Science in Christian Perspective
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHRISTIAN TRUTH AND THE NATURAL SCIENCES
Richard H. Bube, Editor
From: JASA 31 (June 1979): 65-68.
What Is Truth?
Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make
you free."
Pilate said, "What is truth?"
Misunderstandings of what is meant by "truth" underly
apparent conflicts
between Christian thought and the natural sciences, which have
far-reaching consequences
into other areas as well.
It is sometimes thought that truth is simple, easily understood, something to
be known with the mind, capable of being grasped totally or not at all. I offer
a simple definition of truth: that which conforms with reality. This definition
assumes the biblical picture of Cod as Creator and Sustainer of a reality that
exists independently of us, although we certainly play a significant
role in it.
It is a definition that upholds the validity of the concept of objective truth
as opposed to relative subjective "truths"; it is a seeking for truth
in what really is, rather than a manufacture of "truth" out
of our own
wills.
Truth is not necesarily simple. The profundities of the paradox of
the sovereignty
of Cod and the responsibility of man, and the challenges of the quantum theory
or relativity push the human mind to its limits.
Truth is not necessarily easily understood. Some truths are beyond
our human abilities
to comprehend simply because we are finite and temporal creatures.
Truth is not necessarily an intellectual proposition to be grasped
and remembered.
Rather it is a principle to be embodied in living practice. Jesus
also said, "I
am the Truth," implying that truth has a profoundly personal content.
Partial Truth
Total truth is something that we seldom-that we really never have in
our possession.
What is commonly our lot is partial truth. We understand something of
the nature
of truth, but never the complete picture. There is no apology
necessary for this
limitation to partial truth; it is the nature of our existence. The
one who claims
that if we can know only partial truth, we can never lay claim to knowing truth
at all (a common approach of both orthodox and liberal theologians),
is mistaken.
Science, for example, is a kind of partial partial truth- (partial)2 truth, if
you
like. It provides us with partial truth about part of the world. It is partial
truth,
because we can never know everything, and even what we know is only in terms of
comparisons. It is partial truth about part of the world, because the
scientific
method itself insists that our scientific truth be limited to
descriptions involving
natural categories only.
Whenever we move from what is known to what is unknown, we proceed by
describing
the unknown in terms of the known. Since this description can never
be complete,
our expression of truth can never be complete.
Metaphors
Another way of saying this is to state that in both science and
Christian theology
we are involved with the expression of metaphors. In science we have the models
of our theories; these are metaphors pure and simple, attempting to
describe the
complexities of the real world in a framework of our mentally
conceivable models
of experience. Models of matter, for example, extend from a continuum view, to
atomic views in which atoms are viewed progressively as small balls, miniature
planetary systems, and charge distributions in space. We strive year by year to
move closer to more and more accurate descriptions of reality, believing as an
act of scientific faith that the more accurate the description, the
more closely
does the model correspond to the physical details of reality. We believe that
the process of oxidation is more realistically described by chemical
combination
with oxygen than in terms of the phlogiston theory, that heat flow is
more realistically
described in terms of the kinetic theory of gases than in terms of a
caloric fluid,
and that an Einsteinian view of the universe is more faithful to the
actual character
of the universe than is a Newtonian view.
Scientific truth, however, is defined for today. It is what
corresponds to today's
understanding of how to describe reality. Tomorrow scientific truth may change.
There is no apology needed; this is the essence of the scientific process, the
ladder of scientific advance. Each transient model embodies some aspects of the
total truth, of the nature of the actual reality; each is partially true, but
none represents the true picture of the universe.
Also in theology we have models, metaphors if you will, to reveal to
us the nature
of God and His relationship to the world. These are divinely inspired pictures
attempting to convey partial truth to us about that which transcends
human apprehension
by using terms and concepts familiar to us. Metaphors for God include: Father,
King, Husband, Bridegroom, Hen. God is truly like a father but not wholly like
a father; God is truly like a father, indeed, only if a father is
truly like God.
