AUDIO
 |
Phillip Jensen speaks on Anger as part of a series on emotions in the Christian life, delivered at the Australia Day Convention 2010
|
Apologies to science teachers, but I hated science at school. Unfortunately my only memories are the rather stereotypical horror of dissected rats and frustration over chemistry experiments gone pear-shaped. Maybe a combination of this natural dislike and personal ignorance is why I’ve kept my distance from science since school.
However, I’m becoming increasingly convinced that, as a Christian, ignorance is not the best policy. This is because of the position taken on science by many atheists, particularly those within the New Atheism movement. Science, they say, is the opposite of religious belief. As such, the broad discipline of science has been co-opted for the atheistic cause. This apparent dichotomy is expressed in non-intersecting, categorical terms such as naturalism versus supernaturalism, rational versus irrational/superstitious and educated versus ignorant; in the inflammatory words of Richard Dawkins: ‘Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists.’ ‘No heaven, no hell, just science’ sums up the catch-cry of the New Atheists, whose mantra is now prominent in popular consciousness.
Therefore, I think it’s important for Christians, even Christians of the non-scientific variety like me, to do some thinking on the issue. In recent weeks, while putting together the current issue of Case magazine that is focusing on science and faith, I’ve been helped by Christian scientists (not an oxymoron) to see the falsity of the science versus faith dichotomy and, more exactly, the science versus Christianity dichotomy. In brief, here are a few helpful things I’ve learnt that may also be useful for non-scientific people such as myself:
1. Modern science developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from Christian convictions. In particular, science arose from the belief, grounded in the Bible, that God is orderly, rational and trustworthy, and that his creation reflects his character. It is this belief that opened the way for the experimental, systematic study of God’s natural world, primarily by Christians, called ‘science’.
2. It is possible to be a respected scientist and a Christian. Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are prominent examples from today and yesteryear.
3. By definition, the study of the supernatural is not an activity of science (which is the study of the mechanisms of the natural world). It’s not the task of science to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural.
4. Atheism is not the inevitable conclusion of evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution does not discredit or destroy belief in God and, specifically, Christianity. (Indeed, as the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, Christianity stands on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and will only be destroyed if it is proved that Jesus did not rise from the dead. ‘… if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.’ (1 Corinthians 15:17))
5. Atheism is arguably a religion. The third definition of ‘religion’ in the 2007 edition of The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus is ‘a pursuit or interest that is very important to someone’. In this respect, the New Atheism could be called a religion as it is very important for its proponents to convince others to adhere to their pursuits. As Dawkins says, ‘I’m quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism’ . The language of New Atheism is that of religious rhetoric. Here is part of the highly-charged exhortation from their web site:
‘Wake up people!! We are smart enough now to kill our invisible gods and oppressive beliefs. It is the responsibility of the educated to educate the uneducated, lest we fall prey to the tyranny of ignorance.’
The use of science to argue against religion has, in more ‘extreme’ cases, moved from a scientific argument to a religious one. John Lennox puts it succinctly:
‘I see the conflict as not between science and religion at all, it’s between two world views: atheism and theism ...’
These points have given me greater confidence in the God of the Bible (and in science!) Does anyone else have any helpful points?
Perhaps if Christians wrote more articles celebrating "The 5 things Science DID teach me",the debate would lessen and begin to be replaced by more dialogue about the wonderful things science and faith do share (like endless curiosity and awe at the universe, and a dogged persistence in seeking answers to emerging questions, for example)
While we can claim Newton as a theist, I'm not certain that we can claim him as a Christian. Most of the articles and documentaries I've encountered about him seem to indicate that he appears to have held non-orthodox beliefs concerning the Trinity, although what those beliefs were is still being debated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views
Secondly however, "evolution" from one kind of creature to another "higher" kind with more or different genetic information has never been observed. It is impossible, if there is no contribution from an outside Intelligence to supply the new information. Theistic evolutionists say God miraculously supplied the information. Creationists agree, but accept God's testimony that he did it within the six days, and all kinds independantly, separately, within a very short period, not one kind from a "lower" kind. Available evidence fits this perfectly.
Atheists have a story which says information increased by accident, without any intervention from a god. They interpret the same evidence accordingly
Atheists and Christians (whether six day creationists or theistic evolutionists) can never agree regarding this second type of "evolution", due to their different starting pre-suppositions about the existence or non-existence of an active Creator. The disagreement is about the existence of God, revelation, and past history, not testable science.
A global flood c 4500 years ago means fossils all lived then or since?
