Friday, March 11, 2005
Science and Christianity
Are science and Christianity opposed to each other? Are they related? Can they co-exist?
Such is a hot topic right now. Nobel Laureate Charles Hard Townes (inventor of the laser and maser) has been awarded the Templeton Prize for progress or discoveries about spiritual reality. USA Today has a nice profile of Dr. Townes (HT: Michelle Malkin via Broken Masterpieces) Dr. Townes has been given this award in large part based on an article he published called The Convergence of Science and Religion.
Dr. Townes piece calls for a convergence of science and religion because their manners of approach to problems are often similar. He bases his analysis on the uncertainty and duality of quantum mechanics and the similarities such thought has with religious thought. This is a powerful argument, but I do not think it goes far enough. Numerous books have been written shoving eastern mysticism into the uncertainty and duality gaps in quantum mechanics. Dr. Townes argument leaves the door open to too many religions. I am interested not in reconciling religion and science, but in reconciling Christianity and science.
Science and Christianity: Technology as a Gift is how Catez at Allthings2all starts a post in which she calls for a showcase of blog posts on the subject. In her post calling the showcase, Catez points out both the wonders and the horrors that science has produced.
This is a great starting point for my primary thesis. Science and Christianity are not opposed, scientists and Christians are.
This perception of opposition began in the earliest days of science itself, the time of the Reformation and Renaissance. It begins in the now very famous duel between Galileo and the Roman Church. Some of what underlies this old dispute is most interesting. It arose in large part because the church was funding Galileo's work, so as is usually the case with funded science, the funder wants certain results. The church was wrong in this case and has finally admitted so. But why were they doing such funding to begin with?
Because they believed that in discovering more about God's creation, we could discover more about God Himself. This concept was largely rejected after Galileo's misfortune, but I for the life of me cannot understand why. The church's objections to Galileo's work are understandable, though not excusable, given the circumstances of the time. Protestantism was on the rise. Calvinism in particular was spreading with it's teachings of the supremacy of God and humility of man, and along comes Galileo with scientific evidence than mankind was not the center of everything. I personally think the church was really more concerned about a theological battle with protestants than it was in a battle with science. The problem really wasn't science -- the problem was political, the Roman Church was losing it's grip on the world and this was just another nail in the coffin of their empire. As a protestant and a Calvinist, I am rather happy with the theological conclusion that can be drawn from Galileo's work. I believe science really did tell us something about God, and that it continues to do so today.
The first characteristic of God that we see in scripture is His creativity. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created us in His image. Gen 1:26 - Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." If we are indeed after God's likeness, then are not we too creative? In this aspect the biggest difference between us and God is that God can create from nothing, but we can create only from that which He has given us. In a very real sense, science is nothing more than discovering the properties of that which He has given us in order to use it in a creative fashion. Science is exercising God's image.
But then , all things that we do exercises God's image in one fashion or another, because that is the essence of who we are. Unfortunately, we are a warped and broken image. Thus we may use the creative power, or any other power that God has given us, in His image, for either good or evil. This is the precise point that I think Catez was making in her original post. More on this in a minute.
Where people really get into problems is when they attempt to base their faith in God only in what they see of Him in His creation. If I read Crime and Punishment, I do know something of Dovstoevsky, but I do not know all of him. Now imagine that instead of simply writing a story Dovstoevsky actually created Rashkolnikov, sent him out only to do good things, with the intent of following him around and writing down his story. Only instead of doing the good things Dovstoevsky wanted Rashkolnikov to do, he went ahead and committed the murder around which the novel is based. Now the book tells us even less about Dovstoevsky than it did before.
One cannot do a biography of a novelist purely by reading the work of that novelist, one can only be a literary critic. No, to be a biographer, you must look at more than just the creations of your subject. So it is with God. If one bases his or her entire view of God on this creation you will be left with only criticism, you will never really get to know God. The best I can ever do with science is enhance my understanding of God, but to really know Him, I must pursue other avenues.
Because God is supernatural, those avenues of exploration are going to be on a level that science simply cannot operate on. I can state unequivocally that I have experienced God, but I cannot subject that experience to measurement or even language. Science, with its emphasis on measurement, excludes such experiences from its purview. This means that ultimately science can never prove nor disprove faith. To know God in any really sense we must open ourselves up to experiences beyond the scientific.
That does not mean; however, that our faith in God should not affect our science. We have a choice in what we do in science, and in its application which we call technology. We can do good and we can do evil. The question now becomes what is good and what is evil. And herein lies the heart of the matter, apart from God, based solely on science, the concepts of good and evil cannot even be formulated. Moralistic relativity is the only ethical code, if one can call it that, at which we can arrive without some sort of external arbiter of good and evil. This is God's role in science -- He guides us towards good applications of science and steers us away from the evil ones.
The issue is not really between God and science, but between science with God or science without God. Science without God will and has lead us down avenues that are quite evil. Science with God has brought us unimaginable bounty and prosperity.
In the end there is no battle between science and Christianity, there is only the age old battle between man and God. The battle wherein we attempt to take God's place. And thus the battle between Christians and scientists. Scientists that do not hold faith and operate out of moralistic relativism will follow their science and technology wherever it leads them. Christians, and especially Christian scientists will not.
The ultimate solution to the perceived conflict lies not in the individual disputes, but in altering frames of reference. Evangelism is, in the end, the answer.
But in the meantime, we as Christians, must chose which individual battles we fight very carefully. Evil applications of science we must battle, but we need to do so without battling science itself. We must also realize that science is not in and of itself anti-God, it is a revelatory activity, though those revelations are limited.
