Science, Faith and Reason

I’m currently reading “The Challenge of Jesus” by N T Wright, and he makes an interesting statement on p21. He says, “The Enlightenment notoriously insisted on splitting apart history and faith, facts and values, religion and politics, nature and supernature, in a way whose consequences are written into the history of the last two hundred years – one of the consequences being, indeed, that each of those categories now carries with it in the minds of millions of people around the world an implicit opposition to its twin, so that we are left with the great difficulty of even conceiving of a world in which they belong to one another as part of a single indivisible whole.” This got me thinking about the relationship between science and faith, or faith and reason (as it is often characterised), and I think he is certainly on to something. For some time now people, especially theists, have been trying to integrate faith and science or faith and history and books have been written attempting to do just that. Yet there is still, as Wright says, an opposition in the minds of many to the uniting of these ideas. Why is that?

This is not restricted to the secular world, either. Many Christian have this strange idea that if you know something then you cannot have faith, like if you prove the Bible correct historically or archaeologically then you no longer have faith in it because you have certainty. It’s like faith is at one end of the scale and certainty is at the other and we must avoid certainty in order to have faith! I think this is without doubt a mistaken view of what the Bible teaches about faith, and it leads many Christians to stick their heads in the sand and not engage with the culture because “you just have to have faith”.

In 1999 Stephen Jay Gould published “Rock of Ages” in which he formalised this notion when he advanced his idea of Non-Overlapping MAgisteria (NOMA), the idea that “the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap...” (Wikipedia). In this same year we see the National Academy of Sciences making a similar claim, “science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each” (Wikipedia). This idea seems to have taken root in the minds of many Christians and non-Christians alike, reinforcing the Christian’s previously stated aversion to fact and the non-Christian’s belief that the sciences have nothing of religious value to say.

Is this the true?

I don’t think so, although I think that there is perhaps some merit to this idea. As J P Moreland said at the Saddleback Apologetics Conference 95% of science has nothing to do with religion, and 95% of religion has nothing to do with science. For example, religion has nothing to say about the mechanics of an aircraft engine, and science has nothing to say about the atoning blood of Jesus. But what about that 5%? What about things like the origins of life on earth, or of the universe itself? These are areas where science and religion overlap, and you might find conflict here or you might not. Should we continue to attempt to separate the two? Is it even possible? I don’t think we can, nor should we try. For example. belief in a purely naturalistic explanation of origins (the Darwinian Hypothesis) is in conflict with the Genesis account that says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, how God did it and how long He took are legitimate debates, but that God did it is an integral part of the Christian’s convictions, and a purely naturalistic view excludes God resulting in a conflict that needs to be resolved. This is a case where science and religion make claims about the same thing that are in conflict, and I don’t think it is enough to say, as some Christians have, that you just need to believe, whatever the evidence. I think we need to try and reconcile the two, we need to do our spade work, as Koukl says.

I think we have been seeing a shift in that direction for the last 20 years or so, a shift that is slowly gaining momentum, both in academia and in the public square. The ID movement would have to be a case-in-point, as they attempt to show that science points to a Designer, that science and faith can work together. Ministries like Greg Koukl’s “Stand to Reason” (www.str.org) and William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” (www.reasonablefaith.org) are efforts to show that faith and reason go hand in hand, indeed that reason can be a support for faith, and have been very successful in doing so, at least in my opinion. Craig often points to the radical shift since the ‘70s in philosophy which is seeing many more believers take posts in university philosophy departments and has led to a resurgence of philosophy as a tool that can lead us to God I think this is what’s needed from the Christians – engage with the culture, don’t hide from it. What’s needed from the scientific community is an abandonment of their policy of scientific naturalism that, to use Richard Lewontin’s words, doesn’t “allow a divine foot in the door” (NY Times, 1997). The documentary “Expelled” is a great example of what happens to scientists in secular universities who question this approach. I think scientists should be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. All options should be considered, and the one that has the best explanatory scope should be the one presented, regardless of naturalistic preconceptions.

Can we see this conflict ending anytime soon? I’m not sure. Dr Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute disagrees. He thinks the tide is turning. In an interview with Greg Koukl (available from the website) he predicts that we will see this paradigm shift in his lifetime! That’s a pretty big claim, and I sure hope he’s right!

SCIENCE - What can we really say?

First, please excuse the amount of time between posts. It’s been busy around here and I consider that extra cause for thanks.

