Why does Barth care about science? Right away, with this obsession with science, we twenty-first century readers realize we’ve crossed over into a different way of things. Einstein yet lives. Science has shoved the epistemology of the West under the iron lid of its own method. What concord should Jerusalem have with Athens? Why does Barth care about science?
Earlier today, I commented on Daniel Owen’s blog Beginning Barth that it seems to me as if “Barth is offering theology on the altar of post-enlightenment scientism.” But having read the whole of this section, I do not think this is the case. Barth does flirt with science, but the word and thing are not identical to what is commonly understood. Theology can be called a science in that it has internal consistency that is defined according to its object (Sachlichkeit). But it cannot be called a science if it must submit to “the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity” (Arthur Titius, Berlin 1932. Note Barth's attentiveness to the scientific pronouncements of his day).
What emerges is a taking up of the term “science” as an act of solidarity, an act done from forgiveness and for evangelical hope (or judgment). That which is not assumed cannot be atoned for, and theology extends an invitation to every other science, saying, “come and be assumed.” Theology is no different from them. It also is a flawed, human discipline. And it is weaker than they, for rather than being fixed solidly in this age, theology hovers in gossamer fragility between the times. “It cannot think of itself as a link in an ordered cosmos, but only as a stop-gap in a disordered cosmos.” There is a signpost here pointing decades forward to Jürgen Moltmann’s assertion that eschatology is the only foundation of dogmatics. And there is also a statement made about the possibility of natural theology. It is possible, if I understand Barth, but it is improbable. “Might it not be that Jer. 31.34 is in process of fulfilment? . . . There might be such a thing as philosophia christiana.” “Now if God be wisdom (sapientia Deus est), as truth and scripture testify, then a true philosopher is a lover of God” (Augustine. De Civitas Dei Chap 8 Sect 1).
The difference between those sciences and this theological one (Augustine’s de divinitate ratio sive sermo), is the central principle. Those other sciences judge “the utterance of the Church about God in accordance with alien principles” whereas theology has its own principle: Jesus Christ, the “basis, goal and content” of the Church.
Barth’s treatment of Christ the Center is amazingly apophatic. Biblical theology (Does Christian utterance derive from Him?), practical theology (Does it lead to Him?), and dogmatic theology (Is it conformable to Him?) are three circles overlapping in a venn diagram from whose center one respectfully turns “it is well neither to affirm nor to construct a systematic center”. The threefold pattern of theological disciplines, its questions, and the three-fold adjectives he uses of Christ (basis, goal and content), loosely correspond and together beat the tempo of a trinitarian schema to come. The apophatic Christology of a center that is “neither affirmed nor constructed” and the apophatic nature of the one ousia at the center of three hypostasis. This is poetic metre. Aesthetically pleasing, yes, but is this a truly necessary trinity? Did Barth begin with science and end with . . . worship?
Karl Barth; Church Dogmatics; science; apophatic theology; Augustine
Hi Thom,
ReplyDeleteThis is an insightful post. I appreciated your comments about theology as the weakest of sciences, given the nature of its intersection between time and eternity and the infinite gap between it and the ob[Sub]ject of its intended study.
I have a question about your seeing Barth's treatment of Christ as "amazingly apophatic." (I could be misunderstanding your use of apophatic. I understand it as seeking to understand or describe God by what he is not.) In my (limited!) reading of Barth, it seems that speaking of God either apophatically or cataphatically fails before it starts, because both seek to comprehend the being of God, rather than seeking to know God who reveals himself through story (though he certainly is not confined to history). That is, to speak of God is to speak of God in terms of his action, his revelation in history, not his being. Does divine ontology even exist in Barth's vocabulary (genuine question)? I would think Barth would be opposed to a method which seeks to understand God through such philosophical methods, rather than through exegesis of Scripture. This would make revelation general and theology natural. But I don't think Barth would agree that natural theology is possible. That's why he does not stop by saying "There might be such a thing as philosophia christiana." He continues: "There never has actually been a philosophia christiana, for if it was philosophia it was not christiana, and if it was christiana it was not philosophia" (7).
I have read primarily Barth's early writings, which reacted strongly against natural theology, so I may be missing something that comes through in the dogmatics. Thoughts?
When it comes to Barth calling theology a science I get more of the feeling that he is doing it for the sake of the argument. I mean what kind of science is it if it has a complete different 'center' and 'object'? But science was (and is) the reigning epistemology and well, there are similarities so sure, granting these two major caveats, theology is a science.
ReplyDeleteAs for his 'trinity' being necessary I have to say no at least until I hear more from him. My main reason, and this is in dialogue with the above comment, is that I don't see much exegesis. What I see is more philosophy/theology or, in other words he has great sounding (and maybe right) theory. My own personal desire would like to see some passages exegete and then synthesized. I am definitely open for a good discussion on this though...