Consider all the wonders that God has made. Explore them, learn of them and proclaim How great is God.
Such is a hot topic right now. Nobel Laureate Charles Hard Townes (inventor of the laser and maser) has been awarded the Templeton Prize for progress or discoveries about spiritual reality. USA Today has a nice profile of Dr. Townes (HT: Michelle Malkin via Broken Masterpieces) Dr. Townes has been given this award in large part based on an article he published called The Convergence of Science and Religion.
Dr. Townes piece calls for a convergence of science and religion because their manners of approach to problems are often similar. He bases his analysis on the uncertainty and duality of quantum mechanics and the similarities such thought has with religious thought. This is a powerful argument, but I do not think it goes far enough. Numerous books have been written shoving eastern mysticism into the uncertainty and duality gaps in quantum mechanics. Dr. Townes argument leaves the door open to too many religions. I am interested not in reconciling religion and science, but in reconciling Christianity and science.
Science and Christianity: Technology as a Gift is how Catez at Allthings2all starts a post in which she calls for a showcase of blog posts on the subject. In her post calling the showcase, Catez points out both the wonders and the horrors that science has produced.
This is a great starting point for my primary thesis. Science and Christianity are not opposed, scientists and Christians are.
This perception of opposition began in the earliest days of science itself, the time of the Reformation and Renaissance. It begins in the now very famous duel between Galileo and the Roman Church. Some of what underlies this old dispute is most interesting. It arose in large part because the church was funding Galileo's work, so as is usually the case with funded science, the funder wants certain results. The church was wrong in this case and has finally admitted so. But why were they doing such funding to begin with?
Because they believed that in discovering more about God's creation, we could discover more about God Himself. This concept was largely rejected after Galileo's misfortune, but I for the life of me cannot understand why. The church's objections to Galileo's work are understandable, though not excusable, given the circumstances of the time. Protestantism was on the rise. Calvinism in particular was spreading with it's teachings of the supremacy of God and humility of man, and along comes Galileo with scientific evidence than mankind was not the center of everything. I personally think the church was really more concerned about a theological battle with protestants than it was in a battle with science. The problem really wasn't science -- the problem was political, the Roman Church was losing it's grip on the world and this was just another nail in the coffin of their empire. As a protestant and a Calvinist, I am rather happy with the theological conclusion that can be drawn from Galileo's work. I believe science really did tell us something about God, and that it continues to do so today.
The first characteristic of God that we see in scripture is His creativity. Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created us in His image. Gen 1:26 - Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." If we are indeed after God's likeness, then are not we too creative? In this aspect the biggest difference between us and God is that God can create from nothing, but we can create only from that which He has given us. In a very real sense, science is nothing more than discovering the properties of that which He has given us in order to use it in a creative fashion. Science is exercising God's image.
But then , all things that we do exercises God's image in one fashion or another, because that is the essence of who we are. Unfortunately, we are a warped and broken image. Thus we may use the creative power, or any other power that God has given us, in His image, for either good or evil. This is the precise point that I think Catez was making in her original post. More on this in a minute.
Where people really get into problems is when they attempt to base their faith in God only in what they see of Him in His creation. If I read Crime and Punishment, I do know something of Dovstoevsky, but I do not know all of him. Now imagine that instead of simply writing a story Dovstoevsky actually created Rashkolnikov, sent him out only to do good things, with the intent of following him around and writing down his story. Only instead of doing the good things Dovstoevsky wanted Rashkolnikov to do, he went ahead and committed the murder around which the novel is based. Now the book tells us even less about Dovstoevsky than it did before.
One cannot do a biography of a novelist purely by reading the work of that novelist, one can only be a literary critic. No, to be a biographer, you must look at more than just the creations of your subject. So it is with God. If one bases his or her entire view of God on this creation you will be left with only criticism, you will never really get to know God. The best I can ever do with science is enhance my understanding of God, but to really know Him, I must pursue other avenues.
Because God is supernatural, those avenues of exploration are going to be on a level that science simply cannot operate on. I can state unequivocally that I have experienced God, but I cannot subject that experience to measurement or even language. Science, with its emphasis on measurement, excludes such experiences from its purview. This means that ultimately science can never prove nor disprove faith. To know God in any really sense we must open ourselves up to experiences beyond the scientific.
That does not mean; however, that our faith in God should not affect our science. We have a choice in what we do in science, and in its application which we call technology. We can do good and we can do evil. The question now becomes what is good and what is evil. And herein lies the heart of the matter, apart from God, based solely on science, the concepts of good and evil cannot even be formulated. Moralistic relativity is the only ethical code, if one can call it that, at which we can arrive without some sort of external arbiter of good and evil. This is God's role in science -- He guides us towards good applications of science and steers us away from the evil ones.
The issue is not really between God and science, but between science with God or science without God. Science without God will and has lead us down avenues that are quite evil. Science with God has brought us unimaginable bounty and prosperity.
In the end there is no battle between science and Christianity, there is only the age old battle between man and God. The battle wherein we attempt to take God's place. And thus the battle between Christians and scientists. Scientists that do not hold faith and operate out of moralistic relativism will follow their science and technology wherever it leads them. Christians, and especially Christian scientists will not.
The ultimate solution to the perceived conflict lies not in the individual disputes, but in altering frames of reference. Evangelism is, in the end, the answer.
But in the meantime, we as Christians, must chose which individual battles we fight very carefully. Evil applications of science we must battle, but we need to do so without battling science itself. We must also realize that science is not in and of itself anti-God, it is a revelatory activity, though those revelations are limited.
Consider all the wonders that God has made. Explore them, learn of them and proclaim How great is God.
