Method and Rationality in the Relationship Between Science and Theology: A Contrast Between Nancey Murphy and Josh Reeves

Abstract

Nancey Murphy is an important advocate of a methodological parity between theology and science. She adopted the methodology of research programs developed by philosopher Imre Lakatos, proposing its application in theology. She argues that certain theologies can be reconstructed with the same methodological rigor as the social sciences, all capable of promoting empirical progress. In contrast, the philosopher Josh Reeves does not see Murphy’s proposal as promising. However, his objection is not based on the idea that theology and science are distinct and incommunicable disciplines; rather, he does not believe that an appropriate interaction can be promoted through methodologies or general theories of rationality. According to Reeves, attempts to offer methodological parity between theology and science are based on inadequate assumptions about their natures, derived from universalist philosophical positions rather than the contextualized study exemplified by historian Peter Harrison. On that account, in this article, I intend to contrast the two positions. First, I present Murphy’s position and discuss its difficulties. Next, I approach the background of Reeves’ anti-essentialism inspired by Harrison and his solution for the continuity of studies on the relationship between religion, theology, and science.