Science in Christian Perspective
Reply to Geisler
Richard H. Bube
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
From: JASA 32 (March1980): 58
It is important to realize that the partial truth we have is
truth because it
partially corresponds to reality, but it is partial truth because it does not
correspond wholly to reality. There are similarities between
partial truth and
parabolic statements. Parables present a truthful message in terms of a story
with its own characters, script and scenario; to confuse the latter with the
truthful message, however, can often lead to confusion. In the same way our
models of reality tell us something truthfully about reality, but we may be
in serious error to suppose that the model itself faithfully
mirrors reality.
Certainly all theological language is not metaphorical. Metaphors
are essential
when trying to describe something outside our experience. Such descriptions
must be given in terms of categories that are within our
experience. Thus biblical
statements about human actions and crucifixions etc. are not
metaphorical, but
biblical statements about the origins and consummation of the
universe and about
the nature of God are necessarily metaphorical.
The existence of an objective reality given to us by the creative activity of
God is accepted solely on faith. Our experience tells us that
scientific descriptions
of this reality have always fallen short of its full description (as witness
the continual change in scientific paradigms throughout human history), and
it is hardly an act of scepticism to conclude that any particular scientific
description is likely to prove inadequate or incomplete in the
future. The history
of science is replete with examples of situations where scientists believed
they had the final true description of the universe, only to be promptly or
gradually proved incorrect.
The Bible does tell us something about the way God really is. It tells us in
what ways God is like things and persons we know, and in what ways
God is unlike
things and persons we know. Such descriptions take the form of "inspired
pictures."
I am surprised that Dr. Geisler apparently confuses paradox with
contradiction,
and believes that acceptance of paradox is a sign of neo-orthodoxy. Nowhere
did I state that God's attributes are paradoxical, and certainly
not that they
are contradictory. Still, no less an orthodox theologian than Vernon Grounds
writing in the orthodox Christian Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological Society
[7, 3 (1964)] has described seven basic paradoxes in the biblical revelation.
I would not think that Grounds fits in the category of a "
'modern' existential
theologian." And of course a paradox is an apparent contradiction, not
a genuine logical contradiction.
I do indeed mean that God cannot state the scientific truth in Scripture. But
this is not a limitation on God; it is a limitation imposed by
human communication.
It is highly likely that the scientific truth about nature requires concepts,
categories, and thought processes as far removed from us as would a
description
in terms of quarks, leptons, photons, supernovae etc. have been for
the people for whom the communication of the Scriptures was given. The baste
question remains unanswered: Why would anyone suppose that God would choose
to reveal scientific information in the Scriptures when it is
evident that such
a revelation is far from the total context and purpose of the
scriptural writings?