2A. Is there "conflict" between
science and religion?
A Brief History of Warfare-History
What is the relationship
between science and Christian religion? One dramatic answer — inherent
antagonism and aggressive warfare! — was
proposed in the late 1800s by John Draper and Andrew White. Their
books painted a picture of history as a conflict between the rationality
of science (earnestly searching for truth) opposed by the ignorance
of religion (stubbornly trying to block scientific progress) with
science fighting valiantly and continually emerging victorious.
Their colorful story, with
heroes and villains clearly defined, is entertaining and dramatic,
is useful for anti-Christian rhetoric, and has exerted a powerful influence
on popular
views about interactions
between science and religion. But their oversimplistic history is
inaccurate, and is rejected by modern historians. For example, David
Lindberg & Ron Numbers, editors of God and Nature: Historical Essays
on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, see "a
complex and diverse interaction
that defies
reduction
to simple 'conflict' or 'harmony'... and varied with time,
place, and person."
If the relationship isn't conflict,
what is it? Ian
Barbour describes four ways to view interactions between science and religion
— conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration — while
Richard Bube writes about Seven
Patterns for Relating Science and the Christian Faith and thinks the
relationship is complementary.
Flat Earth and Galileo
— examples of conflict?
Draper and White used two key historical examples,
a
flat earth and Galileo. But one
of these is false, and the other is oversimplified:
In the time of Columbus, did
educated Christians believe the earth was flat? The correct answer
is NO, but most modern people will say YES. Why? This wrong
idea is due to a fascinating abuse of history that began around 1830 when
two writers (a sloppy novelist and an atheist scholar) invented a false
story about "belief in a flat earth" that, in the 1870s, was
popularized by Draper.
Was Galileo a victim of war? David
Lindberg says, "The Galileo affair is consistently
and simplistically portrayed as a battle between science and Christianity — an
episode in the long warfare of science and theology." But
in encounters between Galileo and the church "personal
interest and political ambition were as important as ideological stance...
[and] conflict was located as much within the church (between opposing
theologies of biblical interpretation) and within science (between alternative
cosmologies) as between science and the church." (from When Science and Christianity
Meet) / And instead of defining this
conflict as religion versus science, Stillman
Drake thinks it's more accurate to view it as the inherent mutual
hostility between authority and independent thought: "It
was an accident of Galileo's time that authority happened to be vested
in a particular religious institution and that his field of independent
thought happened to be the creation of modern science." (from
foreword to Galileo, Science and the Church)
You
can learn more about Galileo from
Lindberg & Drake and about both Galileo & The
Myth of Flat-Earth Beliefs.
Five Reasons to see Conflict
Why do some people still
think science and Christianity are inherently in conflict, even
though this view is an oversimplified distortion?
• Maybe it's due to an
assumption that "natural" means "it happened without God." When
science explains how something happens by natural process, does this make
God unnecessary? No, because a Christian should view science
as a way to better understand the natural process created and controlled
by God, as
explained in FAQ-5.
• The Bible claims that
God does miracles. Does scientific logic indicate that rational people
should reject Biblical reports of miracles? No. Why? First,
science does not claim that miracles are impossible. Although
some scientists boldly declare the impossibility of miracles, they
are merely stating their own opinions, not the conclusions of science. Second,
miracles are compatible with the logical methods of science. To do
science effectively we need a world that is usually natural, but it doesn't
have to be always natural. If the universe
usually operates according to normal natural patterns, despite occasional
miracles, science will be possible and useful. We can believe that
science is a reliable source of knowledge about nature, and that miracles
did occur in the Bible, do
occur now, and might have occurred in the formative history of nature. {questions
about "miracles & science" and Methodological Naturalism
are explored in FAQ-7}
• Confusion
can occur when we don't distinguish between science (our
investigations of nature 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. (Webster's
Dictionary)" Science
has earned our trust because it has been useful for understanding many aspects
of physical reality and for developing technology. But we can trust science
for some things and not others. When our trust in science is
extended into areas where it is not justified — as
in claiming "miracles are scientifically impossible" — it has
become scientism that can lead us to wrong conclusions. These
errors are caused by scientism, not science. When a Christian rejects
scientism, but embraces science, the result can 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 glorify God. { There
is more about scientism in the next section. }
• Some non-Christians
want to believe in "conflict between rational
science and irrational Christianity" because this belief supports
their decision to reject God's gracious offer of salvation through
Jesus Christ. If non-believers
can persuade themselves to believe that faith in Christ is unscientific
and irrational, they can feel more comfortable with their decision
against
Christian faith.
