Some Difficulties of Theology Developed in the Context of Science

A Critique of the Position of Grygiel and Wąsek

  • Ryszard Mordarski Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego w Bydgoszczy
Keywords: evolutionary theology, Grygiel, Wojciech, metaphors, panentheism, religious language, theology, Wąsek, Damian

Abstract

Teologia ewolucyjna: Założenia – problemy – hipotezy (Evolutionary Theology: Assumptions – Problems – Hypotheses), by Wojciech P. Grygiel and Damian Wąsek, is an interesting and inspiring book. The attempt to formulate traditional problems of theology in the context of the natural sciences should com‑ mand special attention today. And if it is also a successful and consistently pursued attempt, then we should welcome it with particular interest. In this article, however, I do not want to dwell on the advantages of the publication being discussed, but rather to make some comments that may appear relevant when seeking to assess the theses of its authors from the perspective of a classical theist entertaining a metaphysical rather than scientific perspective on theology. I will focus on four issues: (1) the concept of Revelation developed in the context of the natural sci‑ ences, (2) the understanding of evolution, (3) the metaphorization of theological language, and (4) the panentheistic perspective of theology practiced in the context of science. In conclusion, I state that the proposed development of theology in the context of science, despite the advantage of presenting old theological problems in a new perspective, is vulnerable to the accusation of pan‑positivism, which entangles theology in too strict a context, depending as it does on the results of the empirical sciences.

References

Alston, William P. 1989. Divine Nature and Human Language: Essays in Philosophical Theology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Aquinas, Thomas. 2006. Summa Theologiae. Vol. 2, Existence and Nature of God (Ia. 2–11). Translated with introduction, notes, appendices, and glossary by Timothy McDermott, O.P. Additional appendices by Thomas Gilby, O.P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clayton, Philip. 1997. God and Contemporary Science. Edinburgh Studies in Constructive Theology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Gregersen, Niels Henrik. 2004. “Three Varieties of Panentheism.” In In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur R. Peacocke, 19–35. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Grygiel, Wojciech P., and Damian Wąsek. 2022. Teologia ewolucyjna: Założenia – problemy – hipotezy. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.

Macquarrie, John. 1994. God-Talk: An Examination of the Language and Logic of Theology. London: Xpress Reprints.

Maritain, Jacques. 1937. The Degrees of Knowledge. Translated by Bernard Wall and Margot R. Adamson. Glasgow: University Press.

McFague, Sallie. 1982. Metaphorical Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Peacocke, Arthur. 1993. Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and Becoming—Natural, Divine, and Human. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Polkinghorne, John. 2000. Faith, Science and Understanding. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Polkinghorne, John. 2009. Theology in the Context of Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shanley, Brian J. 2002. The Thomist Tradition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Tabaczek, Mariusz. 2021. Divine Action and Emergence: An Alternative to Panentheism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Published
2025-12-29
How to Cite
Mordarski, R. (2025). Some Difficulties of Theology Developed in the Context of Science: A Critique of the Position of Grygiel and Wąsek. Forum Philosophicum, 30(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.35765/forphil.2025.3002.07