In light of the forthcoming movie Expelled, and the recent controversy over the expulsion of PZ Meyers from the preview showing, it should be noted that not all Christians feel the same way the producers of Expelled do. In fact, there are a number of Christians who fully engage in the sciences and find no conflict between science and their Christian faith. (No matter what Dawkins has to say about evolution and religion being antithetical; I suspect he does not have a good grasp on what Faith means, not having it himself.)
To illustrate this point, Wheaton College is currently holding its 2008 Science Symposium, entitled “String Theory and the Multiverse: Philosophical and Theological Implications.” Yesterday I attended lectures by Dr. Gerald Cleaver, a theoretical physicist, and Dr. Don Page, who studied under and lived with Stephen Hawking. The lectures covered the basics of string theory/M-theory and how it relates to the idea of the multiverse. Then they addressed the ideas of the multiverse as related to the Christian faith, using such concepts as Anselm’s Ontological Argument to consider its implications.
As I see it, the difficulties between Christianity (or religion more generally) and science arise from three areas:
- Anti-theistic or anti-Christian attacks by non-Christian scientists.
- The concept of the “God of the gaps.”
- The problem of theological/Biblical integration.
Anti-Christian Attacks
The first of these, anti-Christian attacks by non-Christian scientists, is of less importance. While such attacks do happen (Dawkins is a perfect example), they are not of particular concern for several reasons:
- Faith lies outside of the realm of science and thus is not subject to scientific testing. (More on this later.)
- Such attacks exhibit a gross misunderstanding of Christianity.
- There is nothing to be done about them.
“The God of the Gaps”
The second of these areas is far more problematic. The idea of the “God of the gaps” has plagued scientific and religious thinkers since ancient times. The most notable example is, of course, Galileo, who was denounced by the Roman Catholic Church for proclaiming a heliocentric view of the solar system. The Church did not like this because it removed the Earth and humanity, God’s creations, from the center. (Ironically, the trailer for Expelled says that religious ideas about creation would have been accepted in Galileo’s day. In Galileo’s day, however, it was the religious establishment that was opposing scientific ideas.)
There are several problems with the idea of the “God of the gaps.” First, it means that God is diminished each time a new scientific theory is confirmed. Suddenly God is no longer in charge of putting the Earth at the center of the universe or God is no longer required to create us as humans specifically. When God’s power is linked to human understanding, we fail to understand God’s power.
Second, it places Christianity in the awkward position of having to argue against good science. Take evolution as an example. Within the scientific community there is virtually complete consensus on the theory of evolution, though not on the actual origins of life. If you want more information, read Science, Evolution, and Creationism, published by the National Academy of Sciences. Yet Christians, especially within America, are consistently fighting the idea because they do not wish to see God diminished again. This leads to two things:
- It makes Christians look stupid because they have to argue against good science.
- It makes non-Christians, and especially scientists, upset with Christians. (In fact, the book by NAS mentioned above is somewhat impressive in that it goes out of its way to make the point that religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive and that it is not arguing against Christianity.)
Finally, the idea of “the God of the gaps” displays a lack of faith in the power of God. Why is there any reason that God should be required to hold together the “gaps” in the universe or scientific knowledge, rather than to create laws and mechanisms like he did for everything else? It seems more likely that we simply haven’t discovered the laws or mechanisms yet, the discovery of which is the realm of science. To assume God is bound by our knowledge of the universe is somewhat hubristic.
Theological Integration
The final problem is that of theological/Biblical integration. Here Christians are demanding more out of science than it can provide because they misunderstand the role of science.
Before I go any farther, let me say that I find skepticism of science because of the Bible to be a valid reason for not agreeing with scientific findings. In the case of our creation, the Bible clearly does not say anything about evolution. For myself, I have managed to get past the literal creation stories, no matter how at the moment, to accept scientific findings. I cannot, however, fault another Christian who does not, for they are reading the Word of God. In this, there are two things to remember:
- For Christians who do not accept science, there is no call to go around proclaiming that all science is therefore wrong. We may not agree, but that does not discredit the whole scientific process.
