This page
is in two related parts:
1)
How can we wisely use the information in scripture
and nature, in God's Bible and God's Creation?
2) When we disagree,
in our interpretations of scripture or nature, what should we do?
We'll look at
the interactions of people with ideas (in Part 1)
and with each other (in
Part 2).
The
main goal is summarized in a question: How can we improve understanding
and respect in the Christian community, so we can more effectively bring
glory to God in our
thoughts and
actions?
an option: If you want to get a quick overview of the main ideas in this page, you can first read a condensed-and-revised version in Sections 2B-2C of my FAQ about Creation-and-Evolution. (and 2A looks at the historical myth of "warfare" between science and religion)
How can we
use God's revelations with wisdom?
A good way to think
is illustrated in Psalm 19, where an appreciation of God's dual revelations
in nature ("the
heavens declare the glory of God") and scripture ("the
law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul,... giving joy to the heart")
inspires a personal dedication: "May the words of
my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, O Lord,
my Rock and my Redeemer."
By contrast with this wisdom,
consider another way of thinking:
When we ask, "What is the
relationship between science and Christian religion?", one answer — inherent
conflict
and science-religion warfare — was proposed in the late 1800s by
John Draper and Andrew White. The metaphor of "war" is dramatic,
is useful for anti-Christian rhetoric, and has exerted a powerful influence
on popular
views about the interactions between science and religion. But this
view of history is oversimplistic and inaccurate. It does not accurately
describe what really happened, and is rejected by modern historians.
Viewing the relationship between
science and Christianity as "inherent conflict" is wrong, but is
common. When
I tell someone that I'm a scientist and a Christian, a common response is, "Wow,
how do you do it?" Sometimes this is a "why" question,
challenging my intelligence and rationality because — if there really
is a conflict between science and faith — one or the other should be
rejected by a logically consistent person. But
often it's a genuine "how" question,
an invitation to explain how I cope with the disagreement (assumed by the
questioner) between conclusions in science and statements in the Bible.
In responding to the question "How
do you do it?", what should we say? How can we reconcile science
and the Bible? The next section explains why "science and Bible" is
the wrong question, and why — because perceived conflict is
not actual conflict — we can have confidence in both of God's
revelations, in scripture and nature.
Realities
and Interpretations
There is no actual
conflict between the realities of scripture
and nature, but sometimes there is a perceived conflict when
we compare our interpretations of scripture
and nature. The important distinction between reality and interpretation
is illustrated in a three-level diagram:
On the top level is God, the ultimate
source of everything.
On the middle level are God-produced realities:
the scripture God inspired, and the nature God
created. On the lower level are human-produced theories:
our theology (based on interpretations of scripture)
and our science (based on interpretations of
nature).
The two levels illustrate an important
principle: We cannot compare scripture with science, because
they are on different levels, but we can compare theology (a fallible
human interpretation) with science (another fallible human interpretation) while
trying to search for truth.
On the bottom level, the goal descriptions are oversimplified, but are useful for thinking about theology and science and their interactions. In theology, the main goal is to understand spiritual realities. In science, the main goal is to understand physical realities. But the main goals aren't the only goals, and our theories about spiritual and physical realities are interactive. The interactions are indicated by two horizontal arrows on the lower level, which show mutual influences: theology affects science and our views of physical reality, while science affects theology and our views of spiritual reality. {diagram is adapted from Deborah Haarsma}
As explained above, the main
goals of theology and science are not the only goals, and our interpretations
of nature and scripture influence each other. These mutual interactions,
general and specific, are examined below in the next two sections.
What does theology say about physical
reality?
First, instead of thinking "natural" means "without
God," Christians should see natural process — which is the focus
of study in science — as being designed and created by God, and perhaps
guided by God. We believe that God can use natural process to change
our situations and our thoughts and actions, and that He responds to prayer,
usually in ways that appear normal and natural.
Second, the Bible teaches that
although God's activities in physical reality usually appear natural, occasionally
His actions appear miraculous. Therefore, when we are trying to understand
what is happening now and what has happened in the history of nature, the
range of possibilities is expanded because we believe that God can act in
ways that appear either natural or miraculous.
