Christianity and Science

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.  Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood through the things he has made.  So they are without excuse.” [1]   In his letter to the Romans Paul is addressing the idea of how a person can come to salvation, and on what basis humanity is judged.  We find that although Christ is ultimate revelation of God, humanity is not judged on whether or not they believe him, rather we find that humanity is judged for not believing in the God that has been revealed through the natural world, through what we would call creation, a realm which is pondered and studied by those who are in the field of Science.  God has so revealed himself in what he has made, whether it be mountains or tigers or petunias or people, that we are actually culpable if we reject this revelation.  Over the course of the ages, however, this revelation has been rejected.  Not only by those who refuse to acknowledge the work of a Creator God, but also by those who refuse to accept the methods of the creator God.  On one side we have those who refuse to believe that God did the creating, on the other we have those who dispute how he went about it. 

In creating this tension (which is neither inherent nor overly historical) a wall has been erected, in which science and religion have been put at odds, a wall like the old Berlin Wall, where communication is limited and those who try to cross or bridge the divide tend to get shot at.  Dialogue is lost, distrust and enmity is raised, and suddenly we have an unnatural division in our common human search for Truth and Meaning.  It is the goal of this paper, then, to seek to restore a common ground, to show why both science and religion would benefit from an integrative rather than combative approach.  I will first wrestle with the idea that theology requires science and then deal with the concept that science requires religion, both concepts which are highly disputed or dismissed.  Indeed both fields of inquiry are weakened by this strife, and can find great benefit in re-engaging the other in seeking to discover a fuller picture of existence.  The battle cry of this paper is “tear down this wall!”, so that once again science and religion can inform each other and find greater insights together than as opponents. 

Before I seek to show how Science and Religion interact, I feel I must first deal with the idea that they can or must interact in some capacity rather than being independent fields of inquiry as some might suggest. [2]   The basic and best argument against the idea of independent fields is the argument of history.  If Science and Religion were inherently independent, there would not be a need to argue that they were.  History, however, shows us that throughout the human story Science and Religion have for the most part interacted, with conflict arising when one is accused of making claims that the other disputes.  Both fields of inquiry are seeking after truth, searching for answers to the various questions of life and existence, albeit with oftentimes different subjects of focus.  The basic questions of origins, purpose, and future are inherent to each field.  Rather than being independent, then, we find that each are seeking answers to some of the very same questions, hoping to broaden our view of this jigsaw puzzle we call life.  

Religion has in its purview certain pieces of this puzzle, giving one aspect of the overall picture, science has other pieces broadening the picture.  There are times certainly when the pieces overlap, when those who are constructing this puzzle argue over where a certain piece can go, but history has shown us over and over again that we are seeking to build the same puzzle.  Indeed, there are scholars who have shown that these two fields are more alike in their approaches than some may wish to admit.  In his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn has effectively argued for a model of understanding scientific enquiry and development which is shockingly similar to religious enquiry, with science tending to show the same patterns of thought, historical development, and training as Christianity. [3]  

In the same way philosophers and theologians have been rather successful in showing how Religious studies reveal patterns of thought which are essentially considered “scientific”.  In developing theology, ideas are tested, thought through and examined by multiple parties, with great models being developed to most adequately explain what we has been revealed to us. [4]   In short, Science and Religion are more alike than many of their adherents would like to admit, not only in what they are seeking to explain but how each goes about their explanations.  Certainly, each field is focused on specifically different questions, but these questions are neither independent from each other nor inherently combative.  Rather, each field is seeking to answer the questions which arise from living in this world, and each can contribute to the answers and techniques of the other in a great and needed fashion.