• For some Christians,
a reason to distrust science is a perception of conflict between conclusions
in
science and statements in the Bible. And when their anti-science
beliefs are publicized, this can influence non-Christians to continue their
rejection
of faith, since
it reinforces their belief that faith is not compatible with science. How
can we reconcile science and scripture? We can't. It's impossible
to "reconcile" them because
they cannot even be compared, as explained in the next section.
2B. Can we compare the Bible with
science?
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
mainly on interpretations of scripture) and our science (based
mainly 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. Instead
of asking "Bible or science?", we should think "theology and science" and
have confidence in both of God's revelations, in scripture and nature.
* theology
and science are "based mainly [but not totally]" on
interpretations of scripture and nature, respectively. Two horizontal
arrows on the lower level symbolize the interactions between theology
and science. In theology, the main goal is to understand spiritual
reality. In science, the main goal is to understand physical
reality. But the main goals aren't the only goals, and our
theories about spiritual and physical realities are mutually interactive; theology
affects science and our views of physical reality, while science affects
theology and our views of spiritual reality. {the
3-level diagram is adapted from Deborah
Haarsma}
What does theology say
about physical reality?
First, Christians should see
natural process — which is the focus of study in science — as
being designed and created by God, and sometimes (or always?) guided by God. We
believe that God responds to prayer, and He can change our
situations and our thoughts and actions, 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, so we should consider this
possibility when we're studying the history of nature.
What does science say
about spiritual reality?
In principle, science
can reach no scientific conclusions about the ultimate source of natural
process. And scientists should be humble about their naturalistic
theories (by claiming that "IF it occurred naturally, then...")
so they remain open to the possibility of miracles, even if they
choose to construct their scientific theories without including this
possibility.
What does scientism say
about spiritual reality?
In practice, 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 statement 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.
These bold theological
declarations were made "in the name of science" by a scientist
and by the leaders of a science education organization, but 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.
What does natural theology say
about spiritual reality?
Our science can influence our theology, thus
moving it in the direction of natural theology ("deriving
its knowledge of God from the study of nature independent of special revelation," in
Webster's
Dictionary) when we ask theological questions — Does God exist? What
does God do? What is God like? — and we use our understanding of
nature to construct our understanding of God. But it's important to ask "how should science
influence theology?"
In a paper about "Reading
God's Two Books," George Murphy explains why it's better to use scriptural
theology (based on the Bible) rather than natural theology (based
on what we see in nature) as the foundation for building our understanding
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. ... natural theology must be a part of distinctively Christian
theology. ... 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." (from
the journal of ASA, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, March
2006)
What does theology
teach us about nature-facts?
Sometimes a Bible passage leads
us to ask, "Does this passage teach us a specific fact about nature
and its history?" When we're thinking about this question, a useful
principle is illustrated by changes in our theories about the planets, earth,
and sun:
In 1500, we had a system of
nature-and-scripture interpretations that was internally consistent but
wrong. Everyone thought that planetary motions were earth-centered
(they were wrong) and the Bible taught this (they were wrong).
In 1620, some interpretations
of nature were in conflict with some interpretations of scripture. Some
scientists thought the universe was earth-centered (wrong) but others disagreed. Some
theologians claimed the Bible taught an earth-centered universe with
a mobile sun that "rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other... the
sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises," and
a stationary earth: "the world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved." (Psalm 19:6, Ecclesiastes 1:5, Psalm 93:1) Others
agreed with Galileo, who was correct in saying "the
intention of the Holy Spirit is to show us how to go to heaven, not how
the heavens go."
In 1700, science and theology
were again in harmony, but now these two human interpretations were true because
they corresponded to the reality in nature and scripture. This
is the ideal situation.
What was the change? By
1700, our theological interpretation of some Bible passages
had been influenced by our scientific interpretation of nature. The
influence was beneficial, since it helped us recognize that in these
passages the Bible was not making a scientific statement to teach us "how
the heavens go." In this reinterpretation of scripture,
we do not compare the Bible (which says the sun "rises")
with science (which claims "the earth rotates") and decide
which is more important, because the Bible and science cannot be compared. Instead,
we compare different interpretations (of the Bible, and of nature) and
wisely use all available information in our search for truth.
When
we ask, "Is this passage intended to teach us specific facts about
nature?", information from nature — gathered and evaluated
using scientific methods — can be useful. This principle
of theological 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."
Does this historical
lesson have a modern application?