Dave’s last post brings us very nicely into a most important point in our series. Some roads in our apologetic walk should not be trod upon. You will quickly find yourself in a mire. The same can be said for scientific claims. As J.P. Moreland points out in the Saddleback conference, about 95% of science has nothing to do with theology and 95% of theology has nothing to do with science. There is some overlap mind you, and we shall explore much of that overlap as we proceed. But it needs be known that just because someone is a scientist does not mean he or she can say they have disproved God. And there are many Christian believers (or Jewish or Muslim) who just as mistakenly say, ‘I can give you proof for God.’

This is most important. Write this down; it is childishly simple: There is no proof or disproof for God. There is no one who can come to you and say, “I can prove to you that God does not exist.” Nor is there is anyone who can say, “I can prove God exists.”

C.S. Lewis once (quite seriously) quipped, ‘the day that someone can offer proof for God it will likely be too late, for it will be the Last Day.’ We have other articles on faith here at Timor Dei, but the gist is that belief in God or disbelief in Him, must be just that: a belief. If the existence of God were so easily known, we would not have a choice in knowing of Him at all.

Now, it is not a matter of knowing of God with which Christianity concerns itself, but knowing Him, i.e personally, having an intimate relationship with Him. There is a difference. I can know of a beautiful woman, or I can know her. By merely knowing of a woman I may never actually speak to her. However, in knowing her personally, I can come to know her quite intimately and even become engaged and marry her. Then our knowledge of each other really begins to grow, but not without consequence on our lives mind you; I must make concession for her and she for me. That need not be the case for someone of whom I am merely aware exists. (In fact, quite happily for them, most beautiful women don’t know I exist!)

I digress. My point here is that if there were proof of God, then we must know of His incredible majesty and beauty as the Creator of all, including our consciences, our reason and emotions, all wonder, good and love (not evil, but that is a different argument - see WHAT GOOD IS EVIL?) so, just as a man may be overwhelmed by a beautiful woman, so would we be overwhelmed by God. He is our ultimate joy or our ultimate fear. And were He undeniably real, than so would His majesty be and our love for Him would, too, be entirely thorough, though it would not be ours, so to speak, for we would have no choice in the matter. In order for our love for Him to be real love, so great and real a God is He that He must stay hidden. Love must be a choice. That is a wondrous first clue to His love, that He honors you enough to give you a choice. You don’t have to believe. And for that, too, I love Him.

So, Christianity cannot say, “I can prove God.” Nor can science say it disproves God. Science as we will see cannot make statements about 'metaphysical' things. It can, at times, answer the how, but not the why; giving reason does not answer purpose.

But what we, as witnesses can say is, ‘I can give you some very convincing clues, both scientifically and theologically that I would like you think about.’ The evidence we do have, the universe and life as we do know it, as we experience it, I believe that the theological answer is the answer that best fits what we know reality to be. Ultimately, nothing we say can ever convince anyone of the truth of God anyway; that isn’t our job. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to do that and He is best at it. So let Him do His work and let us get busy doing ours.

The Great Debate?

A terribly volatile subject:
It is most embarrassing, though probably shouldn't be, to Christians when a politician professes a profound "faith in God" and then proceeds pandering to the opposite, blatantly immoral side, exploiting both to win votes.

I say its embarrassing because to those voters (or mere onlookers) lost in the limbo of not knowing what to believe, it appears as though Christians, all of us, are hypocrites - or at least instead of standing for an ideal, we play hopscotch around it. Also, more so in the US than in other countries, "faith in God" to many means "faith in Jesus Christ." Not necessarily so.

I also add that we shouldn't be so embarrassed because what are we to expect? Honestly, we all do it on some level, why not particularly so when the stakes are so high? The more (potential) power you have, the higher the (potential) temptation. How much more power can you get in this world at this time than being President of the USA. Aside from that, just because one says they are faithful doesn't really prove anything. Lets see some of it in action, buddy. "So also, Faith without works is dead." (Jas 2:17)

The recent forum in Pennsylvania, a faith forum at that, offered Clinton and Obama both the opportunity to profess said "faith in God" and then answer questions offered up by leaders from several different faiths.
Go ahead and give that a read then pop back on over here and finish reading this.
.....
So? What do you think? If you are shocked, I will say you are naive. But what grabs my attention is that, even in the news was it seen as a blatant and shameless bid for votes. I would say that Clinton sounds like the tongue of Satan himself, except that the devil isn't usually so transparent or dumb. Potential for life? Obama had the stuffings to say that he didn't know. Maybe he doesn't, but it still sounds like a cop-out to me.

