Positive Science, Negative Theology

Last night's talk, “Positive Science / Negative Theology,” by former Berry physics professor and current Emory theology student appealed to a broad audience.

Dr. Wallace argued something to this effect: Science is at its best when making positive claims. For example, platypuses lay eggs, the earth is (generally) spherical, and that wavelength equals wavespeed divided by frequency.

Theology, however, is best served when making negative “claims”, although “claims” is perhaps not the correct word. Negative experiences, in accordance with the apophatic tradition, edifies true religious experiences, according to Dr. Wallace. For example, experiences of “emptying” or of realizing one’s insignificance would appear to fall under the status of apophasis. While much could be said about apophasis, I'll leave that to subsequent posts. Instead I want to take up the positive/negative distinction between theology and science.

Dr. Wallace originally claimed that proper science is positive and proper theology is negative. It was unclear whether or not “negative science” could even exist, and positive theology—such as ontological proofs for God—are not edifying as is negative theology. However, Dr. Wallace also argued that, by science, he meant a vast collection of facts—but facts ought really to be interpreted as very well educated opinions, that might not correspond to actual reality and might end up being wrong. While the intention of science is to tell us what is, it can only do so through telling us what it definitely is not (for example, that Aristotelian physics fails, or that Newtonian physics are irrelevant to objects moving at speeds comparable to that of light).

Let us then, make this distinction: Science is positive in its intention but negative in its method. Science cannot tell us that all platypuses lay eggs or that wavelength equals wavespeed divided by frequency; rather, it can tell us that this has been the case for all observable phenomena, and we see no logical basis for assuming that these trends will not apply universally. However, what it can absolutely do is determine when things are inadequate (such as Aristotelian physics), and narrow down the choices accordingly. Perhaps Popperian, but nevertheless seems consistent.

Now, in terms of negative theology, Dr. Wallace argued that one should approach God negatively—at least, through a negative method. However, the intention of theology is to know and form a relationship with God; it does not have a negative relationship to God in intention, or else one may as well watch television for hours, since you’ll have just as much negative knowledge about God.

So, science has positive intentions and negative methods. Theology has positive intentions and negative methods. Therefore, positive science and negative theology don’t refer to the same thing—one refers to intention, while the other refers to method.

What are the implications of this?
Is the positive/negative dichotomy right?
Is there a third option here—not merely a gradient scale, but an actual third option?