Abstract:
In this essay, I compared notes with Wentzel van Huyssteen, one of the most prominent
theologians in the science–religion discussion. I followed the topics dealt with in a casual
interview with Frits Gaum, in which Van Huyssteen responded to set questions: on his
academic journey, God, the Bible, creation and evolution, human uniqueness, original sin,
eternal life, Jesus and the relation between faith and research. Whilst there was considerable
consensus between us in most respects, I would change the focus from an ‘apologetic’ agenda
(science and theology were describing the same world from equally valid vantage points
using comparable rationalities) to a ‘missionary’ agenda (making the Christian faith more
accessible to scientists by following the approach of ‘experiential realism’). Science confined
its operations to different aspects of the reality that was accessible to human observation,
explanation and manipulation, whilst theology concentrated on our relation to the
transcendent Source and Destiny of all of reality. To make sense to a scientist, theology must
shun unsupported postulates and speculations and confront the scientist with the basic
alternative of claiming to be the ultimate authority over the immanent world (presuming to
be the owner, master and beneficiary of reality) and being derived from, and responsible to,
the ultimate Source and Destiny of reality. The confusion between immanent transcendence
(aspects of immanent reality that were not accessible to our observation, explanation and
manipulation) and transcendent immanence (immanent reality as a whole was open towards
a higher Source and Destiny) bedeviled the interface between science and faith. Science
challenged theology to provide experiential evidence; theology challenged science to be
responsible to ultimate authority.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: Both Wentzel van Huyssteen and I
have worked consistently on an interdisciplinary basis. However, whilst Wentzel focused
strongly on the natural sciences, I spent most of my time on the relation between the Christian
faith and the human sciences (economics, ecology, cultural anthropology, politics, etc.) and
concentrated on the natural sciences only after my retirement. In my essay, I highlighted the
difference between trying to demonstrate the comparability and compatibility between
theology and science on the one hand and highlighting the challenge that science posed to
faith and faith posed to science on the other hand.
