Time&Eternity

notes to chapter 3 281
grenzen unsern Aion auf der Zeitlinie der Ewigkeit ein” (The day of humankind’s creation
in the past and the day of Christ’s return in the future places our aeon on the timeline of
eternity), 285. Schneider’s example clearly shows that a theology that ignores the scientific
discussion of its own epoch and erroneously believes itself to be completely independent of
science is in danger of (unconsciously) linking itself to concepts that are shaped by the
state of scientific knowledge in the past.
3. The framework of this study does not permit a detailed analysis of possible dialogue
concepts. Ted Peters provides a helpful overview from a theological perspective (“Theology
and Science: Where Are We?”). (A somewhat expanded version of this article can also be
found in Ford, ed., The Modern Theologians, 649–68.) Peters outlines eight different ways
of relating science and religion to each other: scientism, scientific imperialism, ecclesiastical
authoritarianism, scientific creationism, dual-language theory, hypothetical consonance,
ethical overlap, and New Age spirituality. Peters himself advocates hypothetical
consonance and the model of ethical overlap. Using this palette of possible positions, he
then presents the concepts of some of the well-known theologians participating in the dialogue
(among others, Philip Hefner, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne,
and Robert J. Russell). For information on the history of the dialogue and on
some systematic deliberations, see also Jackelén, “Vom Erobern des Selbstverständlichen”
(On the Conquering of the Self-evident). Cf. also Brooke, Science and Religion; Brooke
and Cantor, Reconstructing Nature; and Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology, esp. 217–74.
4. E.g., Haught, Science and Religion; Richardson and Wildman, Religion and Science;
Peters, Science and Theology; McGrath, Science and Religion; and Southgate, God, Humanity
and the Cosmos. For discussions on the concept of rationality within the area of the relationship
between science and religion/theology, see also Stenmark, Rationality in Science,
and van Huyssteen, The Shaping of Rationality.
5. Cf. Hübner, Der Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, 20–37.
6. Wertheim, Pythagoras’ Trousers, 127ff., 145ff.; Brooke, Science and Religion, 155ff.
7. For a representative, annotated overview of the literature on the different areas of
the dialogue between theology and science prior to 1987, see Hübner, Der Dialog zwischen
Theologie und Naturwissenschaft.
8. Barbour, “Ways of Relating Science and Theology.” He developed his basic theses of
the complementarity of scientific and religious language, the parallelism of methods, the
necessity of an integrated worldview, and the importance of a theology of nature in relationship
to God and human beings in his book Issues in Science and Religion. See also Barbour,
Religion and Science.
9. Torrance’s books, Space, Time and Incarnation and Space, Time and Resurrection, are
of particular interest for the subject of this study.
10. Mortensen, “Teologi og naturvidenskab.”
11. Cf. in this regard also the hermeneutic reappraisal of the presuppositions, possibilities,
and goals of the interdisciplinary dialogue in Bühler and Karakash, Science et foi font
système.
12. Cf. Altner, Schöpfungsglaube und Entwicklungsgedanke, and Hübner, Theologie und
biologische Entwicklungslehre.
13. For an example, see the account of the evangelical-biblical writings in Hübner, Der
Dialog zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, 114–21; however, not all criticism of evolution
is biblically motivated. In Human Image: World Image, Sherrard provides an example
of another approach that denounces “modern science,” especially for surrendering all
teleological explanations; in this, however, he himself argues from the standpoint of a teleological
and spiritual concept of nature as he sees it embodied in “the Platonic-Aristotelian-Christian
view.”