“84% of Christian 18- to 29-year-olds admit that they have no idea how the Bible applies to their field or professional interests. For example, young adults who are interested in creative or science-oriented careers often disconnect from their faith or from the church. On the creative side, this includes young musicians, artists, writers, designers, and actors. On the science-oriented side, young engineers, medical students, and science and math majors frequently struggle to see how the Bible relates to their life’s calling.” (Top Trends of 2011: Millennials Rethink Christianity)
It is alarming that young adults “have no idea how the Bible applies to their field or professional interests.” Unfortunately, I think (unscientifically) we could bump that age range up a decade or so and still be in the 70% range of American Christians identifying with that statement from The Barna Group.
image from Getty Images
This great disconnect isn’t something that has happened overnight and I believe that a key factor is the way that Christians have approached science. The logic that says, “Science tells me ________, but the Bible tells me _______, so science can’t be right” is just as dangerous as the other way around. The danger is just as potent because in both cases we are not dealing with simple raw data. Science is founded on examining empirical data, but how much of what “science says” has gone far beyond the data to drawing further conclusions, theories or interpretations of the data?
In response to yesterday’s post, my friend Dave, gave a strong comment from his experience in support of young earth and this being strengthened as he looked at the evidences during college. He made a statement that I would like to comment on further: “I believe the Bible is a tool to help us understand science…not the other way around.” I agree with the heart of his comment, but want to take a few steps back to examine and distinguish how I would arrive at a statement like this.
First, I believe that there are two types of revealed data about origins, life, the universe, God, etc. One is general revelation and can be found in the world/universe around, including people. This is commonly referred to as nature or the natural world. The other is specific or special revelation which I believe is the writings in the scriptures of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament. (Now some will disagree with the existence of any special revelation or with what is included in that special revelation, but that could be a topic of a further post) The key to this is that BOTH general and specific revelation consist of raw data that must be observed, interpreted, and applied. In that process we all bring certain presupposition and bias.
So science is the observation, interpretation, and application of general revelation (nature).
And faith is the observation, interpretation, and application of specific revelation (scripture).
Image from Getty Images
But these two disciplines are not isolated and one cannot reject the other and remain whole. The Hebrew poet was inspired to write,
“The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it, you have founded them.” (Psalm 89.11)
What we observe from what God has created will coincide with God’s special revelation. So then it comes down to interpretation from both directions.
I believe the problem has occurred and will continue to occur when there is an interpretation or application that is concluded in either that doesn’t seem to work with or, more severely, is in contradiction with the other. At this point of disagreement it is important to go back to each area of discipline and observe more, re-interpret (if applicable), and re-apply in both areas. When we do this, I am confident that science and faith can work together and not only “get along” but strengthen each other. But if either discipline digs in and says “I’m right” without reexamination, then we end up with an embarrassing Galileo situation.
So then I can say that the Bible is a tool to help us understand science AND science (general revelation) can be used as a tool to help us interpret the Bible.
Further, this philosophical approach will help Christians (young and old) have a greater understanding of how the Bible informs their career, professional interests, and life calling AND how their life calling helps them and others have a greater understanding of the scriptures. We need individuals of faith to be in all fields of academia to enrich our understanding of both God’s special revelation and general revelation. A person in the field of medicine can be greatly enriched by his/her faith in fundamental respect for life and purpose of creating a better life medically. A gifted writer has greater purpose in writing when biblical faith is present to not only write true or inspiring stories, but words that serve a purpose greater than himself/herself. There is no career path that is untouchable by the individual’s faith.
Now this post has mostly been in the theoretical realm, so I leave it to you to comment with support or disagreement and possibly bring up some specific applications or questions.
