Theology as an Engineering Endeavor
Both theology and engineering are systematic endeavors. In engineering systematics is unavoidable. Systematics means completeness, coherency, and compliance with all available knowledge. The reason engineering must be systematic is because if it is not bridges fall down, airplanes crash, and people die. As a result engineering must correspond to the reality of things. This means that it is not enough that certain parts of an engineering design seem to fit the reality of things but that everything must work. The same should be true for theology.
Now engineering is a field that works with a very limited subset of reality. It deals with macroscopic entities that, as such, can be very regular and predictable. Theology has no such definiteness. However, theology should still aspire to the same systematic rigor and pragmatism of engineering. It can do that if it adopts the same requirement that partial solutions are not acceptable. When a theology seems to solve certain problems but comfortably avoids the hard spots, it should be rejected out of hand. We see this all the time.
Theology claims to represent the ultimate reality of things. If it is to do so it must first claim that the ultimate reality of the cosmos is knowable. In order to do that it must affirm the profound religious intuitions that have persisted for millennia. It must do that but not uncritically. As we all know intuitions can be mistaken. If there is an ultimate reality to things then religious pluralism speaks loudly that religious intuitions concerning that reality cannot all be totally true. With this problem the question arises how to adjudicate these differences. In engineering pragmatism rules. This should also be the case for theology. It must work in a complete systematic way. This means that adjudication occurs within a constant dialog between theological concepts and ultimate reality as it is experienced. This is the same criterion that is used in physical theory. While I suggest that physical theory will never be able to reduce the emergence of reality to a set of equations, it, none the less, does not accept anything that is not complete. The same should be true for theology.
What we find in many current theological systems that rightly try to find a consilience with reality and theology is that certain aspects of religious concept and practice are problematic. If one is to look for problematic areas the issues of divine personal action and the efficacy of prayer come to the forefront. The intuitions of millennia attest that these are cardinal issues for theism. For systems that do not accommodate continuous divine providence and personal relation to the divine, one should be rightly skeptical.
Any theological system that aspires to be relevant must find a way to honor these millennial intuitions. It must work in the reality of core religious sentiment.
Why do you list the efficacy of prayer as problematic?
Comment by Bob Brueck —
Hi Bob,
Although I say prayer can be problematic from an engineering perspective, I do not mean there are no solutions. Most engineering designs rely deeply on predictability and reliability. Without these there can be no confidence of a design working. However, relative to the natural systems we see in the world, engineering systems are very simple. They work with aggregate materials that have proved to behave in predictable ways. This can lead to a mechanistic view of the world that is misleading if extrapolated to all systems both inorganic, organic, individual, social, and cultural. As the level of complexity increases new properties arise that cannot be deduced from fundamental principals. In these systems novelty is present that destroys absolute predictability even though there may be some statistical patterns that can be identified. This is where the engineer may take a broader view of the world, individuals, and societal interactions in organic terms instead of just the mechanical.
It is in these gestalt systems that the efficacy of prayer and the acts of God can be found. They are not violations of order because order itself is intentional and not the product of mindless mechanism. If an ontology of diversity within unity is employed then divine acts associated with prayer are not interventions but the result of internal relations within God. These acts are constrained by the structure of the Divine Life but can truly shape creation according to divine goals and purposes, both for the individual and the cosmos as a whole.
Comment by Steve Petermann —