In the fall, I teach a course for Houghton that I designed while I was there, called Science and Scripture. The course was originally taught 15 years ago or so by Carl Schultz, a legendary Houghton professor who passed away three years ago. My impression is that the man was a genius, the kind of professor that once gave Houghton its reputation as the Wheaton or Harvard of the Wesleyan Church.
I've had as a long term goal to traditionally publish a book to go along with the course, although a popular self-published version might actually be more helpful to the church. But a pop version couldn't be used for the class, or at least I couldn't require students to buy it. In any case, in anticipation of teaching the course this fall, I thought I would dedicate my writing time on Tuesday mornings this summer to such a book or -- at the very least -- to creating some reading material for the course. This would replace Ian Barbour's book, When Science Meets Religion.
_______________________
Four Views
Over the years, Christians have exhibited several different attitudes toward science. Galileo in the 1600s came into significant conflict with the Roman Catholic Church over whether the sun went around the earth or vice versa. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, we saw strongly negative reactions among some Christians toward the theory of evolution -- convictions which continue unto this day.
Yet there are also many Christians who see no contradiction whatsoever between their faith and mainstream science. Still others believe in both but aren't quite sure how to fit the two together. They may worship on Sunday and work as a scientist the rest of the week without a good sense of how to reconcile their two identities together.
Various models for the possible relationships between science and faith have been suggested. John F. Haught once suggested four: 1) conflict, 2) contrast, 3) contact, and 4) confirmation. [1] Those who see conflict are those like the atheist Richard Dawkins who sees no possible compatibility between science and Christian faith. [2] Meanwhile, Francis Collins would be an example of someone who sees no contradiction at all between mainstream science and his faith -- "confirmation." [3]
The "contrast" position sees science and faith as complementary or, as Ian Barbour has put it, "independent." [4] From this perspective, science and faith are just doing different things. Stephen Jay Gould says they are "non-overlapping magisteria." [5] By this he means that they are distinct and separate frameworks that each work in their own domains.
Haught's third category, "contact," is a little harder to describe. In some ways, it seems to combine elements from the other three. It would say that, at some points, science and faith are independent of each other (contrast). Nevertheless, they come into contact in various ways. For example, the study of the universe (cosmology) takes us back to the earliest moments of the universe, but it reaches a boundary. It does not ask why the universe exists. That is a question for philosophy and religion.
In that sense, science and faith "hand off" the conversation to one another. Religion says, "in the beginning God" and then hands off the conversation to science to speak of cosmic expansion from a singularity. [6] Coming at it from the opposite side, science gets us back to the moment of creation and then lets religion and philosophy continue the discussion of first causes and such.
If we apply these four categories to Scripture, we have four broad options for how a particular passage of the Bible might relate to mainstream science. It might seem to conflict. It might seem to integrate or overlap well. Scripture might simply relate to something completely different from science. Or they might be distinct but in continuity with each other. Let's call these four options conflict, agreement, independence, and continuity.
[textbox: Science and Scripture
Contrast -- when science and Scripture seem to conflict with each other
Agreement -- when science and Scripture seem to overlap in agreement
Independence -- when science and Scripture are addressing distinctly different questions
Continuity -- when science and Scripture connect with each other on a topic while addressing different aspects of it]
Perception vs. Reality
A key factor in such discussions is the difference between our perceptions of how science and faith relate and how they might actually relate. For example, I may think that Scripture is in conflict with science when I am misinterpreting Scripture. Similarly, the young earth creationist Ken Ham believes that his faith is in complete harmony with true science, but he is in strong conflict with mainstream science. [7]
Here we run into a serious philosophical problem: how do we know what the right interpretation of Scripture is and how do we know what the real science is? In philosophy, we call these problems of epistemology, where epistemology is the branch of philosophy that asks how I can know that I know what I think I know. Related is the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, which asks what the ultimate nature of reality is.
Throughout this book, we will largely adopt a perspective known as critical realism. Critical realism assumes that the world is real and that we can indeed know truths about it. However, our views are susceptible to significant skew because we are finite and do not have all the data. Similarly, we are hindered by faulty reasoning and the fact that we are "stuck in our heads," unable to fully overcome our biases and unexamined assumptions. From a theological perspective, you might say that our minds are "fallen" and subject to Sin.
We must accept, then, that our sense of whether science and faith are in conflict to a large extent is a matter of our perception -- as is any sense that they are in agreement. We may similarly think they are independent when in fact they should be in continuity or agreement. As we mentioned above, young earth creationists generally think that their perspective is integrated with science, but others would see them as quintessential examples of science and faith in conflict.
Throughout our conversation, we will try to navigate this tension between our perceptions of Scripture and the current understanding of science. Is Genesis 1-3 in conflict with the prevailing scientific theory of evolution? Many would assume it is on the basis of their understanding of Genesis 1-3. Yet we should keep in mind that there is more than one interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Some interpretations of Genesis 1-3 are either in continuity with the theory of evolution or independent of it.
Similarly, science is not static. Thomas Kuhn's celebrated work on paradigm shifts in science reminds us that the prevailing models of the moment may not be those of tomorrow. [8] Newtonian physics as a paradigm was unquestioned coming into the twentieth century before Einstein and the quantum revolution completely reframed it. In the year 1400, everyone assumed that the sun went around the earth. We are not making light of evolution as a theory to say that it is ever-revisable for this is the very nature of science.
The question of science and faith is thus an ongoing conversation. They are distinct domains that frequently come into contact in various ways. At first, they may seem to conflict where once they seemed in agreement. Often, they are simply doing different things. Sometimes, one takes over where the other one left off.
However, we will assume that "all truth is God's truth," meaning that no truth ultimately is in conflict with God. [9] If we perceive science and faith to be in conflict, then our understanding of one, the other, or both needs modification. We will assume that God's thought does not contradict itself and that true faith and true science are thus in harmony with each other.
These are all assumptions. While they may seem reasonable enough, they probably bear some justification. Accordingly, the next section goes into a little more detail on our three key philosophical assumptions: 1) God and the world are "real," 2) our perception of God and the world is finite and skewed, and 3) properly understood, truth in all domains cohere with each other. If these claims seem acceptable to you, you are welcome to skip to the final two sections of the chapter.
Note that the intended audience of this book consists of theists, individuals who believe God exists objectively apart from humanity and that God remains involved with the world. Certainly we will engage non-theist perspectives -- hopefully fairly and as objectively as possible. Nevertheless, the point of view assumed at the outset is a faith seeking understanding (fides quaerens intellectum).
Critical Realism and the Coherence of Truth
The Nature of Faith
The Nature of Science
[1] Cf. John F. Haught, Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation (Paulist, 1995).
[2] For example, Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Mariner, 2008).
[3] Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free, 2007).
[4] Ian G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (HarperOne, 2000), 17-22.
[5] Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantine, 2002).
[6] Barbour calls this category, "dialog" in Science Meets Religion, 23-27.
[7] Cf. the well-known website answersingenesis.com.
[8] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed. (University of Chicago, 2012).
[9] This expression comes from Arthur F. Holmes' 1977 book of the same name with InterVarsity Press.