Time&Eternity

122 chapter 3
of the twentieth century. The natural sciences, which once sprang from the
heart of the church, left their parental home following a stormy puberty,
and began to live an autonomous adult life. The revolts caused theology to
lose its firm footing and made it seek refuge in the internal sphere, but such
an amicable separation could not be a successful permanent solution. Although
it is unclear whether it was due to insight or necessity, during the
twentieth century there was a growing desire to reassess the relationship between
the two disciplines; and this led to a series of relatively productive attempts
at dialogue. 3 Karl Heim must be regarded as one of the pioneers in
the German-speaking world. Subsequently, works by Günter Howe, Günter
Altner, and Jürgen Hübner provided important impulses for placing this
topic on the agenda of public scientific discussion. Since theology, over the
course of its history, has always been involved in a give-and-take relationship
with the forces influencing contemporary culture, it is completely natural
that the dialogue with science and technology has expanded in recent
times. Over the past few years, numerous books have been published that
illuminate the presuppositions, problems, and possibilities of the dialogue
between science and religion. 4
The dialogue between the natural sciences and theology has a broader
foundation in the Anglo-Saxon than in the German-speaking world. In the
former, it is oriented more toward integral plans than it is toward conflict,
indifference, or separation models. It appears that a theology that is not required
to see itself as heir to dialectic theology can deal more easily with the
relationship between God and nature, on the one hand, and between faith,
religion, and knowledge, on the other. 5 The connection of Newton’s science
to Anglican theology and the Boyle Lectures, which claimed reason and science
as the basis for a natural religion, contributed to a more advantageous
climate for the dialogue between science and theology in England. On the
European continent, by contrast, there were negative repercussions, not
least of all due to Kant’s philosophy. Kant’s questioning of the entire concept
of a theology of nature complicated the relationships between science
and theology that had been so important for the early Newtonians, and it
undermined the notions about religion benefiting from science. 6
In addition to treating specific problems of an ecological, ethical, and
philosophical nature, over the past few decades, a series of general strategies
dealing with the relationship between science and theology have emerged
that outline different models. 7 Thus, for example, Ian G. Barbour designed
a process-oriented model that includes the stages of conflict, mutual independence,
dialogue, and integration. 8 Ralph W. Burhoe, longtime publisher
of the journal Zygon, worked with a naturalistic evolutionary concept.
While Arthur R. Peacocke and John Polkinghorne devote more attention to