How are these theological beliefs — about
spiritual reality and physical reality, for the natural and miraculous — related
to science? To get an accurate understanding of the relationships between
theology and science, we must distinguish between derivable and compatible. Christian
theology, based on the Bible, cannot be derived from
science (so it is nonscientific) but is
compatible with science (so it is not unscientific).
What does science say about spiritual
reality?
In principle, science can reach no
scientific conclusions about the ultimate source of natural process, although
evidence for a design
of the universe may decrease the scientific plausibility of atheism
which claims an "accidental universe" with no designer or creator. And
scientists should be humble about their naturalistic theories (by claiming "if
it occurred naturally, then ___") so they can remain open to the possibility
of miracles, whether or not they choose to acknowledge this possibility
in their scientific theories.
In practice, however, our views
of spiritual reality can be influenced by our perceptions of science and
by the personal
views of scientists. These personal views vary widely and usually remain
private, but occasionally scientists make public statements about theology. For
example, Carl Sagan began Cosmos, his highly
acclaimed film
series and book, with a clear declaration of atheism: "The
Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." And
the National Association of Biology Teachers, from 1995 to 1997, claimed
that “natural” means “without
God” when they declared that natural evolution is
an “unsupervised” process.
Although these bold declarations about
theology were made "in the name of science" by a scientist and
by the leaders of a science education organization, their claims were personal
opinions, not scientific conclusions. Unfortunately, however, such
claims can exert an unhealthy spiritual influence on readers who respect
science, and who — because they don't understand the difference between
what science can and cannot logically conclude about theology — think
the claims are scientific.
Why do some scientists make these theological
claims, and why do some intelligent people mistakenly think the claims are
scientific? Usually, confusion occurs when we fail to distinguish between science (our
investigations of physical reality using observations, imagination, and logic)
and scientism, which is "an
exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science... to
provide a comprehensive unified picture of the meaning of the cosmos." {from
Webster's Dictionary}
Scientism begins with a good
idea that, when exaggerated, becomes a bad idea. Science has earned
our trust because it has been useful for understanding many aspects of physical
reality
and for developing technology. But this trust should not be extended
into areas where it is not justified, where science is not useful. We
can trust science for some things and not others. When confidence in
science is misplaced and becomes scientism, it can lead us to wrong conclusions. For
example, scientism (but not science) might claim that events which "violate
scientific law" cannot occur. Two ways that scientism (but not
science) can lead to naturism — an atheistic
belief that nature is all that exists — are
explained in Science
and Christianity: Are they compatible?
In the ASA, we think that science is
good but scientism is bad, that when a Christian embraces science but rejects
scientism, the result should be stronger faith. When science is used
wisely, to help us answer only appropriate questions, we learn more about
God's creation, and this gives us more reasons to praise God.
Here is an interlude
about Natural Theology:
When
we're "reading
the two books" we should not try to use either book to "teach us" what
it isn't intended to teach, since this can lead to wrong ideas. Above,
I explain why we shouldn't let naturalistic science teach us that all of
history is totally naturalistic, with no miracles. Below, I explain
why we should be cautious when using scripture to teach us about the detailed
workings of nature, especially when the "message from nature" is
clear, as it was for our solar system (in 1700) and (now) as it seems to
be for the age of the earth and universe.
Another
question is the relationship between scriptural theology (based
on our study of the Bible) and natural theology (based
on our study of nature). Eventually, I'll
revise these two sections (above and below) to include this. Until then,
here is part of the "Natural Theology" section in a links-page about THE
TWO BOOKS OF GOD:
Our science can influence
our theology, thus moving it in the direction of natural theology, when we
ask, "Does God exist? What does God do? What is God like?",
and we use our understanding of nature to construct our understanding of
God. It's important to ask, "How should science influence
our theology?"
These questions — about
what the interactions between science and theology can be, and should be — are
difficult, and they won't be "answered" here. But here is a
useful principle:
In the ASA journal, Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith, George Murphy (March 2006) looks at
the "two books" concept, and explains why it's better to use scriptural
theology (based on the Bible) instead of natural theology (based
on what we see in nature) as a foundation for building our understanding
of God, especially the character of God: "We
should begin with the knowledge of God revealed in the history of Israel
which culminates in Christ. Then we know that the creator, the author
of the book of nature, is to be identified with the crucified and risen
Christ, and we can read the book of God's works in that light. ... We
can learn about nature simply by reading the book of nature. But
that book will tell us something about its author only if we have first
read the
Bible and understood its witness to Jesus Christ."