This metaphor loses some of its usefulness if offered to a child who has been
the victim of abuse at the hands of his parents. Metaphors for
salvation include:
healing, wholeness, redemption, reconciliation, payment of legal
debt, sacrifice,
and victory over Satan. Because these biblical metaphors are divinely inspired,
we are assured of their authority and their reliability; still our
understanding
remains partial and we do not understand the totality of divine
reality. Effective
metaphors also may change with time, and every Bible teacher is familiar with
the problem of making Biblical metaphors (shepherds, vineyard keeper, slaves)
convey to modem hearers what they were intended to do in the biblical
revelation.
Using More than One Metaphor
Now it is traditionally a bad practice to mix one's metaphors. But using more
than one metaphor is often essential if we are to convey as much of the partial
truth as we have at our disposal.
We speak of electrons as particles and as waves. Yet we know that
neither metaphor
is able to handle the total observed activity of electrons. Choice of
experiment
decides which metaphor is more useful.
We speak of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, even though
we are not able to see through to the end the simultaneous application of these
two concepts. Choice of perspective decides which metaphor is more useful.
We speak of the human being as a pile of inorganic and organic chemicals and as
a creature made in the image of God, even though we are hard put to understand
how our physiology and our spirituality fit together. Choice of
category of description
decides which metaphor is more useful.
Using more than one metaphor may he an attempt to cover up our ignorance. A
number of blind men trying to describe an elephant might be heard saying that
an elephant was like a rope (its tail), or like a leaf (its ear), or
like a column
(its leg), but their confusion could he cleared up by recognizing the
whole elephant
as a large mammal. Bu sometimes using more than one metaphor is the consequence
of our inherent limitations in trying to describe the indescribable in terms of
the concepts we are used to thinking about. And sometimes more than
one metaphor
is demanded simply because we choose different kinds of catgories for
our various
descriptions:
A painting is a collection of brush strokes and the Mona Lisa. Any
attempt to
view the painting in terms of the details of the brush strokes (as
with a magnifying
glass) will make it imposible to view the entire picture as a portrait.
A symphony is an assortment of musical notes and the rousing impact
of Beethoven's
Ninth. Love is a physiological phenomenon involving two persons and a profound
interpersonal commitment.
These sets of descriptions are each a complementary pair; they cannot
be simultaneously
applied. Any effort to move into the frame of reference of one type
of description
automatically precludes seeing the phenomenon in the frame of reference of the
other type of description. Yet both types of description convey
significant partial
truth about the matter being discussed.
We begin to see, therefore, how scientific descriptions and
theological descriptions
can he used together-in fact insist be used together to bring out the richness
of created reality on all of its possible category levels. If we have only the
scientific description, our understanding is the poorer.
For simple aspects of reality such as atoms and electrons, our
scientific description
is broad and significant. Our theological description rests on the
basis of Creation
and Providence.
For complex aspects of created reality like human love, our
scientific description
in terms of physics, chemistry and physiology does not come anywhere
near to showing
the full significance of a relationship that must be seen in the full context
of God as our Redeemer and loving Lord.
For spiritual aspects of reality such as regeneration, we still have a set of
scientific descriptions, for it is corporeal human beings who are involved in
regeneration, but now the theological description assumes major importance with
its description in terms of forgiveness, eternal life and fellowship
with God.
For all aspects of created reality, whether simple or complex, there
are possible
scientific descriptions and possible theological descriptions; the
one in no way
rules out the other.
The Basis for a New Freedom
What a sense of freedom flows from this simple realization! What an
end to false
dichotomies! What an opening up of vistas for scientific and
theological integrity
and authenticity!
No more the terrible pitting of the natural against the supernatural,
of the world
without God against the world with Cod, but instead the recognition
of God's activity
in all things. Seeing God's free activity in the blooming of a flower as well
in resurrection from the dead, the former being an instance of God's normal and
regular pattern of activity and the latter an instance of God's
special revelatory
activity.
No more the conflict between natural process and God's action, but
seeing natural
process as God's action. Recognizing that the discovery of a
scientific description
for a phenomenon does not exclude a theological description in terms
of the activity
of God.
No more the strangeness of God's intervention into His orderly
universe to effect
miracles (for what orderly universe is there except that state of
matter maintained
moment-by-moment by the free activity of God?), but instead the
consistent working
of God according to his intrinsic freedom both in the natural course of events
and in the special course of events we recognize as miracles. No more
the picture
of God using natural law-for what natural law is there except our description
of God's regular and normal pattern of activity?