It has not always been the case that Religion and Science have been at odds with each other.  Indeed for much of human history, scientific enquiry has been specifically the field of the priests, theologians, or philosophers.  Medicine and Cosmology, biology and meteorology have been the intellectual properties of those engaged in religious pursuits throughout human history and throughout human cultures.  Those who sought to understand the supernatural realized that there was a bridge through the intimate study of the natural.  In Christianity especially we find that it would be very difficult to adequately read our Scriptures without understanding the importance that the created world has for our religion.  The Psalms are replete with references to all kinds of natural events and wonders, [5] and so many other of our Scriptures and holy writings refer to the natural world that a separation of the natural from the religious would leave our worship in tatters.    Indeed, Christian writings show a celebration of the natural world in a way which is not often reflected in modern theological studies. [6]  

In rejecting modern scientific studies, Christianity has suffered not only damage to its image [7] but also I would argue has suffered harm in its theological development, being stifled by its rejecting what would inherently enhance and aid.   If we take for granted that God did indeed create, and that thus creation can thus tell us something about the Creator (as a piece of art can speak to us about the artist), then by rejecting the study of this creation we are rejecting a crucial insight into who God is and how he works. [8]   While the study of nature will not lead us to the fullness of Christian belief and revelation, it can be an aid in understanding a fuller picture of what has been revealed.  Theologian Paul Jewett states, “that in bringing this world into being, God manifests not only his power but his wisdom, namely, his creative, energizing thought that finds cheerful diversion in making all that is.” [9]   Jürgen Moltmann suggests that the nature can be “educative” in that it can lead us to further study of God, “hermeneutical” by helping those who believe understand their beliefs, and “eschatological” by anticipating a fuller knowledge of God in glory. [10]

One of the greatest proponents of engaging and integrating Science and Theology was the great American theologian and philosopher Jonathan Edwards.  He lived at the beginning of the Enlightenment, yet rather than feeling a sense of dread about the new scientific discoveries he felt delighted with them, understanding that faith in a God who creates encourages the study of that which he has created.  Although he lived over two hundred fifty years ago, Jonathan Edwards has a voice which to this day is worth listening to.  He is useful for our study, in that he lived at the apex of Science and Religion, a time in which these fields informed each other, rather than being adversaries as they have been since this time. [11]   Jonathan Edwards had an almost overpowering sense of the beauty of the Divine.  This beauty exposes itself in every aspect of life and being.    Edwards had a passion for nature, as both a scientist and pastor, and found in it a great source for his thought on the beauty of God.  In his Images of Divine Things he comments on the orderliness of God, the fact that God is consistent in all of his works, saying that there is an “agreeableness and harmony,” [12] to a degree which is marvelous and amazing.  This order displays itself in what God has made, and this display itself points back to the Creator, giving us both lessons and insight into the One who creates.

He calls creation an image of the divine, and that by understanding nature as such we can see the divine everywhere we are, and everywhere we look.  His source of authority for doing this is Scripture, which he calls the “interpreter of the book of nature.” [13]   The Bible interprets nature in two ways.  The first is that it declares to us the various spiritual mysteries which can be found to be represented  in the natural world, and secondly, by applying these mysteries as lessons to be learned. [14]   Edwards view of nature is, then, that of a living parable which points out Truth in different ways so as to remind us, and continually remind us of God and his being.  Nature is seen as a way of teaching, a way of experiencing the Divine nature, and a way of bringing special insight into the character of God.  The more one would study nature, the more one would delight in knowing the beauty and orderliness of God. [15] A theology of nature for Edwards, then, is a continual, daily process of interaction between what we gain from our senses, and what we understand from Scripture, enabling us to understand God through all that he has made.

Thus, scientific inquiry helps to increase our understanding of how God works and who he is.  Indeed in my own theological studies,  I have been gifted to have received a balanced liberal arts education in which alongside a theology class I took a geology, or meteorology, or astronomy course.  These Science courses were invaluable in aiding my understanding of theological concepts, and how God works in life.  For example, a study of the concept of Chaos [16] has given me such concepts as the infinite complexity of creation (which means that there is order in all things just on a very, very complex scale) and the sensitive dependence on initial conditions (which means very slight occurrences can make radical impacts on a system).  Both of these, and other such “scientific” concepts have themselves radically impacted and aided my own study of theology and the Bible.  And these are concepts I would not have ever learned in a lifetime of purely religious enquiry.  