Almost all Christians
now agree with modern science when it says "the universe is not
earth-centered," and
we have concluded that the Bible does not teach incorrect earth-centered
science. But some Christians disagree with modern science when
it says "the earth and universe are billions of years old." In
the 1600s, appeals to the Bible were used to support earth-centered
science that was wrong. Currently, are appeals to the Bible being
used to support young-earth science that is wrong? Does the Bible
really teach a young earth and universe?
The lesson from history
is that we should "wisely use all available
information in our search for truth." Christians with
a young-earth view say "our young-earth interpretation of Genesis
is strong, and your old-earth science is weaker than you think." Christians
with an old-earth view say "our old-earth interpretation of nature
is strong, and your young-earth theology is weaker than you think." These
two views differ on how to interpret nature and scripture, and
also how to combine the interpretations.
2C. How can we wisely use information
from nature and scripture?
God has graciously provided
us with
two sources of information, in nature and in the Bible. How can we more
effectively combine, with harmony, what we learn from both of God's revelations?
Of course, for the most important
things in life — for learning about God and how He wants us to live and
love — the Bible is more important. But for other questions we don't
have
to
make
an
either-or choice, and by using both sources of information our understanding
of total reality (physical plus spiritual) can be more complete and accurate.
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."
Here are useful principles
for learning from nature and scripture, and combining what we learn from
each:
Science (mainly
from interpreting nature)
Based on observations
of nature, logically evaluated, most scientists
have concluded that the universe and earth are billions of years old. But
some scientists think these conclusions are wrong by a factor of a
million, and the universe is only thousands of years old. How
can you decide which interpretation of nature, old universe or young
universe, is more plausible?
In this case, two commonly
used criteria — credentials and character — don't
help us distinguish between the views, because proponents of both views
include intelligent scholars with scientific expertise who are devout Christians
with high moral character, who sincerely want to find the truth.
What about consensus? In
dozens of independent areas, almost all scientists have reached old-universe
conclusions. Is this an impressive argument in favor of their views? Yes. Is
it conclusive? Probably. In the past, occasionally scientists
have been correct when they challenged a majority consensus, but this is
rare. Even if an established theory eventually is rejected, usually
it has survived many unsuccessful challenges before its rejection. And
in this case, dozens of major well-established theories, spanning a wide
spectrum of science, would have to be wrong. A young-universe
science requires rejecting much of modern science.
But you shouldn't just accept
the "authority" claimed by proponents of either view. Instead,
you can gather evidence and think carefully, using logical "reality
checks" that
are the foundation of science, and are also used in everyday life. When
you compare the claims made by proponents of each view, in each area of
science, in what ways do they agree and
disagree? Do
they disagree about the observations or the logic? In
each area, which view is more plausible when you logically evaluate
the differing interpretations
of evidence from nature?
Theology (mainly
from interpreting the Bible)
For differing interpretations of scripture,
similar questions arise. How can you evaluate different views about
the intended meaning of a Bible passage?
First, carefully study
the text. In this linguistic study you
can use what scholars have learned about word meanings
and sentence structures in the original language, and how these are
affected when the text is translated into English.
Second, consider the context
(cultural, spiritual, and situational) in which the passage was written. In
this contextual study, ask "Who was the
author writing for, what was the intended purpose, and in what ways did the
context affect how the passage was written?"
Third, in a comparative
study you compare the essential theology of each interpretation
with essential theology from other parts of the Bible, to check for consistency.
Fourth, sometimes information
from nature, logically interpreted,
can help you choose between different Biblical interpretations that seem
satisfactory based on other criteria, because "in
some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture
teaches."
As in science, however, credentials
and character usually don't help us distinguish between differing views
that are held by intelligent truth-seeking scholars with theological expertise,
devout Christian beliefs, and high moral character.
Science-and-Theology
When all things
are considered — when you carefully and prayerfully evaluate all
information provided by God in both of His revelations — what can
you conclude about plausibility? Which set of internally consistent
interpretations (young universe for scripture and nature, or old universe
for scripture and nature) do you think is most likely to be true, to
correctly describe reality? And what level of confidence, or humility,
is justified?
MORE:
Section 2A is a revised-and-condensed version of Science-vs-Religion Conflict? Warfare?
and Sections 2B & 2C are a revised-and-condensed version of The
Two Books of God
and all sections (2A, 2B, 2C) are condensed even more in my FAQ's, short & longer.
The next two full-length FAQs — 3A-3D and 4A-4C — look at young-earth theology (What
does Bible-information say about age?) and young-earth science (What
does nature-information say about age?).