This website is titled Christian Conversations with Neuroscience because there are many ways that Christians converse with neuroscience. The different ways to relate science with theology are often called typologies. Ian Barbour’s book When Science Meets Religion has one of the most common typologies, where he describes four different positions in the science-religion relationship. The four positions of Barbour’s typology are conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration.
- Conflict: A common example of the conflict position is reductive materialists who completely reject theology in favor of their interpretation of science. In contrast to reductive materialists are people of faith who see science as conflicting with religion. One example is how many people of faith find evolution contrary to how Scripture describes the creation of the world.
- Independence: Stephen Jay Gould’s Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) is perhaps the best-known example of the independence position. In his book Rock of Ages, he describes how science and religion can be seen as two independent domains. He gives examples of how each has its own teaching authority. A critique of this position comes from Elaine Howard Ecklund, who engaged the world’s largest study of scientists’ attitudes toward religion. Her book Science and Secularity, which describes the study, suggests that people of faith bring their beliefs and values into science through kindness, cooperation and the value of seeking the truth even if they are not overt about their religious faith. Reductive materialists, who have faith in their own metaphysical belief system, bring their prejudice and bias to science rather than keeping it independent.
- Dialogue: Advocates of constructive dialogue between science and religion represent the dialogue position. Historically, the dialogue position is known as the “two books” of special revelation and natural revelation. Special revelation is the belief that God is revealed by direct experience, such as the testimonies documented in Scripture. God’s revelation in the created world is known as natural or general revelation. Scripture that affirms God’s general revelation can be found in Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” Advocates of this position believe the two books of God’s special and natural revelation can dialogue with one another.
- Integration: Ian Barbour argues that “advocates of Integration draw more extensively and systematically from the sciences and are willing to accept more far-reaching theological reconstruction” than the dialogue position.
Similar to Barbour’s four-point typology, John Haught uses a three-point typology of conflict, contrast, and convergence. Other reflections on typologies can be found by Alister McGrath, Neil Messer, or Nancey Murphy. Justin Barrett’s The Oxford Handbook of the Cognitive Science of Religion details five approaches to how researchers of the neuroscience of religion engage their studies. The five approaches use varying gradations of greater or lesser experimental control versus authenticity for research design. For example, placing research participants in an fMRI machine often diminishes their authentic religious experience. In contrast, there is significantly less experimental control when participants are engaged in a more authentic religious experience, such as in a church setting or ritual, because test equipment such as an fMRI is not available in those environments.
Studying the actions and attitudes of theological educators towards neuroscience revealed various challenges of typologies. Many theological educators are not explicit about which typology they use. Vanderbilt’s Bonnie Miller-McLemore notes that even if using a typology such as Barbour’s, “people can occupy more than one position. Barbour himself argues for a blend of independence, integration, and dialogue (1997, p. 105).”[1] Because many educators are not explicit about which typology they are using, or perhaps are using a blend of positions within a typology, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between what theology educators bring into conversation with neuroscience or how neuroscience might inspire them with new theological insights.
Another challenge of typologies is that reductive materialists are reluctant to admit that their metaphysical belief system of a deterministic world devoid of meaning is founded on faith rather than proven science. At the very best, we understand about 5% of the universe. We are far from fully understanding the human brain. The discoveries of dark energy, dark matter, and quantum mechanics have created more scientific questions that have yet to be answered.
[1] See Bonnie Miller-McLemore, “Cognitive Neuroscience and the Question of Theological Method,” Journal of Pastoral Theology 20, no. 2 (Winter 2011): 64–92; In this quote, Miller-McLemore is referencing Barbour, Religion and Science, 105.