I am sure you hae already reviewed these resources:
“SCIENCE AND FAITH: INTRODUCTION
Robert J. Schneider
Several years ago, I described to a Berea College student a course I was about to teach in our Senior Seminar. “Science and Faith” would look at the modern scientific world picture and responses to it in contemporary Christian theology and spirituality. I said I wanted to help our Christian students understand that there is no conflict between science rightly understood and faith in the God revealed in the Bible. “I’m glad to hear that,” she said. “I’m going to major in biology, and when I told a friend that, she became upset, and said, ‘You can’t be a scientist and be a Christian!’ and I said, ‘That’s not true!’” Another student, a chemistry major who is an Old Regular Baptist, once spoke of his attempts to explain to other believers how he could accept the scientific theory of evolution and still believe that God has created the universe. He was often greeted with disbelief: how could anyone believe in both evolution and the Bible?”
More at: http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/introduction.asp
It’s certainly refreshing to hear clarification on the relationship between Christian Theism and science. This is a message which simply cannot be repeated enough in today’s postmodern culture. So thank you for writing on it, Brian!
As a senior in high school, I frequently ran into the challenge that “Christianity and science clash” (though more often the term “religion” took the place of “Christianity”). I recall sitting in my AP US History class, listening to a documentary– a documentary which covered the well-known Scopes-Monkey Trial of 1925. In it, one professor, responding to an interviewer’s question, declared emphatically, “There are two strands: the reasonable and pragmatic strand, and the religious strand.”
Throughout high school (and beyond it as well), young people (such as myself) are constantly bombarded with the idea that “religious” people are unreasonable and unintelligent. This message is repeated again and again and again and again. To me, it seems that if any message is repeated enough, most people cannot help but to believe it (or at the very least lean towards it).
Christianity is rarely mentioned among the bustling crowds of school. All that young people see and hear today of it appears in textbooks, historical documentaries, and from the mouths of their teachers. And when they do see the term Christianity, it is almost always coupled with a negative term: “Christianity & The Crusades”, “Christianity & The Salem Witch Trials”, “Christianity & Imperialism”, “Christianity & Slavery”, “Christianity & Indulgences”, etc…
In short, people see the unreasonable nature of these terms coupled with the term “Christianity” and assume that Christianity, therefore, is unreasonable as well.
Because of this high sensitivity that much of the world has towards Christians, we cannot afford to be unprepared or ignorant in our responses to the crowds around us. We need to understand ourselves that science should support the truth, and the truth is Christianity. We should not be afraid of science. We simply need to understand how it relates to what we believe as Christians.
We cannot afford either to make statements like “the Bible trumps science” or “science isn’t reliable” or even “just have faith”. Each of these statements makes the underlying assumption that these two forces somehow disagree at their core– that they cannot both coexist. In reality, they should complement one another.
And when we say “faith”, we must make sure that the people around us are not hearing “I believe in my God even though I know it goes against all reason”. We must make clear why we believe what we believe.
I really love this blog post! I think that you did a great job with it, Brian!
It creates a sense of much-needed balance. True science and true Christianity always complement one another. Sure there are distorted versions of science just as there are distorted versions of Christianity. But just as we should not despise Christianity because of evil deeds done in its name, neither should we fear science like the plague simply because a few people have arrived at erroneous conclusions in the name of science.
We all must get our terms right, be on the same page, and pursue the truth with everything we have.
By understanding the truth, we will be able to see and understand how to live our lives and recognize how the Bible applies to our careers and passions.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32
I think science and faith can and do work well together. Problems occur in these arguments when too much fear exists. On either side. As a Chemist (turned Salesman!) I found both believers and scientists who were SO AFRAID that something they held vital to their beliefs would we proven ‘wrong’. Personally, I can believe both the truth of scripture (every word) and also recognize that scientific observations (like portions of evolution) appear to be true. I think the key is to be willing to wait for science to mature at times. There’s a lot of faith on both sides!
