puts the highest priority on reason is rationalism. Truth can only be found by rational argument. This was the way that ancient Greeks did science. They discounted the need to do experiments, deeming that common sense observations about nature were adequate.

Strengths. Careful reasoning can expose inconsistencies in arguments or lead to conclusions that we might not expect. Clearly stating assumptions can clarify the basis of a "rational" truth claim. Mathematics in the natural sciences has been incredibly powerful and successful. Theories such as classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, and electromagnetism, are based on just a few assumptions and mathematical equations. Yet, using rules of mathematical logic one can describe diverse phenomena quantitatively and make specific predictions about the outcome of experiments.

Weaknesses.  Reason is only useful and reliable if the validity of the assumptions made in an argument has a strong justification. Assumptions that may be "reasonable" or "self-evident" to one individual may not be to another. The ancient Greeks were wrong about science, believing things about nature that they thought were "common sense", but turned out to be false. In some sense, at some point in the development of an argument, it is necessary to just take some assumptions on "faith." Reason is sometimes claimed to be pre-eminent in contexts that are debatable. For issues that are predominantly emotional, relational, or artistic, reason may be of marginal relevance or unhelpful. 

Tradition

Tradition is all about the past. There are traditions that relate to many different spheres of life, including culture, religion, science, philosophy, morality, and government. A tradition is a framework, inherited from the past, that claims authority about what is true and the way that things should be done. In the context of moral philosophy, Alasdair MacIntyre, states "A tradition is an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined" by internal and external debates. He claimed, "no way of conducting rational enquiry from a standpoint independent of the particularities of any transition has been discovered and that there is good reason to believe that there is no such way". In different words, reason cannot be separated from tradition.

Traditions are embodied in institutions, such as universities, governments, and religious denominations. Education in a particular subject involves learning a particular tradition.

Culture is an example of tradition. Culture is "the way we do things around here." Culture consists of the ideas, knowledge, beliefs, values, skills, and attitudes, that shape the behaviour of a community.

Strengths. Subjects such as philosophy, theology, and science have developed over centuries. Traditions within them are the accumulation of the knowledge, wisdom and insight gained from all hard work. It is efficient to make use of a tradition. In fact, it is unrealistic to jettison all tradition and claim that in the present one can simply start from scratch and ignore the past. Traditions provide stability, predictability, and a community with shared values, assumptions, and ways of doing things. Traditions can temper some of the foolishness associated with new fashions.

Weaknesses. Traditions can be resistant to the positive change that can come through new ideas, discoveries, and new methods. Traditions can be resistant to adapting to new and different contexts. Traditions tend to leave authority and power with an older generation, who may have a vested interest in things not changing. This is how tradition may stifle the creativity and energy of youth. Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics, stated

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

Science proceeds one funeral at a time! 

Transcendence

The transcendentals are truth, beauty, and goodness. Transcendence is that which goes beyond the categories of being. In the metaphysics of Immanuel Kant, the transcendent is that which lies beyond our ability to know. In theology, transcendence refers to aspects of God that are independent of the physical universe. Here, I use transcendence to mean that which is beyond reason, experiment, or the content of a tradition. I would include experiences that aim to access truth and aspects of reality through intuition, the subconscious, or mysticism.  Some might claim that transcendence has no role in science, and even goes against the whole spirit of science. However, there are many stories of scientists who made important discoveries that had their origin in dreams, visions, perceptions of beauty, and "flashes of insight." 

Peter Berger argued that there are five aspects of human experience that are inexplicable apart from a transcendent reality. His "signals of transcendence" are the "human propensity to believe that the world is ordered in a trustworthy manner, the capacity to play, the capacity to hope in the face of death, the conviction that some things are just wrong and must be condemned, and the capacity to laugh."

Strengths. Transcendence provides a way to describe the ineffable elements of reality and knowledge that induce mystery, awe, wonder, and paradox. It provides room and a vocabulary for that which goes beyond reason, experiment, and tradition. It allows for the possibility of something more than the material.

Weaknesses. Transcendence and its domain of relevance are hard to define and to constrain. Invoking it may be an escape from the hard work needed to engage seriously with reason, experiment, and tradition. It may be invoked in order to engage in fantasies.

In conclusion, the four dimensions of experience, reason, tradition, and transcendence provide a helpful framework to describe and understand how different people grapple with reality. Although they complement one another they are also inter-related.

Science and theology in different contexts

 How are science and theology related to one another? Given that all theology is formulated and discussed in some context, we should consider how attempts to explore the relationship between science and theology also occur in particular contexts.

There is no such thing as the relationship between science and religion and this is the book about it.

This statement is made by David Livingstone in Which Science? Whose Religion?, the last chapter in the insightful book, Science and Religion Around the World, edited by John Hedley Brooke and Ronald L. Numbers.

Aside: The author is not the famous missionary from the 19th century, of the same name.

Livingstone reviews the chapters in the book to show the diversity of interactions between different religious traditions and different sciences (from astronomy to anthropology) in different locations and at different times. To understand the complexity of interactions he considers a set of imperatives: pluralise, localise, hybridise, and politicise.