- For Christians who do accept science, it is slightly far fetched to go reading scientific theories on to the Bible, as if evidence of every idea can be found within it.
After that detour, let us continue with the concept of theological integration. The first point here is that science and faith are different realms. The goal of science is to investigate the world around us, not to prove faith. In fact, by the very definition of faith, it cannot be proved. Demanding that science prove (or disprove) God will not get anyone anywhere. Other arguments about the existence of God, whether moral, philosophical, or logical, will get us much farther than science.
The second thing to be said under theological or Biblical integration is that science need not necessarily provide a deep connection to our understanding of Christianity. When scientists speak of Christianity and science, they speak of the beauty of God’s creation and the call to seek truth. This should be enough for us. We don’t demand that other occupations, whether carpentry or banking, provide explicit integration with the Bible, so why science? In fact, Dorothy Sayers gets it right in the chapter “Why Work?” in her book Creed or Chaos when she reminds us that it does not matter if the work is explicitly Christian. What matters is that we do the work well. When it comes to science, then, let us not seek to push Christianity through it, but rather to engage in good science that we may cast a good light on Christianity.
To Conclude
The science vs. Christianity debate is not something that we should be engaging in. There is no reason why science should be set up as an enemy of the Church. Indeed, it is as much our fault that science has come to be seen opposite Christianity as it is the fault of scientists. Instead of placing the two in opposition, Christians should seek to further science in an effort to understand the universe (or multiverse) in which God has created us.
Tags: Christianity, Climate Change, God, M-theory, multiverse, religion, Richard Dawkins, string theory, universe
Good words, good thoughts. As a Christian myself, I have been accused of being a “liberal” because I just don’t want to get caught up in the evolution / anti-evolution arguments. I frankly don’t care – it doesn’t change what I believe, it doesn’t change the fact that I still believe God created the earth but I don’t care how. I don’t need it explained. KWIM?
Hear, hear! I am not a scientist but I heard Dr. Francis C. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, speak at the C.S. Lewis Foundation’s Summer Institute in 2006 and was persuaded of his point of view, which is that the theory of evolution and Christianity are compatible. So I appreciate the advanced, integrated perspective you offered in this post.
Cheers!
Colin
Hi and thanks for your post.
I appreciate the idea that Christians need to appropriately balance reason and faith and this thought seems to underpin your article.
The problem I have with the integration of theistic evolutionary concepts with the Bible revolves around the elements of death and sin. The Bible appears to me to be clear that death was a result of sin, and not a part of God’s original perfect creation. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men…” Rom 5:12
Theistic evolution implicitly has God using death (via natural selection) as one of the key mechanisms for creation. These two concepts seem at odds with each other.
Anyway just my 2c…
Kind regards,
Craig Price
While I don’t want to get into a discussion of evolution in this particular comment thread (perhaps I’ll write a post on it sometime), I will make one comment. It’s true that death entered the world through sin, as Romans 5:12 states, but what this means depends on how we define death. I would define it in with less of a focus on physical death itself and more of a focus on the disconnection of the soul from communion with God. C.S. Lewis has some interesting thoughts on this in a chapter (I believe the one entitled “The Fall of Man”) in his book The Problem of Pain. While I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusions, Lewis does present one possible way of thinking about the issue which might be helpful.
well said. cardinals schonborn and ratzinger also have some interesting articles on this.
Very nice. I totally agree, and I’ve gone on to see Genesis 1&2 as political and theological treatises as much as a indication of the origins of the state of the earth.
An additional thing that may help to put the Creations stories into context is how they conflicted with the other Creation stories of the day. On some levels the Creation stories are remarkable and theologically relevant just because they told the story of a creator ex nihilo, who creates from life (the breath of God quickening Adam), who has a definite purpose and path for history. The Babylonian creation story (one of the most prevalent and powerful at the time of Genesis’ writing) is an excellent example of this antithesis. In it you have the god’s at war, and the greatest god of the time is killed. From her body the earth is made, and from the blood of another god humanity is made.