What was the change in theology? In
1500, people claimed that the Bible teaches an earth-centered universe when
it says "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries
back to where it rises," when it describes a mobile sun that "rises
at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other" and
a stationary earth: "the
world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (Ecclesiastes
1:5, Psalm 19:6, Psalm 93:1) In 1700, almost everyone agreed that the
Bible authors were simply describing what seems to be happening when we observe
the sun, just as we now talk about
a sunrise or sunset.
What caused this change? Our interpretation
of the Bible was influenced by information from nature, interpreted using
science. This influence was beneficial, since it helped us recognize
that in these passages the Bible was not making a scientific statement teaching
us "how the heavens go." {two ways to
achieve harmony}
In this reinterpretation of
scripture, we are not comparing the Bible (which says "the sun rises")
with science (which claims "the earth moves") and deciding which
is more important. Instead, we are comparing different interpretations
(of the Bible, and of nature) and are wisely using all available information
in our search for truth.
We are trying to find the correct
answer when we ask, "Does this Bible passage teach science?" For
questions about whether a particular passage is intended to teach us about
nature,
information from nature — gathered and evaluated using scientific methods — can
be very useful. This principle of interpretation was recommended by
the International Council
on Biblical Inerrancy (1982) when they affirmed that "in
some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches,
and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations."
Part 2 — When
we disagree, what should we do?
The first part of this page explains
why, even though there is no conflict between the realities of scripture
and nature, our differing interpretations of scripture and nature can produce
a conflict between ideas. When interpretations differ, how can
we evaluate the ideas, and how can we handle our disagreements in a way that
glorifies God? These questions, about understanding and respect, are
examined in the following sections.
• UNDERSTANDING
and RESPECT
Students
in my high school learned valuable lessons about understanding and respect
from one of our favorite teachers,
who sometimes held debates in his civics class. Monday he convinced
us that "his side of the issue" was correct, but Tuesday he
made the other side look just as good. We saw him do this with many
different questions, and we learned two important lessons. First, we
realized that if our goal is to get an accurate understanding, we should
get the best information and arguments that all sides of an issue can claim
as support. Second, when we investigated more thoroughly and understood
more accurately, we usually became more respectful, because we realized that
even when we have valid reasons for preferring one position, people on other
sides of an issue may also have good reasons for believing as they do.
Let's look at some ways to improve our understanding and respect when
we ask, "How old is the universe?"
• UNDERSTANDING
To get an accurate understanding, we
should "get the best information and arguments
that all sides of an issue can claim as support" in science and
theology.
An important
question — "What is
the intended meaning of Genesis 1?" — won't be examined in depth
here, since in other
pages you can find detailed descriptions of different interpretations,
along with arguments for and against each view. I encourage you to read
these pages, to study the views and think carefully about the arguments, so
you can evaluate for yourself. The brief section below simply describes
the main views (without arguments) and does not evaluate:
Does Genesis 1 describe history in chronological
sequence? In a young-earth interpretation,
each "yom" is a 24-hour day, and the
entire creation process occurred in six consecutive days. Or creation
might have occurred in six nonconsecutive 24-hour days, with long periods
between each day. Or maybe in six "days
of proclamation" God
described what would occur during the process of creation. In a day-age view,
each "yom" is a long time period of
unspecified length. In a gap view, there
was an initial creation (in Genesis 1:1), a catastrophe (in 1:2), and a re-creation
on the earth (beginning in 1:3).
In a framework view,
the six days form a logical framework in which history is arranged topically,
not chronologically. The two problems in Genesis 1:2 — the
earth was "formless and empty" — are
solved in Days 1-3 (by separations that produce form) and Days 4-6
(by filling
each form). And if you compare the separation and filling in each
pair of parallel days (1-and-4, 2-and-5, 3-and-6) you will find parallels
between related aspects of creation. When the text is studied carefully,
it's easy to see this logical framework.
Another view, which can be combined
with some views above, proposes that Genesis 1 was written specifically for
its original readers, and the
purpose
was theological
rather than historical or scientific. In this view, Genesis 1 uses
theories about physical reality from surrounding
cultures (it uses their ancient
near-east cosmology) for the purpose of more effectively challenging
their theories about spiritual reality (their polytheistic "nature
religions").