Pluralise

There is a plurality of religions and within any major religion, there is a plurality of traditions. Consequently, the interaction with a specific science or issue may also be incredibly diverse. There is also a diversity of sciences.  A specific science can be viewed from many different angles: knowledge content, method, philosophy, ethics, history, or practitioners.

Localise

Any interaction needs to be considered in its geographical location. Many traditions and perspectives are unique to a particular location. Even something as narrow as Calvinism can vary significantly between countries and communities.

Hybridise

Consider cross-cultural syntheses between different conceptions of science and religion. This is particularly true in this era of globalisation, whereby what people believe and how they live can be a mix of Western modernism, postmodernism, capitalism, and distinctly non-Western worldviews. For example, an astronomer in South Asia may be quite comfortable consulting an astrologer in order to determine an auspicious date for the wedding of their daughter.

Politicise

Political contexts do have an influence on both science and on theology: what topics and perspectives gather the most attention, funding, and debate. Furthermore, these political contexts can significantly influence discussions, whether it is discussions about biological evolution in the USA or about astrology in a South Asian country. 

Livingstone's imperatives (pluralise, localise, hybridise, politicise) are oriented towards describing and understanding a specific science-theology interaction that has happened or is underway. But, there is a question that is important to discuss and has contested answers.

How does one discern what might be normative in a science-theology interaction in a specific context?

A related question is what should be normative in contextual theology?

Behind these questions, there is a general philosophical problem that reflects the is-ought problem, the fact-value distinction, and the relationship between descriptive and prescriptive statements. 

Reviewing models of contextual theology

Here is a brief synopsis of three of the distinct models of contextual theology discussed by Stephen B. Bevans, in An Introduction to Theology in Global Perspective.

Bevans proposes six distinct models of contextual theology. They put different relative emphasis on the past and the present, represented by their different locations on the diagram above. Those on the left emphasise the goodness of creation (including culture created by humans) and place a higher value on general revelation than on special revelation. Those on the right emphasise the fallen nature of the creation (including culture created by humans) and the need to redeem it, and put a low value on general revelation, particularly that God can be seen to be present and working in human cultures.

In discussing each model Bevans describes the following

1. alternative names of the model

2. the basis that the model has in Scripture and in Tradition

3. presuppositions that the model has about revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and context

4. methods that practitioners of the model use

5. a horticultural analogy 

6. a "bumper sticker" catchphrase that may summarise the model

7. a positive and negative critique of the model.

Tradition may be Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Calvinist, ...

Translation model

There is a message that is independent of any context and the primary task of theology is to translate that message into specific contexts.

1. the translation is not one of "formal correspondence" but rather "functional" or "dynamical equivalence." Translation involves "adaptation" and "accommodation."

2. Pauls speech in Athens (Acts 17) is an example.

3. there is a content to Christianity that is independent of context and must, by all means, be preserved. Revelation is understood as propositional, containing a concrete message. Both the essence of the message and the Tradition of the proponent are considered to be supracontextual and complete.

4. one first finds the "essence" of the Gospel and then "clothes" it with the trappings of the local culture.

5. a grain of wheat. the husk is removed in order to find the kernel, which is then enclosed in a new husk.

6. "essence of Christianity" and "put the gospel into [new contexts]"

7. Positive: places a high value on Scripture, Tradition, and can be very respectful of different cultures. Negative: may have a naive understanding of the gospel and of the context. may be overly confident about the ability of a person from a particular culture and Tradition to understand the "essence" of the gospel and contexts and to be able to perform a faithful/accurate translation of the gospel from one context to another.

Proponents include Charles Kraft, David Hesselgrave, Tite Tienou, and Hwa Yung.

Anthropological model

This is the most "radical" model. Local cultures can reflect the goodness of God and theology needs to affirm them and be adapted to them. The primary concern is to preserve the cultural identity of a person of Christian faith.

1. "indigenisation" or "ethnographic" model. It is anthropological because the center of the theology is the human person and it makes use of anthropological methods, such as ethnography.

2. the stories of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30) showed "how even Jesus in his full humanity needs to have his horizon expanded beyond Jewish prejudices to the realization of the full implication of his gospel message."

3. tends to approach revelation as not a set of propositions to be preserved but rather an account of God's presence in past contexts.

4.  starts where people are at.

5.  a gardener waters a dry and barren area of soil and from it come flowers and vegetables, the seeds of which were already in the soil.

6. negative: naive about the goodness of human contexts. needs to recognise the sinfulness and fallibility of humanity. does not address issues of injustice and immorality that may be endemic to a society. positive: honours people and their communities, emphasis on humility.

7. "pull the gospel out of" contexts

Examples are Leonardo Mercado, Laurenti Magesa, and Diego Irarrazava.

Praxis model

Practice and theological reflection cannot be separated. Praxis is a combination of practice, or action, and reflection on that action in a continuing spiral.

1. "liberation"model, "situational" model, or "theology of the signs of the times."