No more the struggle between man as garbage, as machine, as animal,
or as creature
made in the image of God, but man, made a little lower than the
angels: garbage,
yes! machine, yes! animal, yes!-hut . . . destined for fellowship
with God, yes!
No more the inevitable strife between creation and evolution, as
though one must
of necessity choose between the two, but rather complete commitment
to God the
Creator regardless of the activity He engaged in to create. Making
clear the distinction
between worldviews of biblical Creation vs atheistic Evolutionism,
and the possible
scientific mechanisms such as instantaneous creation or continuous
process, which
are our descriptions of God's activity.
No more the searching for evidence of God in the nooks and crannies
of human ignorance
and failure, but the welcoming of the Lord at the very center of life, ruling
our knowledge and our ignorance, our strength and our weakness. Recognizing
that the God-of-the-gaps, the God who depends for evidence of his existence on
the
gaps in human knowledge and understanding, is only a poor caricature of the God
of the Bible, the Lord of Reality.
No more the dichotomy between body and soul or spirit, as though I had a body,
a soul, and a spirit, the body being somehow natural, the soul
betwixt and between,
and the spirit being supernatural; but one whole person created by
God who calls
me into life and spiritual fellowship with Himself out of the very stuff of the
earth.
No more an endless groping for fine distinctions, between choices that must be
made either/or, of faithfulness to scientific investigation vs faithfulness to
the Word of God; but instead a wholehearted embracing of both/and to the glory
of God.
Understanding the Bible
Finally we are freed from that view of the Bible that would force it
into a mold
of our own conception-that it was not written to fit! The phrase "biblical
inerrancy" has come to mean for many an absolutely truthful book, a book
that tells the absolute truth in every conceivable category
regardless of whether
the authors of that book under divine inspiration were using that category or
not. This is a view that develops from a faulty apprehension of truth; it does
not recognize what we have fried to say about partial truth, but
insists instead
that partial truth is unworthy of God. Surely He must me able to
convey the absolute
truth to us, for is He not God? But even God cannot-and indeed will not attempt
to-convey His revelation to us except in those forms with which we can relate;
the unknowns must be described in terms of the known, even in a
Divine Metaphor.
The indiscriminate claim than an inerrant Bible must be scientifically accurate
is a claim that contains its own contradiction, for scientific truth
is a transient
and changing thing. A revelation given in the terms of one view of
science during
one period (then the scientific truth) must in all likelihood become scientific
non-truth a few years later. To argue otherwise is to suppose that
the scientific
truth can he known and stated once and for all.
What we see instead is the revelation of God coming to man largely in terms of
historical events witnessed by the authors and authenticated by their readers
and hearers, interpreted by divine guidance and inspiration. In those special
areas of revelation outside any human experience-the origin of all things and
the final consummation of all things-revelation brings the
authoritative and reliable
Word of God to men through forms and concepts meaningful to those for whom they
were written. As the book of Revelation can be considered a prophecy
of the future,
so the account of origins in Genesis can be considered as a prophecy
of the past.
Surely the truth (authoritative, reliable, partial truth) of the Creation can
be completely seen whether revealed through the form of a three-story universe,
a Ptolemaic universe with the earth at the center, a Copernican universe with
the sun at the center, a Newtonian universe governed by gravity, or
an Einsteinian
universe with matter related to the structure of space-time.
To argue that an inerrant Bible must provide this revelation in terms
of the true
theory of the universe is to misunderstand the nature of scientific truth and
scientific descriptions completely. It is, in fact, to give to scientific truth
far more permanence and ultimacy than it possesses.
Epilogue
The partial truths of science do bring freedom: freedom from
ignorance, superstition,
powerlessness, and bondage to the natural forces of the world.
The divinely inspired truths of the biblical record do bring freedom: freedom
to live in an imperfect and often apparently meaningless world, secure in God's
forgiveness and love.
Relationship with Christ, the Truth, brings ultimate freedom: freedom from the
desires of our own self-centered hearts, and freedom to live a life
of meaningful
service to God.
This is the text of a Pew Lecture given at Grove City College, Grace
City, Pennsylvania,
on Match 6, 1978.