Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Scientific Theology: A Critical Study

Scientific theology is one of the branches of Christian theology which, as opposed to traditional approaches in theology such as theological theology, believes that the only way to defend theology is to resort to the method, foundations, and findings of “science”. German theologian and philosopher, Pannenberg, is one of the first theologians who proposed a project for scientific theology. The main problem of the article is what Pannenberg’s scientific theology is and how is it evaluated. Christian theology faced challenges of modernity before Muslims and tried to solve them, so presenting such topics will be beneficial to Islamic thought. To answer the main problem of the present article, we will use the descriptive-analytical method and the findings indicate that Pannenberg enumerates four conditions for theology to become scientific but the most important condition is to prove that theological propositions are cognitive. From his point of view, to prove their cognitive status, we must use the scientific method. In science, hypotheses are measured on their implications, and the same method should be used to make theology scientific so if theology can interpret our current experiences from the finite reality, it will be scientific. Despite its strengths, Pannenberg’s project cannot solve theological challenges. One of the most important problems of this plan is that it cannot ultimately prove the cognitiveness of the theological propositions because he is limited to a pragmatic approach and the usefulness of a proposition is not equal to its cognitiveness.
 
Introduction
After the Middle Ages, Christianity, and Christian theology confronted events including political, social, and cultural events, and none of them were pleasant. So gradually there were attacks on Christian theology, and in the Enlightenment, these attacks became stronger. The impact of these attacks was so great that the authority of the Bible was destroyed and miracles were rejected as important bases for theological beliefs. After all, fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity, Redemption, and Incarnation were also rejected because they were recognized as irrational. Thus, Christian theology was faced with an identity crisis and the theologians had to find a solution to save Christian theology against the challenges. One of the important theological tendencies that tried to defend theology in the contemporary period resorted to “science” and finally created a new branch of theology called “Scientific Theology.”
German philosopher and theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014), who was concerned with the rationality of theology, has used this method. The main problem of this article is what Pannenberg’s scientific theology is and can this theology lead him to the considered goals? The importance of such discussions is the fact that Christianity and Christian theologians before Islam were faced with modernity and intellectual and atheist tendencies and tried to solve the problems they had caused. Undoubtedly, familiarity with their research and findings will help Muslims in facing new challenges.
In this article, we will answer the main issue with a descriptive and analytical method; that is, first by referring to Pannenberg’s works, we will give a detailed explanation of his scientific theology and we will subsequently evaluate it.
Wolfhart Pannenberg’s scientific theology
According to Pannenberg’s knowledge of science and religion, he presented his scientific theology in the “Theology and Philosophy of Science” and defended Christian theology. Pannenberg’s scientific theology was formed in the framework of his discussion of the relationship between science and religion and due to this, Pannenberg rejected the “conflict” and “independence” between science and religion. In his view, the “interaction” between them is the correct view. He then lists four conditions for theology to become scientific and the most important of them is “proving the cognitiveness of theological propositions.” That is, if it can be proved that theological propositions report on the “state of affairs” that are independent of humans, they will then be scientific.
But how is such a thing possible? “Logical positivism” does not accept the cognitiveness and meaning of religious propositions. Thus, Pannenberg tries to criticize logical positivism but his criticism does not prove that religious propositions are cognitive. Pannenberg realizes that theological propositions cannot be tested directly like observational and material propositions. In contrast to observational propositions, the state of affairs that theological propositions claim is not available.
Pannenberg believes that to prove they are cognitive, they should be measured and tested on their implications. In his view, such a method is also used in scientific theories; that is, the only way to prove the hypothetical laws of natural sciences is to prove them on their implications, and a theory must be evaluated based on its results. Pannenberg uses this method in theology and in his point of view, this method guarantees that theology becomes scientific.
Thus, theological beliefs should also be measured on the implications that they have for “understanding finite reality.” That is, theological propositions define the meaning of finite reality for us, and if they can do this better than their rivals, their cognitiveness will be proven and they can become scientific. Pannenberg, of course, later retreated a little from this position and said: because reality has not yet ended and has not been determined, and on the other hand, we cannot wait for the end of history, if theological propositions can explain the meaning of our experiences of the final reality, their cognitiveness will be proved. Therefore, theology will become scientific if it can interpret the ultimate reality better than other rivals.
Discussion
Although the strengths of Pannenberg’s scientific theology cannot be denied, this view has several problems. One of the most important problems is that he has chosen a pragmatic approach to proving the cognitiveness of theological propositions. Although this approach can show the usefulness of a statement in practice the pragmatic approach proves that the statement also refers to external reality because practical usefulness can also be compatible with the non-cognitiveness of theology. On the other hand, it is doubtful if science uses a special method to prove its hypotheses, and if science uses a special method, it is “inference to the best explanation.” On the other hand, the methods of science have also changed throughout history, and relying on the methods that may change, theological propositions will face the problem of being temporary and transitory.
Conclusion
As a result, according to the problems that were mentioned and other problems, it does not seem that this theology can achieve its goals and defend the rationality of theology against the attacks that have been made against it. However, in the Islamic environment, presenting and criticizing such theology cannot be completely useless; some of its approaches can lead the way in solving the conflict between science and religion, and the Islamic society cannot consider itself needless of the experiences that Christian theology has had in confronting modernity including science. Sometimes even the failure of such theology can be useful.