A great example might be the speed of light. For many years, everyone’s been CERTAIN that this was the fastest constant in the universe. Meaning, nothing travels faster than light. It’s likely true… but just this past month scientists believe they’ve found something faster than the speed of light. Love it! Go neutrinos go!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/23/faster-speed-of-light-boxers
Funny thing is… lots of scientists are reacting emotionally to the news and not genuinely paying attention to the FACTS as they appear and are presented. Fear. Christians are not immune to this reaction when we “compare” scripture and the ever-changing observations of our friendly scientists.
The truth of scripture is true. All of it. Scientific observations have truth in them as well. I take the view of testing science against scripture and exercising patience and grace before taking extreme positions about what is or isn’t a scientific fact.
Candidly, after working in business most of my career… another interesting discussion would be business ethics and scripture. It’s amazing how much I see individuals trying to “game the system” and in the end, they fail. Entire models are doomed to failure (leverage = bad). There’s no more relevant road map for business success than scripture!
Jason
[...] series?? I wasn’t planning on going here this early, but Elliot’s well thought/written comment yesterday as well as parts of others’ comments have begun to address the topic of truth. With [...]
[...] Article FROM http://www.themooresonline.org/blog/science-faith-and-leaving-christianity-part2/29 SPONSOR- Christian Games for kids-fun and faith based curriculum GET YOUR FREE PASS [...]
So if I observe and test X, but the Bible tells me Y then my observations/experiments/theory must be right vs the Bible tells me X but experience tells me Y then the Bible must be right. If X and Y are incompatible and mutually exclusive then something must give. Scientific conjectures are proven false and discarded all the time. New hypotheses are then formulated that incorporate known data and then tested with new. Recantations may have been forced, however, I’m not familiar with an instance in which scientific theory retreated due to being proven wrong from religion. The Bible has been re-interpreted several times to incorporate new observations of the world. This suggests that the Bible is functioning as a canvas on which we project our understanding of the world rather than a source of truth by which we understand the world. If the Bible is so open to re-interpretation and is sequentially used to explain/support contradictory theories, where is the value?
What is the raw data of religion/the Bible that you refer to? Your second paragraph implies that the Bible is not raw data then later refer to scripture as the raw data for faith.
How much has gone far beyond the data? A rhetorical question for sure. Conjecture is an important part of science, but it’s not given weight until several experiments have failed to prove it false.
I have heard of these two forms of knowledge referred to as observational knowledge vs revealed knowledge. Steven J. Gould resolved the conflict by claiming that science and religion occupy “non-overlapping magisteria” or NOMA. However, this explanation seems to satisfy few.
It makes sense that Christians want to interpret science through the lens of the Bible. This is currently most obvious regarding evolutionary biology. This has lead to the development of “Christian” theories such as intelligent design. In the past, this lead to “Christian” theories of the planets, gravity, vacuums…. If we are going to have Christian versions of scientific theory, should we also to then have a Muslim theory of gravity or Hindu quantum field theory?
Regarding the possibility of superluminal neutrinos, I’ve seen a mixture of skepticism and excitement. These reactions are qualitatively different from the reactions I see when observation/theory contradicts a religious doctrine.
A similar debate has occurred before when the possibility of neutrino oscillation was theorized and has subsequently been suggested by experimentation. The implication was that oscillation requires mass, but neutrinos travel at light speed and only massless particles travel at that velocity.
Great post, Brian.
I’m with you on the need for a chastened view of both general and special revelation, with continual re-examination in both areas. I think that often the hindrance to this approach in both fields is pride, and I wonder how much the post-enlightenment rationalistic mindset has contributed to this in both science and theology. We all tend to think that we have an automatic capacity to see and understand reality objectively, even the reality of God revealed in Scripture. It seems to me that many evangelical theologians and apologists have adopted a modernist approach to Scripture in attempting to refute modernism and the extrapolations it makes from the sciences. In doing so, I think we’ve failed to submit our epistemology to Scripture.
I think Jesus’ words apply to more than just the “spiritual” life: “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” (Matthew 6:22-23). In that, I’d strongly second Jason’s comment that fear can hinder us in the pursuit of truth; I’m increasingly persuaded that virtue has a profound effect on our ability to perceive and synthesize truth. Humility is vital, as is love.