2. old Testament prophets (e.g. Isaiah 1:15-16 and Micah 6:7-8)

3. "Not only are women and men of God called to be friends of God; they are called to be partners as well." Revelation is a concrete model, that invites relationship and action, particularly to join God in his liberating and saving activity within history.

4. Action, reflection, action, reflection, .... Reflection involves an analysis of the context using social sciences and a rereading of the Tradition in light of the action. The entire process is the doing of theology.

5. Tending a garden involves an ongoing process of hoeing, sowing, weeding, and watering.

6. Positive: the fullest knowledge is not just intellectual but also through experience and reflection on that experience. Negative: liberation theology is sometimes too influenced by Marxist ideology. 

7. "To know Christ is to follow him." (Jon Sobrino)

Gustavo Guitterez (Peru), Jean-Marc Ela (Cameroon), and Aloysius Pieris (Sri Lanka) are examples.

In a later post, I will discuss the other three models.

Synthetic model

There are strengths and weaknesses of all these models and so one tries to take the good things from all the models.

Countercultural model

Without Christ, cultures are fallen and stand against Christ. They need to be changed.

Transcendental model

The focus in on the subject, the person. Revelation must be experienced. In ones context, one experiences God.

Alternative models of contextual theology

Christian theology is a discussion that aims to apprehend and understand the triune God; the God that is claimed to be revealed by the Bible and the accounts therein of God's action in history.

But this discussion of God always occurs in a particular context: social, economic, political, cultural, linguistic, historical, and intellectual. Furthermore, the discussion is always conducted by groups of individuals who all have their own personalities and life experiences. Yet, the God of the Bible is so much greater than these contexts and individuals. 

Hence, I agree with the claim that "all theology is contextual". To me, this is almost stating the obvious. Contexts matter. However, to some, this claim is contentious and they may see it as a slippery slope towards relativism (all views are equally valid) and/or towards syncretism where the radical counter-cultural message of the Gospel is compromised and absorbed into a local culture. But, to me, this claim is more a position of humility and a desire to understand others and their context, and be willing to learn from them. It can help me explore how my own theology (both implicit and explicit) and the theology of those that I interact with, has been influenced, for better or worse, by our contexts.

Key questions I would like to explore include the following.

How does one define a context? 

What elements of a context are key to understanding how they influence the development of a particular theology?

How does one discern what should be normative in any contextual theology?

Behind the last question is a general philosophical problem that reflects the is-ought problem, the fact-value distinction, and the relationship between descriptive and prescriptive statements. Just because we observe something is, does not mean that is the way it should be. For example, someone observes that "teenagers are disrepectful," or "boys will be boys," or "there will always be poor people." That does not mean that the behaviour is morally correct, that one should not seek to change it, or that it is impossible to change.

There are many contextual theologies: liberation theology, Dalit theology, Catholic theology, Reformed theology, ... The fact that we observe them, describe them, and try to understand their relationship with the context from which they emerged does not mean that they are "true", appropriate, useful, or should not be changed.

A widely used text is by Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology. Laurie Green has a helpful dot-point summary of the book.  Bevans's more recent book, An Introduction to Theology in Global Perspective  has a nice summary including the figures below.

This frames how contextual theology can be viewed as critical dialogue between the experience of the past (embodied in Scripture and Tradition) and the experience of the present. There are several reading and interpretation exercises (hermeneutics) going on. The Bible must be read and interpreted. A specific context must be read and interpreted. There is a hermeneutical circle for the Bible and for the context. The parts must be interpreted in light of the whole and the whole must be interpreted in light of the parts. Contextual theology will also involve a hermeneutical circle. The context is interpreted in light of the Bible and the Bible is interpreted in light of the context.

Bevans proposes six distinct models of contextual theology. They put different relative emphasis on the past and the present, leading to their different locations on the diagram above. Those on the left emphasise the goodness of creation and have a higher value of general revelation than special revelation. Those on the right emphasise the fallen nature of the creation and the need to redeem it, and put a low value on general revelation.

The names of the six models are given below.

Anthropological model

Local cultures can reflect the goodness of God and theology needs to affirm them and be adapted to them.

Praxis model

Practice and theological reflection cannot be separated.

Synthetic model

There are strengths and weaknesses of all these models and so one tries to take the good things from all the models.

Translation model

There is a message that is independent of any context and the primary task of theology is to translate that message into that context.

Countercultural model

Without Christ, cultures are fallen and stand against Christ. They need to be changed.

Transcendental model

The focus in on the subject, the person. Revelation must be experienced. In ones context, one experiences God.

In another post, I will discuss these models in more detail. Before, doing so I would state again that "all models are wrong, but some are useful." Bevans makes several pertinent observations about models. 

Models are a kind of pattern or template that offers a way of performing a task... Models... are streamlined, artificially constructed ways of thinking... like symbols... they should be taken "seriously, but not literally."...

Models may be either exclusive or complementary.

Models of something [that people have done] might also be models for something [that people might do].

Later I will also explore how some of these ideas may be relevant (or not) to considering science-theology interactions in different contexts.