their “answer” necessarily lies beyond the reach of philosophy.
On the other hand, critics of a different kind have complained that Tillich’s account of philosophical questions and theological answers is so rigidly constructed that there is an entirely one-way relationship between philosophy and theology. Such an objection, though not simply mistaken, reflects the propensity of critics to concentrate too much upon what Tillich said about his method of correlation and to neglect what he did with it in practice. In operation, Tillich’s method was always more subtle than were his accounts of it, which tended to be wooden in outline and misleading in detail.
David Tracy is among the theologians who have concentrated their criticism of Tillich on the allegedly nondialectical nature of relations between “questions” and “answers” in the method of correlation. In effect, Tracy charges that Tillich’s methodology fails to satisfy the reciprocity condition: Tillich merely juxtaposes, rather than actually correlates, the two poles of the theological enterprise.
Having described himself as committed both to “the modern experiment” and to “the Christian vision of human possibilities,” Tracy sets out to revise Tillich’s method so that it will allow for full reciprocity between the two poles. Such reciprocity, which Tracy names “mutually critical correlation,” requires the theologian to treat both commitments as subject to modification by means of their mutual critique. Tracy emphasizes that the exact character of such correlations cannot be determined beforehand and that his method of mutually critical correlation can be tested only by its actual use in the constructive work of fundamental, dogmatic, and practical theology. Like Tillich, Tracy recognizes that the adequacy of one’s theological method must be measured by its results.
JOHN CLAYTON
Bibliography
John Clayton, The Concept of Correlation.
Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols.
———, Main Writings/Hauptwerke, 6 vols.
David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order.
———, The Analogical Imagination.
Cross-Reference: Autonomy, Hermeneutics, Systematic Theology, Theological Method.
COSMOGONY (See COSMOLOGY, CREATION.)
COSMOLOGY
As a physical science, cosmology conducts research in three main areas: (1) Relativity theory and astrophysics seek to explain the structures of the universe, (2) particle physics explores the constituents making up the universe, and (3) inflationary physics delves into the origin of the universe, with recent interest on “The Big Bang” theory. The overall goal of these areas is to present a unified and comprehensive picture of the physical universe. This objective means that scientific cosmologists interpret the origin, evolution, distribution, and structure of all the matter comprising the universe. In these terms, cosmology studies the nature and constitution of space-time.
Pre-scientific cosmologies in the West can be traced back to ancient Babylon and Egypt. Coupled with Greek philosophies these views evolved into medieval Catholic cosmology. This “Christian cosmology” united Hellenic speculation, especially the views of Aristotle, with Hebrew perceptions from the Bible. A full-blown Aristotlean theological cosmology developed into what is known as “natural theology.” Looking at the formation and structures of the universe to find “imprints” of God, natural theology produces the idea that “the Book of Nature” offered intrinsic evidence for God independent from but supported by the Bible. On this basis Christianity developed the classical arguments for the existence of God (the so-called cosmological, teleological, ontological, and deontological arguments). One could know that God exists by inquiring into nature; one found out what God requires of us in the Bible. Scientific cosmology split completely from this paradigm, building on empirical research and mathematical logic rather than philosophical and theological metaphysics.
Contemporary theology approaches to the physical universe now tend to prefer to think in terms of a “theology of nature” rather than natural theology. Considerable interest exists in reassessing traditional views about cosmology. The Center for the Study of Science and Religion and the Progress in Theology Project, sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation, have put a spotlight on issues interrelating theological and scientific cosmologies. Traditional motives to validate traditional Christian beliefs in God or to offer apologies for a Christian theism still exist among some theologians. Most theologians today, however, find that these motives thwart the proper methods and goals of both scientific and theological cosmologies. Christian cosmology assumes God’s existence rather than trying to prove it.
Theologically, cosmology is to space what history is to time. Serious attention is now being directed to the purposeful relationship between spatiality and cosmology as once was given to the relationship between time and history. Theologians are looking for implications of the findings of science for interpreting theological perceptions about the cosmos and the meaning of human and nonhuman existence. Cosmology becomes theological cosmology when it considers the meaning of God as the Ultimate Reality at the heart of the cosmos. Physics finds facts or probabilities about the cosmos. Theology, depending on physical findings to open up new thinking about the theological dimensions of the cosmos, seeks to discover sacred meaning and purpose interwoven within that same cosmos.
A Christian cosmology’s main struggle is to describe adequately the relationship between God and the universe. Generally, it agrees about three concepts of this relationship between God and the cosmos.
First of all, for Christian cosmology God is the foundation without which there is nothing. Although philosophy argues that ex nihil nihil fit (“from nothing, nothing is made”), theology maintains that there never was “nothing.” On the contrary, God and God alone is eternal, uncreated. Existence is therefore completely dependent upon God. This cosmological assumption provides the root meaning of Christian claims that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the world, and the basis of the Christian historic claim of creatio ex nihilo (“creation from nothing”).
Second, Christian cosmology affirms that the universe has a beginning and ending. It is not eternal. Thus, existence and nonexistence of all things are in the “hand of God.” Not only is God found in nature, but the cosmos itself is ultimately in God. From this root meaning Christianity speaks about creation and eschatology, the final cosmic return to God. The cosmos begins and ends in God.
Finally, for Christian cosmology the universe and all that is in it is free. It is not manipulated, nor do events happen by necessity. Choices are made; evolutionary chance happens; malformations occur. Thus, cosmology drives discussions toward issues of human nature, free will, and theodicy. Many theological questions are evoked, such as: From whence comes evil? What part does God play in the chaos and order, good and evil of this world? How is the universe “free” if Christians affirm that it ends in God?
D. DIXON SUTHERLAND
Bibliography
Ian G. Barbour, Religion in the Age of Science.
Rolston Holmes III, Genes, Genesis, and God.
Arthur Peacocke, Creation and the World of Science.
Ted Peters, ed., Cosmos as Creation.
Ilya