So, please, define 'science' as the study of repeatedly occurring mechanisms of the natural world. Let us work towards clearing up the confusion as to what can be known 'scientifically' about past events and what are merely naturalistic opinions, based on the assumption that nature is all there is, about the cause of any past event.
It can't. It can only have something naturalistic to say about them. That is one reason why people keep making up naturalistic theories (such as the 'swoon theory') to try to explain away the resurrection.
Where the currently existing remains of an historical event display features that can be compared to features of events that have been investigated scientifically in the present (because they are repeatedly occurring events and thus are amenable to 'scientific' investigation in the present) then what we know from the present can, with some caution, be extrapolated into the past. For instance, it's not unreasonable to use knowledge obtained by studying volcanic eruptions occurring in the present to explain what happened, unstudied, during eruptions that occurred in the past. For example, because of what has been learned by observing pyroclastic flows we can explain why so many people died at Saint-Pierre in Martinique in 1902 and at Pompeii in 79AD.
But for one-off past events (such as the resurrection and, also, the origin of life) science has, and can have, nothing to say. That is a true statement even if both events did occur naturally. And that is simply because such things are not happening today and, therefore, can
... and, therefore, can be neither observed nor experimented on.
Next time I will try to do better.
Thanks Tim for your thoughts. My first comment is that I titled my blog post ‘5 things I never learnt in science class’ – I deliberately wanted to focus on my lack of knowledge which made me less confident to speak about Christianity and science - rather than infer any blame on the part of science. (No hard feelings towards the editors of this blog – it was my fault for not stressing the need to keep my original title.)
Tim I think you make a good point re also stressing the commonality between science and faith. However, I’m not sure that it’s a case of one or the other. Whether we like it or not, as you say, Dawkins and co are making outrageous claims about how faith is opposed to science and these claims are the predominant rhetoric in the public domain. So I think that as Christians we either enter into the ‘debate’ or allow the general public to believe that Dawkins and co are right. Hopefully Christians giving considered and considerate responses will help to show that, much as New Atheists and the like would like to portray science and Christianity as being in hostile opposition to one another (which was the main point of my original blog post).
Roger, thanks for the point re Newton. I did wonder about including Newton’s name - I don’t know a lot about Newton’s beliefs but do understand that some may not be mainstream Christian beliefs. However, I left his name in as my main point was that he was both a scientist and someone who believed in God.
Thanks Frank for your comments. The intention of my blog post wasn’t to go down the line of a creationism versus evolution debate. My main point was that atheism is not the inevitable conclusion of evolutionary theory. I wasn’t arguing for the compatibility or lack thereof of evolution and Christianity but for breaking the illogical nexus between the theory of evolution and atheism.
Thanks Janice for your helpful clarification of my third point. Just to add, I certainly wasn’t trying to make any connections between points 3 and 4 - that is, I wasn’t suggesting that the resurrection of Jesus can be proved scientifically – just that it’s the resurrection and not the origins of the creation, upon which Christianity stands.
However, my point is that there is in fact a very logical nexus between my second description of evolution, and atheism. This connection cannot be broken, because such evolutionism is really just a logical deduction from atheism.
Dawkins and friends rightly see any attempt to bring God into it (by theistic evolutionists or ID) as a misunderstanding or ignorance of the the true nature of evolution and its meaning.
And a full Biblical understanding of the resurrection, and death of Jesus, on which Christianity stands, comes from the historical nature and meaning of the creation and fall events.
Your assertion that Christianity had nothing to do with the development of science is completely wrong.
I suggest you read Stanley Jaki on the origin of modern science. The linked article is just a very small fraction of his output and argument on the matter.
There is a whole series of other articles on the subject here.
That's all I have time for right now.
1. Thanks for the links Janice. Marc, I was focusing on modern science.
3. Science may be able to study the natural manifestations of claims of supernatural activity but it cannot, as I originally said, prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Also, I think it's important to distinguish between prayer (humans communicating God) and prophecy (God communicating with humans). The Bible tells us that prophecy can be tested, not so much by science as by history. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 says: 'You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.' There is not such a direct correlation between prayer and observable events as prayer is not about telling God what to do but a means of relating with him. Within the context of this relationship with God we may ask him for things as part of our prayers but the Bible is very clear that we cannot presume upon a particular answer - God is God and he will answer our prayers in accordance with his will, not ours. Science cannot test if prayer works.
I think I'll continue in another post ...
5. We can quibble over the definition of ‘religion’ but there is no doubt that on the agenda of New Atheists is a conscious and unashamed ambition to win others over to their perspective - an ambition that displays all the characteristics of religious fervour.
Thanks again for your comments,
Roberta