The Relationship Between Science and Christianity

From an ongoing discussion on the Pyromaniacs blog noting Biologos' disregard for the authority of scripture, Blogger 'one busy mom' posted a comment outlining an apt metaphor for the difference between science and the revelation of God through scripture. I have also included my first comment.

Blogger one busy mom said...

Phil: excellent post!

Jordan:
You seem to be having trouble reconciling science and faith, and although I'm the theological lightwieght here, I'm going to dive in with some suggestions. I too love science. I grew up with science. My late father was a very highly esteemed scientist in his field both in the US and abroad.

Here are some tidbits I've gleened:

We only know a small percentage of the facts that can be known & some of what we think we know we've actually misinterpretted.

Let's compare this to a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. We'll generously say we know 10% of all that can be known - so we randomly pull out 100 pieces from the box. Now, since some of what we think we know is not correctly interpretted - take 15 of those 100 pieces and replace them with random pieces from other puzzles.

Now, do your best to arrange those pieces without ever looking at the picture on the puzzle box. Then extrapolate and try to recreate the original picture. Chances are the results will be interesting, well thought out, and appear correct...but chances are even better that it won't look much like the actual picture.

As Christians, we have a huge advantage - we have the box with the picture on it: the Bible. So we can look at the current arrangement of puzzle pieces and say "nah - this part here or that over there just doesn't work".

We shouldn't get upset or defensive just because the pieces don't match the picture. Seriously, without the picture what would the odds be of it ever matching? Nor should we be so foolish as to throw out the picture cuz it didn't match the current arrangement of the pieces! (As BioLogos appears to be willing to do) Instead, we should get really excited when the pieces and the picture differ- that's where discoveries are waiting to be made!

Once, when looking over some of my dad's many patents, I asked him how he knew where to look to make new discoveries. He said that was really "the million dollar question" for any scientist, but the best place to start was where there were discrepancies - where things didn't add up.

God says to prove Him, and see if He's true. He will never be found to be a liar. As believers, we need to trust that He meant what He said, take His Word literally, and have the courage to rearrange the puzzle pieces to fit the picture - not vice versa. Because of the nature of some of the areas of discrepency, I'm firmly convinced some of the most dramatic discoveries have yet to be made: but they won't be made by those who already believe they have the answers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blogger Jim Pemberton said...

one busy mom: very cogent metaphor, apt and true.

And I agree with with the following comments explaining the foundational nature of Biblical truth. It's what is often misunderstood, overlooked, or intentionally skewed in these discussions.

Mike correctly pointed to the definition of science as being rather vague and oft unaddressed for clarity. To be sure, inasmuch as we think about who God is we may be generally classified as theologians. Likewise, inasmuch as we observe the observable world around us and make predictable assumptions based on the consistent properties that we see we can all be generally classified as scientists.

However, there is are classifications of theologians and ministers who are defined as those who are particularly studied and interact with communities of other such theologians and ministers. Likewise, there are classifications of scientists and engineers who are particularly studied and interact with communities of other scientists and engineers.

It's the distinctions between schools of presuppositional thought that are often at the heart of disagreement or even discredit between communities of scientists. So if we talk about what science is "valid" we get a different answer based on what community we use as our basis for scientific thinking. As it is, the naturalists happen to have the upper hand in popularity by virtue of their proliferation on the staffs of many schools and universities. So non-naturalistic science tends to be dismissed by most scientists as invalid, not because it's not science, but because it's not naturalistic.

BioLogos seems to have bought the naturalistic party line and are using it's presuppositions for defining what science is "valid". But orthodox Christian presuppositions are decidedly not naturalistic. Therefore science that uses the same presuppositions as orthodox Christianity looks different than naturalistic science. Naturalistic science cannot be reconciled with Christian orthodoxy. But there is a science that is integral to Christian orthodoxy.

Original Sin

Here's a question that could stir the nest. With all the talk about the scientists trying to produce life artificially I haven't heard this question asked yet. (Of course I haven't gotten through my blog reading yet.) If scientists one day are able to artificially produce a man with no parents, will he be free from original sin?

Was Christ free from sin because he had no biological human father or because He is God?

