Abstract

Nancey Murphy's Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning argues for the comportment of Christian theology to Imre Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes. Adopting Lakatos's model of scientific rationality for use in theology, argues Murphy, would establish theology as science, secure for it a place in the secular university, and "grant us real knowledge of God and God's relation to the world." Murphy's proposal met with popular praise and critical acclaim, winning both the American Academy of Religion Award of Excellence and the Templeton Foundation Book Prize. ;This dissertation argues that Lakatos's model does not provide an adequate account of the history of Christian theology, nor is it helpful in prescribing theological practice. The Introduction situates Murphy's project against other uses of Lakatos in theology and outlines the argument. Section One introduces Lakatos's model, exploring the relation of his thought to that of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. It is argued that Lakatos's model differs less from Popper's than is commonly perceived and that Lakatos's formal requirement for progressive science functionally reaffirms Popper's demarcation between empirical and metaphysical theories. ;Section Two explores Murphy's proposal in depth. Chapter Three presents her argument and surveys her reviewers. It is concluded that the complaints of her critics do not raise fatal objections to her project. Chapter Four critiques both her historical example of a progressive research programme and her proposal for culling theological data from the deliverance of Christian discernment. ;Section Three further explores the descriptive and prescriptive inadequacy of Lakatos for theology. Chapter Five reconstructs the early Christological debates, arguing that their inherent rationality is markedly unlike progressive research programmes. Chapter Six contrasts five contemporary Christian theologians on the question of methodology. Their considerable disagreement on the relevance and significance of empirical explanation renders the adoption of Lakatos's model moot. It is concluded that an adequate theological method must account for the local character of theological commitments, the diversity of theological tasks and the different audiences theology addresses