For now, I’ll leave the conclusions of those thoughts up to the reader. I’ll be writing a blog entry of my own on the topic of the literary and theological importance of the stories soon.
Goodness gracious. What a superb post.
Everyone who goes to see Expelled should have it tattoed across their foreheads. Render unto science the things which are science’s. It’s really not that terribly difficult.
The “God of the gaps” approach is, frankly, belittling to faith. “Well, we used to think that thunder was Thor throwing thunderbolts around, but now that we’ve moved past that, we think that protein interactions are the result of God’s magic.” As you point out, that is not a wise long-term move, as humans learn more things.
Factual Genesis is Being Overlooked
It would be much better if those that believe in a Creator, would make a call to learn the correct view of Genesis, rather than clinging to their current false beliefs of Genesis.
Theistic evolution calls God a liar, when He specifically told Israel in Exodus 20:11, “For in six days, the Lord made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all there in them is…”. He told them this after defining the work week, in Exodus 20:9. When God told Joshua to march around Jericho for seven days, did God mean something other than 168 hours? If so, Joshua (from the tribe of Ephraim) should be STILL marching around those walls.
The doctrine of Creation Science, is also false, along with “ruin & restoration”, progressive creation, Day/Age, gap theories, and theistic evolution. All are unsuccessfully trying to explain the first chapter of Genesis, which they do not understand.
Creation Science begins with hypocrisy, declaring total belief in “literal interpretation” of the scriptures. That sounds nice, until you “put the Word” on their teachings. Where did the water come from on the first day? Did God create the birds on the fifth day before mankind, or after mankind on the sixth day? Did God create the land animals before mankind on the sixth day, or after Adam on the sixth day? On each of the previous questions, “young Earth” believers can’t give an honest answer. They begin to “redefine” the scriptures in an attempt to make them fit their false beliefs. When cornered, their escape path is to say “God will explain it when we get to Heaven”. That’s living in a delusion. Agnostics, atheists, and evolutionists need it explained to them NOW, so that they can be part of the church BEFORE Jesus returns.
The problem with young Earth believers is that they are brainwashed into thinking that accepting scientific reality of an “old earth” means denying the seven 24-hr days of the 168 hour Creation Week. Remember the “lack of knowledge” in Hosea 4:6?
Misunderstanding of the Genesis text leads to foolishness when advocating that the mammoths, giant mammals, dinosaurs, and dimetrodons all died in Noah’s flood, which was in 2611 BC. The foundations of a young Christian’s faith is shaken when they are confronted with the reality of ancient geologic ages of Earth’s history, and the 650+ million year fossil record (of death). Genesis does not teach, nor agrees with any “young Earth” doctrine. Biblical Reality conveys the correct view of Genesis, using “correct” literal interpretation, explaining what God was revealing to Moses (Observations of Moses).
We can remain in denial, which is not getting us anywhere, or we can learn the truth of Genesis, to enable us to expose the false conclusions of secular science. Which is it going to be?
Herman Cummings
@Herman: I’m not really sure what you’re advocating here… Perhaps you’d be interested in the links from my post Christianity and Creation.
It is so refreshing to see Christians who are not only passionate about their faith but passionate about learning and understanding. Too often I hear ill-informed Christians and scientists caught up in a futile debate without full understanding of the issues and history of both science and Christianity.
Having said that, I am still reading and evolving (excuse the pun) as I personally come to my own understanding of how to reconcile faith and science. At this stage I am reflecting on what is wisdom and what is knowledge as I see that faith and science follow from each respectively. As I am reflecting on this it is becoming more apparent to me that the two are completely different worldviews and both need to be deconstructed to find some sort of integration.
Keep up the great work – sharing musings and reflections really helps others to start thinking about their own thinking and processes.