All interpretations should emphasize
the clear statements of creation-theology in Genesis 1: Everything in nature was created
by God, and is subordinate to God. There are no polytheistic "nature
gods" so we should worship only the one true God who created everything. God's
creation is good but is not divine, so nature is placed in proper perspective. God
declared His creation to be "very good" so
we can reject the idea that physical things are intrinsically bad; our
problem is sin, not physicality. And humans are special because God
created us in His own image.
• RESPECT
Emotions often rise during disagreements
between people who feel strongly about important ideas, who think they have
found the truth and want to share it with others. During a vigorous
discussion, sometimes it's difficult to remember that treating everyone with
respect will improve interpersonal relationships, and that respect is a Christian
behavior which glorifies God because it is one aspect of "loving
your neighbor as you love yourself."
When we're thinking about controversial
questions, our personal interactions will be more enjoyable, productive,
and glorifying if we publicly acknowledge the rationality of other positions
(by recognizing that "people on other sides of
an issue may also have good reasons for believing as they do"),
adopt an attitude of respectful humility that honors the dignity of individuals
holding those positions, and remember that ideas and people are both important.
Treating others with respect is easier
if we develop an appropriate humility when estimating the certainty of our
own theories about theology and science. But appropriate humility is
difficult to define and achieve. It requires a balance between two
desirable qualities — confidence (which if overdeveloped can become
rude arrogance) and humility (which can become timid relativism) — that
are in tension. But most of us tend to err in the direction of overconfidence
in our own theories, so trying to develop the virtue of modest humility usually
has a beneficial effect.
During his Monday-and-Tuesday
debates the intention of our high school teacher, and the conclusion
of his students, was not a skeptical postmodern relativism. I think
we should use rigorous logic when evaluating all views, in order to reach
conclusions about
the plausibility of each view. Combining
this rigorous logic with a respectful attitude is difficult. But a
combining of logic (in an effort to gain understanding) with respect (in
the process
of loving
each
other)
is a worthy goal. God wants us to search for truth, and He wants the
people who love Him to love each other. Trying to achieve both of these
noble goals — truth and love — can be challenging, but it will
be an opportunity for growth in Christian character when it inspires sensitivity,
compassion, and good judgment.
Some words of wisdom — useful
in all areas of life, including our examinations of scripture and nature — come
from St. Augustine: "In essentials, unity. In
nonessentials, diversity. And in all things, charity." Behaving
with charity requires either a humility in estimating the certainty of our
own theories, or a willingness to be kind even when we feel certain that
another person is wrong. Above all, it requires a love that transcends
our differences, so everyone will know that we are disciples of Jesus because
we love one another.
Is a young earth an essential doctrine? Is
it both important and certain? Most theologians think that:
1) a young earth isn't intrinsically
important, and the truly important Christian doctrines are compatible with
either an old earth or young earth;
2) the Bible doesn't teach a young earth
with certainty, since old-earth interpretations of Genesis 1 are credible,
both linguistically and theologically.
3) In addition, abundant information
from nature indicates that the earth is not young, so instead of supporting
claims that a young earth is certainly true, this information leads almost
all scientists to conclude that a young earth is almost certainly false.
Despite these three
reasons for caution (regarding importance, certainty, and information from
nature), prominent
advocates of young-earth views boldly proclaim that "if the Bible is
true, then certainly the earth is young," and they
link the gospel of Jesus with their young-earth interpretation. They
don't think young-earth beliefs are necessary for salvation, but they do
claim that their interpretation is necessary for believing
the Bible's historical accuracy and spiritual authority, to provide a solid
historical and theological foundation for Christianity. {examples} They
claim that if we do not adopt their literal interpretation of Genesis 1,
if we question its chronological historicity and scientific accuracy, then
we are on a "slippery slope" and we
will ultimately question and reject other historical claims and doctrines
in
the Bible. Although
these claims are made with good intentions, we should ask — when the
gospel is linked with
a young earth — "Is it justified, and is it wise?"
Is it justified? As described
above, most theologians think a young-earth doctrine is neither important
nor certain, so it should not be considered an essential doctrine. And
based on information from nature, most scientists think a young earth is
certainly false.