Isn't KB using "science" in an older sense than the one we're familiar with? We equate it with "ordered empirical knowledge," whereas it comes from a Latin word meaning simply "knowledge." KB's usage has epistemological implications, a claim that revealed knowledge is just as true and reliable as the empirical.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick response to your last paragraph: Beginning the CD Barth is laying out his method. This doesn't require exegesis. You will see exegesis--the CD are saturated with Scripture--but perhaps not in the exegetical and/or inductive fashion you might be (as I certainly am) used to. Exegesis may not be the right term, but I use it to designate the PRESUPPOSITIONS and CONTENT of the CD, which are neither philosophical or scientific in conventional terms. They are based on revelation and received by faith. Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteMore later. I need to be going.
JS
Jeremy, thank you for picking up on that apophatic comment. I understand apophasis as an approach to God-talk that, affirming that God’s being is beyond us, speaks of what God is not. And, frankly, I did not expect to see it. Barth certainly emphasises God’s otherness (see Dan Wyllys’s post "We Begin . . ."), but his venn diagram caught me by surprise: “this self-examination falls into three circles which intersect in such a way that the centre of each is also within the circumfrence of the other two, so that in view of that which alone can be the centre it is well neither to confirm nor to construct a systematic centre.” (4b) From my reading, that center can only be Jesus Christ, but . . . and I’m guessing here . . . we only know Jesus as he reveals himself, not from some independent or omniscient perspective. So, I’d say Barth may very well have an ontology, but it is not one that he sees as ever available to created beings. Therefore, revelation cannot be general. Natural theology cannot conscript the triune God by means of the analogia entis. We can apophatically gesture at being, but that apophatic assertion is a testament to our creatureliness, as is our absolute dependence on revelation. That’s kind of what I’m hypothesizing based on Barth’s unexpected venn diagram. It’s a total guess.
ReplyDeleteDan, with you I think he is playing science’s game and largely for purposes of apologetic and the proclamation of the gospel. There is a canvas he is painting here that looks, as best I can tell, a lot like the prophetic office of the preaching of the gospel. Again, a hypothesis, Barth is a preaching theologian and his theology is an attempt to carve a pulpit from the stubborn rock of scientific reductionism. Again, a guess.
ReplyDeleteAs for exegesis, his opponent here is science—the science that holds the public square hostile—the very public square to which preaching is directed. Perhaps he has to clear the land before he can exegete the text.
It is a clever gambit, but is it a solid argument? I can’t tell.
Thom,
ReplyDeleteThat makes sense. I would agree that Barth has an ontology based on the concreteness of Jesus Christ, but, as you said, "not one that he sees as ever available to created beings." I think I was relating too closely your use of "apophatic" with Aquinas' (philosophical) method of describing what God is.
Makes sense now.
Thanks!
JS
Thom,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Far from playing science's game, KB asserts that science (i.e., the empirical sciences) is not the only game in town, nor is it even the best.
"The criterion of past, future and therefore present Christian utterance is thus the being of the Church, namely, Jesus Christ, God in His gracious revealing and reconciling address to man" (p. 4). The "being" of the Church is Jesus Christ-what body of empirical scientists can or would want to make a similar claim for themselves? The criterion of the content of dogmatics is Jesus Christ-this, too, sets theology apart from the empirical sciences, especially since the nature of that criterion is both personal and revelatory.
Then why claim the label "science" at all. Barth gives 3 reasons on p. 11. Positively, dogmatics is a "human concern for truth," it manages to attain some rigor in its methods and results, it has an object of study that is out there in the real world, and its methods are determined by that object of study. Negatively, this claim rebukes the empirical sciences for their pagan concepts and their refusal to address their respective theological tasks.
This is a very aggressive stance. He claims legitimacy with regard to the other "sciences," but on his own terms and not theirs. And their attitude about it is irrelevant to him, because "his own terms" consist of his constant subordination of the work to Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the comment. Not to belabor the point, but page 11 is, in my opinion, a playing of science's game, if only to despoil it. See the last paragraph on page 10, ending: "It (theology) may well prove to be more of a science than many or even all the sciences grouped under the above convention." And I think he has to make this point because by science he means "those sorts of epistemological systems that are allowed to speak into the public square." Preaching, by virtue of the Great Commission, must by definition speak into the public square. And, therefore, Barth must play science's game if only to prove theology as the only true candidate.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to join this conversation...
ReplyDeletePlease do! Sign up with J. R. Daniel Kirk (see link in my post Preparing to Read Karl Barth and start blogging/commenting! We'd love to have you join us.
ReplyDelete