Deleuze delineates the relationship of science & philosophy around chaos (WIP, 118). Chaos is not disorder but the recognition of infinite speeds of being, the immediate repetition of being to non-being.
Now, philosophy wants to retain infinite speeds but gain consistency. It overlays the concept to the virtual to form bonds. It is “diachronic,” it is creation of patterns in a waterfall.
Now, science wants to relinquish infinite speeds to gain reference. It uses functions to slow down the speed to actualize the virtual. It is “synchronic,” grabbing a sample from a waterfall.
I have often thought modern theology has made a devastating compromise with science. Of course, each have their place. But while I would put the purpose or mode of exegesis/biblical studies more in line with the mode of science above, I would put theology more in line with philosophy. It is to gain consistency on a plane of immanence not to actualize the virtual by functions.
Ironically, religion and science are often pitted against each other but in the deeper structures of methodology I would argue they are, in far too many instances, methodological mirrors. This poses no problem for science, except perhaps the embarrassing admission that it has been criticizing its own methodology under the surface, even if poorly executed. But for theology, this categorical confusion is deeply problematic. There is no stable point of reference for theology since theology must, by definition, deal with the concept (though it does take learnings from science – perhaps this is where the confusion lies, similar to, say, the relationship between neurology and epistemology) and not the function. Theology’s purpose is the creation of concepts, it must be creating new concepts that account for the findings of science but it cannot compete with science, not because it will “lose” but because it is a different game entirely. The very practice of theology necessitates the duality of preservation and innovation. This dialectic must remain in balance or the entire endeavor implodes, the future unhinging from the past/present (destroying what Deleuze calls the “actual”) or the past/present never re-actualizing.
Side note: I think this is what the WTS tradition was trying desperately to come to in Vos’ notion of “Biblical Theology” (if in a crude way) but failed miserably because of the ethical, emotional, & psychological posturing that such a methodology requires.
The rubber band can only be stretched so far before it snaps. In this way, there is an ethical and emotional struggle within the theologian. As we feel the need to anchor our thoughts (relinquish infinite speeds to gain reference?), we must recognize the need to remove the anchor before the sheer force of the current rips it from the ship and sinks the whole.