Is it wise? Unfortunately,
a claim that "if the Bible is true, the earth is young" is logically
equivalent to saying "if the earth is not young, the Bible is not true." When
a person who thinks the Bible requires a young earth examines the scientific
evidence and concludes "the universe and the earth are old," another
conclusion may be that "if the Bible is wrong about the earth's age,
maybe it's also wrong about other things it teaches" so the
spiritual authority of the Bible is weakened, and faith is weakened or abandoned. Or
an earnest seeker of spiritual truth — convinced
by young-earth advocates that a young earth and Jesus are a "package
deal" that
includes both or neither — will reject the combination due to their
conviction that the earth is not young. Therefore, Christians should
not encourage (and should not accept) any implication — whether it
is made by fellow Christians who want to strengthen the Gospel, or by non-Christians
who want
to discredit the Gospel — that "if the earth is not young, the
Bible is not true." And we should help our brothers and sisters
in Christ who are struggling with this dilemma (some
examples) so they can
emerge from the experience with renewed faith in God and the Bible. {a
link-argument and two options}
This page ends with a summary of essential
doctrines that are compatible with believing in either a young universe or
old universe.
We can all agree about the essential
theology in Genesis 1: Everything we see in nature was created by God,
and is subordinate to God. There are no polytheistic "nature gods" so
we should worship only the one true God who created everything. God's
creation is good but is not divine, so nature is placed in proper perspective. God
declared His creation to be very good, so we can reject the idea that physical
things are intrinsically bad; our problem is sin, not physicality. And
humans are special because God created us in His own image.
The Bible clearly teaches that
human sin led to human death, and that Jesus offers us salvation from sin
and death. In
Genesis 3:6, Eve and Adam ate from the "tree of
knowledge," choosing
to make moral decisions for themselves instead of trusting and obeying God. In
Genesis 3:22, the "tree of life" was
removed because sinful humans "must
not be allowed to...live forever," and without God's supernatural "tree
of life" protection Adam and Eve immediately began to perish,
with natural processes temporarily allowing life but eventually leading to
their death. We needed a savior, and God is merciful, so Jesus accepted
the penalty of death that we earn by our sinful disobedience, and by his
life of sinless obedience He earned the right to make his own eternal life
available, as a gift of grace, to all who will accept. Because of what
Jesus did, the eternal life taken from us in Genesis will be given back to
us in heaven: "To him who overcomes, I will give
the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. (Revelation
2:7)" In heaven, for humans there will be no sin and no death,
and God's goals for us will be permanently actualized.
The full gospel of Jesus — including
His deity, virgin birth, teachings and miracles, sinless obedience to the
Father in life, substitutionary atonement in death, victorious resurrection,
ascension into heaven, and second coming — is fully compatible with
a young earth or old earth.
When we ask whether certain Bible passages
are intended to be sources of scientific knowledge,
sometimes we disagree. But we can all agree that the Bible should be
our main source of spiritual knowledge, and that
the main goal of Christian living is to learn from the Bible, to believe it
and do what it says, thereby bringing
glory to God in our thoughts and actions.
AN APPENDIX with ideas that will beuseful for interpreting the Two Books of GodThe three-levels diagram is
adapted from a diagram (on Page 7 of Two
Books) by Deborah Haarsma. A logical argument (two claims and a
conclusion) could be made in 1700: Advocates
of young-earth interpretations often ignore an important
principle: "We cannot
compare scripture with science [because they
are on "different levels" *] but
we can compare theology (a fallible human interpretation) with
science (another fallible human interpretation) while trying
to search for truth." * Trying
to compare the Bible (uninterpreted scripture) with science (an interpretation
of nature) is an "apples and oranges" comparison that isn't
possible. SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENTS Cosmos was the most widely viewed series in PBS history (seen by 500 million people in 60 countries); it won Emmy and Peabody Awards, and was the most widely read science book ever published in English. (source) Sagan received the Public Welfare Medal, highest award of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, "for distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare." |
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
Two condensed
faq-versions of this page, Science and Religion
in Conflict? is it "Warfare"? Can historical sciences help
us Biblical Theology for young-earth Christians This page is part of a set
of pages — including and pages by other authors: WISELY USING THE TWO
BOOKS OF GOD |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/two-books.htm
Copyright © 2004 by Craig Rusbult, all rights reserved