Abstract
Michael Welker, Senior Professor at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, “aims at a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the human spirit and the divine Spirit as a sound basis for natural theology and theology in general” (ix ). Since the Spirit as a divine person is so far beyond human comprehension that a dualism between God and the world of creation is inescapable, W. proposes instead the equivalent of a non-dual or “both-and” relation between the infinite and the finite. That is, he explains how the Divine Spirit and the human spirit gain “contours” in their common work for justice, for freedom, for truth, and for peace (43). For example, the call for justice is guaranteed by the “the self-obligation to create universally binding laws and to tie the actions of all state organs to this constitution and these laws” (44). With respect to freedom, W. calls attention to the way that religious groups eagerly espouse politically and legally guaranteed freedoms in furthering their own activities and proselytizing, but then do not extend to other groups (both religious and secular) the same freedom of self-expression when it comes to the shared task of promoting the common good in society today. With respect to truth, W. argues that no scientific or personally motivated truth claims should be based on the assumption of absolute certitude or “self-evident” truth claims. All such assertions should be thoroughly checked against the contrary views of experts in a given field of research. For otherwise not only the general public but even experts in the field will be strongly tempted to believe that even their own truth claims are inadvertently biased. The search for truth then turns out to be more a myth than a reality. Finally, if peace is to be more than a truce or brief pause before renewed aggression, one must first respect the sovereignty of other states and the freedom of their citizens to govern themselves. Second, one should eliminate or at least downsize standing armies and the preferential sale of armaments to political and economic allies (115).
While I too favor what could be called a non-dual or multimodal approach to physical reality and the God–world relationship, I am uneasy about the lingering possibility of undue attachment to one’s own position over against the views of others. One way to handle that issue is to follow the lead of Alfred North Whitehead and other philosophers of science in initially setting forth a philosophical scheme that must be both logically coherent and reasonably applicable to the empirical data within one’s common-sense experience. But then one must also admit that one’s hypothesis is fallible and thus will presumably be modified or even discarded in the light of further reflection and research. This approach to reality, of course, corresponds to contemporary scientific methodology with its freedom to explore other alternatives without loss of reputation. Within the mindset of many Christian philosophers and theologians, however, this strategy may not be realistically possible since every such scheme must also be consistent with Scripture and Church tradition. Yet, if one then increasingly resorts to metaphorical language for the interpretation of Scripture and tradition, one encounters still other obstacles. Metaphors and images tend to elude precise definition in terms of rationally ordered thought. Thus freely mixing fact and fiction in one’s efforts to make clear the meaning and enduring value of Scripture and tradition is risky. Furthermore, Aquinas himself may have been more acutely aware of the key differences between reason and revelation, science and religion, than many of us at the present time realize and practice.