Lets get on the same page here. Are we all speaking American English or what? What do they mean by life? Potential for life? That egg cell is alive and that sperm certainly is as well. Those are alive. Ah, do you mean, is it capable of sustaining life on its own without help from another? No. But lets not be coy, neither are you.

Do they mean life in the sense of a soul "being made?" Is there a soul there? Ah, there is the big debate.

Remember these guys are saying they have "faith in God." If we say that a soul comes into being with the first breath of life, well, as plausible in some circles as that may be, we know it isn't true Biblically. King David says so humbly in Psalm 51:5 that he was a sinner from the moment his mother conceived him.
So we must insist that the soul is poured into our being at the onset, given by God at the melding of the love between our parents, or even, in the basest of circumstances, the rape of our mother. Well, should we then fall into the Catholic boat of all intercourse being sacred and no contraceptives allowed?

Who is to say it isn't? Of course it is! Everything we have should be taken as sacred! Eating, drinking, playing. Talking to your neighbor. God pronounced all of His creation, "good." As my favorite writer (whom I imagine you all know) once said, 'Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest thing presented to your senses.' Since we take all these too lightly, what is stopping us from taking this great moment 'as two become one' so? Was the Lord not angry when Onan spilled himself on the ground because he knew that any offspring born of his brother's widow would not carry his name? Read Gen. 38:9. Apparently the Lord finds it sacred.*

The act may be (thank you, good and wise Lord) pleasurable, but it's God who gives life, so even when done for "enjoyment," if He so deems to give life, then it is His deeming. When it is done with blatant disregard to the fruits that said action may bring, you are not only being flippant with life itself but disrespectful of God. Whether someone was raped or whether it was planned out to the last detail, who are we to take any life so capriciously? If I'm not mistaken, I think we have invaded countries because people have been capricious with life.

I won't be a hypocrite. I am guilty of this - terribly so. More so than even I, myself, am capable of knowing or understanding. I am a proud and foolishly thoughtless man guilty of every sin. Since then, if I trust my life to Christ, then it is His light that must shine, not mine, nor anyone else's.
On the other hand, I'm not running for office, and those who do so I hope will follow out their thoughts to the end of the line. For certain not all the voters will do so, but many will. Christians and non-Christians alike. So, come on folks, lets be clear where we stand, for one thing or another. Pandering to every whim only makes for blathering fools. You cannot serve two masters, and Christians should know that.

*I like Shane Claiborne's footnote to this issue of abortion from "The Irresistible Revolution": "...if I'm going to discourage abortion, I had better be ready to adopt some babies and care for some mothers." There is a lot to that, but not everything is contained within it. There are orphanages and care centers - most run by Christians. That doesn't mean that only the people who work there have a right to speak out on the subject, but it might be said we listened to them a bit more than to those of us who don't.

Apologetics...

From JS
I'm new to Bible study, and can't offer much, but Catholic dogmas like the Papacy just don't have Scripture to back them up. The same with the perpetual virginity of Mary, mass, and so on. Indeed Catholics twist select verses to 'fit' their views, and to make their lies believable they go so far as to say the Pope is inerrant when explaining Scripture (a dogma also achieved through twisting verses). The Catholic church says if you don't believe what they say (their dogmas) then you are destined for hell. Hmm. OK, so imagine you gave a Bible to someone who has no idea what the Catholic church is. From reading the entire Bible it is utterly impossible for that person to even KNOW about these supposedly saving dogmas since Scripture backs none of them up. That suggests that the Bible is not enough to save a person, which contradicts many of the passages in it.

Why would God give us the Bible if it is useless without that additional material proposed by Popes? And if you accepted these additions which, as James points out, first came into being in the 300's, then what do you make of the final verses of Revelation which warn against anybody who adds or takes away from the Bible? If a Catholic thinks he can add stuff then that presumes that God lied in those verses, which contradicts the verse which says God is incapable of lying.

To believe the Catholic viewpoint is to believe in human knowledge being necessary to understand the Bible rather than God (as if God failed in being coherent, and without human intervention, we're all doomed). But the exact middle verse of the Bible is Psalm 118:8 "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."