Bills calling for the teaching of creationism in schools have been submitted to the legislatures of over thirty states including Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, and (would you believe) California. (Yes, there are Christians in California. There are also liberals in Arkansas. Who knew?) The concerns of those who submitted the bills are easy enough to understand, but many of the legislative discussions bogged down because people couldn’t really get their minds around the differences between religious belief and scientific thought. Though some people talk about “bringing God back into science,” but what does that really mean? I’m going to argue that there are some fundamental differences between scientific and religious ways of thinking that were overlooked in many of those discussions. There are Christians in the sciences, of course, and they understand those differences better than most. As I studied those debates and thought about why so many of those discussions went off the rails, I came up with seven inherent challenges people should consider before they try to force faith and science into any kind of shotgun marriage. I originally had them at the end of Genesis and the Thoughtful Christian, but then I decided they really belonged at the beginning. These are the first six:
Challenge #1: “Galileo-type” science is based on observation and God is invisible.
Before Galileo’s time, science was mixed with theology and philosophy. Galileo and the astronomers of his era changed the rules of the game by basing their conclusions on carefully recorded observations of heavenly bodies and on mathematical calculations. Anything that could not be detected, or at least inferred, by observation and calculation lay outside the realm of their new science. This shift placed God outside of the boundaries of hard science because God, as described in the Bible, does not perform on command. That doesn’t mean religious questions don’t matter, just that observation-based science isn’t equipped to answer those questions. There are “soft” sciences like psychology and hybrid disciplines like archaeology and crime scene investigation that make use of scientific devices. Psychologists’ investigations of near-death experiences and archaeological discoveries like tablets that mention biblical characters like David and Hezekiah do not “prove” the Bible, but they can lend evidential support for some aspects of it.
Challenge #2: Science is usually done in secular environments.
In Galileo’s day, Catholicism was the law of the land, but modern scientists may be Roman Catholic, liberal or conservative Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, atheist, agnostic, etc., etc. Science, which is mostly conducted in secular universities and labs, is a cross-cultural, interfaith endeavor. Groups of Christians that make organized efforts to “bring God back into science” are usually doomed at the outset because of the secular/multifaith environments in which science is conducted. Some ideas suggested by Christians like (believe it or not) the Big Bang Theory do make it into mainstream science from time to time.
Challenge #3: Scientists seek natural explanations, and Christians seek miracles.
The job of a scientist is to understand how things work, and they see the “it’s a miracle” explanation as a dead end or an excuse for intellectual laziness. That is not always a bad thing. Personally, I’m glad we no longer attribute mental illness and epilepsy to evil spirits, and I’m glad we no longer try people for witchcraft. Many Christians are understandably uncomfortable, however, with the idea of reducing a human being to a soulless mix of chemicals created by a cosmic accident, and react by trying to play “stump the scientist.”
Challenge #4: Science assumes human reason is trustworthy, and some Christians don’t (but we’re stuck with it anyhow.)
Some Christians believe that human reason is so corrupt that it is completely unreliable. The Bible, for them, is the only source of truth, and science is nothing more than human vanity. They’re right, up to a point. Human reason is flawed and imperfect, but turning to the Bible does not always solve the problem either, not even for the most dedicated of Christians. Anytime Christians go beyond what the Bible says to what the Bible means, we end up having to rely on our flawed human brains to make sense of it, and we often come up with different answers. Even the most dedicated saint is plagued by impure motives and influenced by cultural biases to some extent. So is the most logical, impartial scientist. We can never completely get away from our biases, but the search for truth is still worth the effort.
Challenge #5: Scientists assume things are what they appear to be, and some Christians do not share this view.
I make this statement somewhat cautiously because quantum physics has ventured into some pretty strange realms of late. My assertion here is fairly basic: A scientist who finds a bone assumes it came from a real animal that lived sometime in the past. A scientist who sees stars through a telescope assumes that the stars were really there at the time they produced the light. Some writers like Gosse believe God created the universe with an artificial appearance of age, even to the point of filling rock strata with fake fossils. This view isn’t as common as it used to be, but it still pops up from time to time. One problem with this approach is that it eliminates all common ground for discussion. We can’t even agree about what it right in front of us. Another objection is that is seems to place God in the role of “cosmic trickster.”
Challenge #6: Science and the Bible Both Have an “Inside Language.”
Language is tricky because words can mean different things depending on where and how they’re used. The word “proof” sounds simple and straightforward enough, but it means different things in a science lab and a court of law. The word “probable” means different things in statistics class than it does in philosophy class. When we bring the Bible into faith/science discussions, we’re transporting it across cultural and language barriers. If I read the word “world” in the Old Testament, I automatically picture a round planet revolving around a star, but it’s doubtful that the authors or the original readers of Genesis were acquainted with such ideas. When the Bible refers to the sun coming out of its tent, that’s obviously symbolic, but it isn’t always clear where the symbolism ends.
Those are my first six. Unless we understand these differences in perspective, we end up trying to force science and religion into roles they were never meant to play. I’d say, overall, that it’s probably easier to “put God back into” fields like history than into fields like biology. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could teach history without talking about the role of religious belief in shaping human civilization. When we do it, however, we have to fight the tendency to show only the best examples of our chosen belief systems and the worst examples of others. We all have our favorites, but give credit (or blame) where it is due.
What is the seventh challenge? I’ll be back Friday to write about that. Wednesday and Thursday, I’ll be on other subjects, and next week my posts will relate to my fantasy novel, The Sign of the Sword.