Mutual Interaction Model

Like Pannenberg’s hypothetic consonanitst model, Russell’s “Creative Mutual Interaction” model looks at the dialogue both in terms of “consonance” and “dissonance” in pursuit of “coherence” between natural sciences and theology. In such a mutual dialogue, theology should not merely serve as science’s religious interpreter as is normally done in so-called “two-worlds” perspectives. Rather, “theology can indeed offer creative suggestions in the form of questions, topics, or conceptions of nature which scientists might find helpful in their research and as judged by their own professional criteria.” In his CMI research program, Russell’s discourse of natural theodicy hinges on his understanding of the coherence between creatio …show more content…
For Lakatos, within a research program auxiliary hypotheses and their data are “bi-directional” in a hypothetico-deductive manner, while the auxiliary hypotheses are in the reciprocal logical connections with the hardcore theory. In other words, “the data follow (quasi-deductive) form the auxiliary hypotheses, and the auxiliary hypotheses from the core theory. In that sense, the data that support an auxiliary hypothesis is theory-laden within the larger context of the paradigm. However, in virtue of that very fact, they support the auxiliary hypotheses and the core theory in turn.” Moreover, auxiliary hypotheses may reinforce or be buttressed by other auxiliary hypotheses as …show more content…
On the other hand, research program becomes “degenerative” when it fails to predict, corroborate, and incorporate those novel facts. In this case, all or most of the auxiliary hypotheses are “added in an ad hoc