The question of whether or not theology is in fact a science is one that is not new. Chenu disputes this question but in the end comes up with an affirmative answer that yes, theology is indeed a science. One point that Chenu brings up is that we should look at the Aristotelian definition of science and consider the words of St. Anselm: "Faith seeking understanding" which is inherently scientific.
             One request that Chenu makes is for the reader to forget the definition of science as we commonly use it today. The definition used to determine whether or not theology is a science should be the definition that the Greeks used which is much more traditional. We have taken what used to be a formal definition of science and twisted it around so that the definition now works to describe some of the actual sciences such as chemistry and biology. We oftentimes forget is that science doesn't necessarily have to be as cut and dry as chemistry. Studying facts and laws most definitely applies to the study of theology. The one bone that people often pick is that how can we call theology science if it is mostly based on a "superscientific" being that "far transcends the scope of natural reason" (18).
             Many people think that because theology is based on God, which we have no concrete proof of, that it cannot possibly be scientific. Chenu criticizes these people, most of whom are part of the Christian faith, because they do not want to combine faith and reason, as they believe that having blind faith is a bit absurd. Chenu makes it a point to show the opposing side of this ongoing argument and then continue to tear it apart and prove it wrong. Chenu points out that "science is built upon clear and evident statements of fact"(52) thus showing us that theology can't possibly be a science because we have no proof that God exists. Another point that Chenu makes is to demonstrate that there i...