Clint, you raise some good points. I’m not sure about any scientific theories being refuted by religion, but it seems that certain societal and governmental applications of materialistic philosophy, when carried to their logical extremes (i.e., communism, social Darwinism, etc.) were overturned by their tragic consequences and reaction from more religiously inspired or sympathetic philosophies. I think what Brian calls “not raw data” in paragraph 2 are the conclusions and extrapolations drawn from observation and interpretation of the raw data. In this sense, Scripture is raw data, but our interpretations of it are not.
Clint, I am thankful you joined this conversation as I think you as well as the others can help “push-back” on what I am processing and writing about.
I refer to scripture as raw data just as I would refer to the writings of Shakespeare as raw data, except scripture makes truth claims in a way Shakespeare or most other literature doesn’t. Those truth claims must be subject to testing, however the only testing should not be that of “rational” thought. Also subjecting it to the testing of life/experience, transcendence, etc (see December 31st post for more on that)
I was struck at the phrase you wrote about the re-interpreting of the Bible:
“This suggests that the Bible is functioning as a canvas on which we project our understanding of the world rather than a source of truth by which we understand the world.”
I was struck by this for two reasons.
The first is that we must separate (to some degree) the Bible and the interpretation of the Bible.
Secondly, you conclude that re-interpretation to better fit new discoveries discredits the purpose of the Bible. However, I don’t think this same process of thought is applied to the theories of science. The previous interpretations (ie theories) serve the purpose of a platform for new discoveries.
I would suggest a re-wording of your sentence to express my thoughts in the following:
Theology is a canvas on which we project our understanding of the Bible and our understanding of the world with the intent of knowing our creator and living out our purpose.
I am unaware also of any scientific theories/laws that have been changed because of the observations of religion/faith. This may be a good research quest for me.
However, Andrew mentioned how faith has overturned many humanistic, scientific, etc. theories whose consequences were tragic upon humanity. In that way I do believe this happens regularly in small and large ways.
Again, thanks for the comments and help in refining my thoughts.
Yes, any philosophical system can be pushed to create awful consequences: communism, the Taliban….etc. Ultimately, communism is an inferior economic system and is fundamentally out competed by free market capitalism. The communist experiment failed on both human and economic terms. Incidentally, the flagship communist state, the USSR, was primarily out competed by America -another governmental experiment using a secular governmental structure/economic system. Communism fails because it’s inferior, not because it is in conflict with religious truths.
Of course the Bible/all wisdom writings is/are different from other forms of literature in that it/they make(s) explicit truth claims. Shakespeare’s writings contain human/social commentary and inspiration. I think that codified rationality/science is the main way towards determination of truth. Other ways of evaluation operate on the slippery slope of existential non-communicability.
New discoveries do cause us to re-interpret our understanding of the universe. Theories that don’t fit are discarded for any theory that can support two conflicting outcomes is meaningless. You can form a distinction between the Bible and its interpretation (theology) in order for the theology and not the Bible to be discredited, but at this point you will encounter Plato’s theory of forms. The Bible will function as an Ideal Form and thus be unknowable; theology will be our miming of it. Bertrand Russell visits similar problems of perception/interpretation in his “Problems of Philosophy.”
Great posts, Brian! I’ve enjoyed reading them.
This past summer, I heard a physics professor from Westminster Seminary give a lecture on Science and Faith. He presented complex equations and drew diagrams expressing the harmony and symmetry within the Trinity- a good example of how general revelation and special revelation can strengthen each the other. What I think affected me most about the lecture was seeing this professor beaming with joy as he presented each equation. Soli Deo gloria!
Thanks Brian for facilitating discussion!
I’m glad you have enjoyed the conversation. I am also thankful that it is connecting with other things you have been hearing. There are truly so many issues surrounding this conversation and it is fun to talk with others about.
Thanks for contributing!