As an example of the possibility of theology using science we can look at the controversial study of evolution. [17]   Although many would claim that evolution on a broad scale is wrong, we should not simply throw up a wall of dogma to combat its claims.  It is a religious claim that God did create, however, science seems to be pointing to the method of this creation.  Galileo said in 1615 that “the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes,” [18] so it may be helpful to analyze evolution theologically without dismissing it out of hand.  Evolution tells us that creatures evolved into their present shapes and sizes.  While there are some distinct problems with this theory, there is significant evidence that it adequately explains at least part of the record.  God in my understanding is a God of miracles, but he is also a God of processes. 

History shows us that God often reveals himself slowly, adapting his revelation and incrementally changing human perception and reaction to him.  One can say that God’s interaction with humanity has evolved to its present state.  Though he interacts with the system at points, he does not usually cause instant theological awareness or sudden changes, rather he works in time, allowing the creatures to develop.  Theology thus shows us that God has worked in an “evolution” type fashion in some ways.   Thus in this area we find that science can actually support how theology views the tendency of God.   Science, then, is vital to theology in that it provides additional insight into how God works in this world, and because God is consistent in how he works, we can use this scientific study to aid or correct our own theological insights in a very fruitful manner.  Indeed to reject science is to possibly imperil our own theological development. [19]

The other side of this question is how we should expect religion or theology to contribute to the field of scientific enquiry.   If scientific study should be integrated within theological studies, should theological studies likewise be integrated into scientific study?  While it can be argued that these two fields are asking different questions, and thus theology should not interact with the “objective” field of science, this is actually simplifying the discussion far too much.  A brief point that should be made is that Christianity especially is not simply making philosophical or metaphysical claims.  Rather, we are making at our very roots claims which would be of interest to scientists.  Certainly if a person was to be pronounced dead for three days and then come back to life, that person would be of interest to the scientific community.  If diseases were documented and then suddenly disappeared that would be of interest.  By claiming that God interacts with history, Christians are claiming that God interacts in the realm of scientific inquiry.  Whether or not scientists, of social, physical, or biological types, choose to study these claims does not make them any less scientific. [20]

However, more clearly, Science needs theological inquiry not so much in what it studies, but in how it goes about studying.  It is here that questions such as ethics and responsibility come into play, questions which would likely not be necessary or raised in isolation from a religious context.  It is now broadly understood that pure objectivity is impossible in whatever field.  Each of us, including scientists of whatever specialty, approach their subject with underlying presuppositions and guiding philosophies.  The question is not whether or not we are biased, but rather in what direction this bias takes us.  It is now generally accepted that the most dangerous person in any field is not the one who acknowledges a certain perspective, but rather the one who claims to be without a specific perspective.  The lessons of the 20^th century show us that the results of science reach into every aspect of life, and that the methodology and results of scientific inquiry have dimensions which far exceed those which were initially claimed by early Enlightenment thinkers. 

            Science affects how people live, and science which is unrestrained by “non-scientific” means such as ethics and other such fields actually works against itself.  Scientific inquiry requires a certain level and stability of society which is impossible without a broad ethical, and usually religious, commitment.  As an example, scientific studies brought the industrial revolution, which brought pollution, which if unrestrained will bring destruction to humanity.  Ethical considerations of how we treat the environment has forced scientific inquiry to pursue directions which it may not have otherwise pursed.  Religious understanding of the importance of the person has led to develop the psychological and sociological fields, which oftentimes reject that which gave original impetus to these fields.  Thus we find that religious and ethical considerations not only provide fences which restrain the scientific realm, but indeed provide the impetus to pursue directions that may not have been otherwise pursued, because of the specific fences that religion raises.  Our modern technology is not simply the result of pure scientific inquiry but is also the result of the pressures that religion has placed on science to develop alternate means or better understandings of life, society, and this world. [21]