...or both?

What was the purpose of the virgin birth?

Don't let this cause you to doubt like Mother Theresa. Let it refine your thinking and strengthen your faith.

The use of Occam's Razor to Support Naturalism

I recently read comments by a naturalist who used Occam's Razor to support the basic naturalistic assumption. This assumption is that the natural world is all that can be detected scientifically; therefore scientific explanations for effectual observations cannot contain references to supernatural causes. for those who don't know, Occam's Razor (aka the "law of succinctness") is a philosophical principle relevant to logical evaluation and application that states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". Today's usage can be restated as "the simplest explanation is more likely to be true." With this usage, the principle certainly seems to support the naturalistic assumption.

Originally, Occam's razor applied to the minimalization of assumptions. The understanding is that assumptions, or presuppositions, are necessary in deriving any conclusion. For example, I conclude that in order to walk out of my office, I must walk around my desk and go through the door. I have made the observation that walking through my desk and through the wall simply doesn't work to accomplish the task of leaving my office. These are solid. I am solid. I have concluded that solids do not pass through solids without causing damage to one or both of the solids. I have observed certain continuity to this observation. Therefore, I assume the continuity of my observation. However, it is merely an assumption based on what is most likely.

To demonstrate that this is merely an assumption, consider the act of driving recklessly. On the interstate one can observe many people driving recklessly. Once tried, there is a certain level of recklessness I can drive also without experiencing an automobile accident. I see that a few drivers have accidents. Is this due to reckless driving? Unless I observe it directly, I don't know. It seems likely, so I can assume, that accidents are caused by reckless driving. However, the vast majority of incidences of reckless driving do not result in an accident. Therefore, I can drive recklessly under the assumption that an accident is yet not likely. Yet accidents happen. Therefore, the assumption is not true or false as much as it is a factor of likelihood.

Understanding this, today's usage of Occam's Razor is a different matter. If Occam's Razor were applied to scientific theories under original usage, then the assumption that "supernatural" causes were to be a priori disavowed would be recognized itself as a superfluous assumption. In other words, there is no reason not to consider explanations that do not fit within our current understanding of what is "natural". After all, who is to say where the line is to be drawn between "natural" and "supernatural"? To be sure, the use of radios would surely have been considered "supernatural" to ancient people. The advent of the automobile was certainly looked upon with other-than-natural disdain by many at the time. Until Einstein formulated his theories of relativity, Newtonian physics worked just fine. To be sure, time dilation is yet viewed by many as something beyond the natural pale.

Therefore, if scientific discovery continues to redefine "natural", then how can naturalism omit "supernatural" explanations by assumption without fixed definitions of what is natural and what is supernatural? Indeed, if "natural" is merely according to what we currently understand as "natural" then the flat-earthers may have a point. An orb-shaped earth was once viewed as an other-than-natural explanation. Indeed, it was simpler then to conceive of the world as flat. If science is to progress, it must have access to possible explanations that do not seem "natural".

I was going to go into an analysis of the difference between the original usage of Occam's Razor and the current usage. However, it would contain dry logical technical verbiage inaccessible to most. The previous paragraph nicely makes my point, I think. As a Christian, I certainly believe that there are both physical and metaphysical (spiritual) realms. Since there is a relationship between the two where the metaphysical affects the physical, then I believe the metaphysical to be detectable to a degree. While we cannot see the wind, we can see the leaves move. Therefore, the wind is detectable. The metaphysical is likewise detectable. With regard to what is to be considered "natural" and "supernatural", I believe the ability to detect one over the other to be a false distinction. Both the physical and the metaphysical are natural.

God Himself has a nature. The nature of God is the stuff of theology. Theology for the Christian evidential apologist is no less scientific than any other scientific discipline that evaluates empirical data against theoretical criteria. It is perhaps more rigorous because of the exceptional philosophical challenges and the demand for public debate, both of which require in-depth study and disclosure of presuppositional dispositions. The fact is that God is reasonable. While we cannot understand Him fully, he has given us minds and enough information to know Him better than we do. And our savior, Jesus Christ, is the "Word" (gr: logos, the "logic") of God.