            It can no longer be said that science and theology are independent, and it can be adequately argued that they are not inherently in conflict with one another.  Rather, it is impossible to delineate a clear place of division between these two fields.  As  C.A. Russell puts it “historically, scientific and theological thinking have owed much to one another and their growth has been mutually promoted.” [22]   Humanity cannot simply separate different aspects of knowledge, no matter how much it tries.  Just as in a single brain these different understandings are intermingling and informing each other, so too in society is this the case, whether we accept this or not.  We can choose to fight this tendency to build walls and create artificial barriers, to play opposing melodies on our various instruments.  Or we can choose to play a symphony, allowing our various parts to not only dialogue with one another, but intermingle and interact, raising the level of the performance beyond the sum of the individual parts, so that together we can celebrate in the fullest fashion the world we live in. 

Science and theology are symbiotic in nature, with each able to contribute essential aspects to the other.  Although tensions have been raised by fundamentalists on both sides of the debate, the barriers between science and theology are not inherent to these fields, nor especially are they in any way beneficial to the continued development of science or theology.  Rather, by interacting, by attempting to work together, listening and participating with each other, each discipline will find a level of understanding greater than what can be achieved in isolation.  So I say, Mr. Scientist and Mr. Theologian, tear down this wall!

---

[1] Romans 1:19, 20.

[2] Such as DZ Phillips

[3] See Nancey Murphy, Reconciling Theology and Science (Kitchener, Ontario:  Pandora Press, 1997), 30ff.

[4] Certainly, there is not space in this brief paper to adequately discuss either the religious quality of science nor the scientific quality of religion.  See Kuhn especially for the former idea, and Nancey Murphy and any of the works of Thomas Torrance or Donald Mackay  for a deeper examination of the latter concept. 

[5] i.e.  Psalm 8, 19,  65, 95, 104 and others.

[6] See George S. Hendry,  Theology of Nature (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1980)  for an excellent historical survey of the study of nature in both Christian and non-Christian forms.

[7] As seen in such disastrous public battles such as the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920’s.

[8] Karl Barth is in a distinct historical minority in rejecting out of hand the idea of Natural theology

[9] Paul K. Jewett, God, Revelation, and Creation (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1991) 441ff. 

[10] Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation ((Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 1993), 58.

[11] Indeed his trust and excitement about Scientific discovery actually caused his death.  While President of Yale University he heavily promoted the use of the new vaccines to fight off small-pox.  To show his support he himself was vaccinated, and soon died from the  infected serum. 

[12] Smith, John E., Harry S. Stout, Kenneth P. Minkema, ‘A Jonathan Edwards Reader’ (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1995), 16.

[13] Smith, 20.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Edwards is useful as a resource especially that now in the post-Enlightenment era, there is beginning to be a recovery of the sense of the Divine order in nature.  Science and Religion are becoming closer once again, especially in the field of cosmology.  

[16] See James Gleick, Chaos (New York: Viking, 1987) for an overview of this developing field of study in mathematics and physics; or for a popular understanding see the movie Jurassic Park in which mathematician Ian Malcolm uses the chaos theory to accurately predict the plot of the movie. 

[17] At least it is controversial in religious circles, it is not so much in scientific circles.

[18] Quoted in C.A. Russell, “Science and Theology”, New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair Ferguson, David F. Wright, eds. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988), 626.

[19] See Russell, 626 for more thoughts about the influence of science on theology.

[20] Though certainly interesting studies have been done in the area of religious claims, such as on the efficacy of prayer and on various  miracles, as well as studies on how certain miraculous events could have occurred (i.e. the star above Bethlehem or the Great Flood, etc.). 

[21] See Russell, 626ff. for additional thoughts on the influence of  theology on science.

[22] Russell, 625.