Science and Christianity, Part 1
For the last 150 years, or so, a debate has raged between science and religion - specifically between science and Christianity. Some say that the two are incompatible. Some say that they are in agreement. Others try to duck the controversy by saying that "science says how, the Bible says Who". Some say that the church has always been antagonistic to science. The fact is that all of these views have elements of truth, to varying degrees, and in ways that may not seem obvious at first glance. But before I get into the details, we need to define terms.
What is Science?
In the ancient world, science and philosophy were so intertwined that there was no distinction between them. In Roman times, the Latin word "scientia" was used for "knowledge", "knowing", and "expertise". Cognate words in the Greek had a similar sense. Philosophy was the means of knowing the truth, or proving the truth of a statement. There appears to have been no concept of these being separate things. In the 12th century, the old French word "science" (deriving from the Latin scientia) was used to indicate "knowledge" or "learning". By the 14th century, the English use of the word indicated "the collection of human knowledge," as gained by observation, experiment, and reasoning.
It appears to me that science and philosophy separated into different disciplines about the time that the scientific method was developed and accepted. This wasn't a sudden event, but a gradual process that appears to have begun in the 1600s and was crystallized sometime in the 1800s, although I think science, as we know it today, dates from about 1900. Today, philosophy deals with things that can only be proven through logical argument whereas science deals only with things that can be empirically measured. If it is empirically measurable (and repeatable through experiment) it isn't philosophy - it is science. If it cannot be proven through observation and experiment, it belongs to the realm of philosophy. However, things are rarely that neat and tidy. Science informs philosophy and philosophy affects scientific inquiry. So, though they are separate fields of study, they have to travel hand-in-hand. I don't think it is possible to ever entirely disentangle the two. I think it would be a mistake for anyone to try to entirely exclude either one.
It is important to realize that every scientist also has a philosophical viewpoint which will have an effect on their scientific viewpoint - usually in a small way, but sometimes not so small. Let's face it, scientists are people and they are affected not just by their own personal philosophy but also by religion, politics, social norms, and personal biases. In theory, philosophy and science both provide means to cut through all of this to get to the truth. In practice, humans are not from planet Vulcan. In theory, scientists review each other's work and come to a consensus about what is true. A great many theories have been killed by a gang of merciless facts (anyone remember "cold fusion"?). In fact, more theories have been disproved than proven. One would think that such a process would result in quickly reaching the truth. But looking at history, we see "group think" affect scientists, leading them to ignore some facts in order to reach a consensus that is incorrect. Overall, I think we have tended toward getting things more and more right as our technology demonstrates. But no human endeavor is flawless. New scientific paradigms can take years, decades, or even centuries to be adopted.
The philosophy of science is expressed by the "scientific method". The modern scientific method has slowly developed since the 1600s. What many people don't understand is that the scientific method continues to evolve and there is a difference of opinion on it between different scientific disciplines and different scientists within the same disciplines. So, the scientific method you were taught in elementary school may not match the modern conception of some or most scientists. What algorithm can be used to reach empirical truth? The scientific method, as I learned it as a child goes something like this:
- Observe nature.
- Form a theory.
- Experiment to prove/disprove the theory.
- If disproved, repeat steps 1-3
- Otherwise, confirm through other scientists replicating the experiment.
The ability to falsify a theory is key to the process. That is, unless a theory is theoretically falsifiable, it cannot be considered a scientific theory. Thus, issues of religious faith are outside the purview of science since we cannot perform experiments that have the possibility of falsifying the belief. Unfortunately, some people consider the inability to apply the scientific method to religious belief as inherent proof of the falseness of those beliefs. There is a difference between acknowledging that science cannot address issues of faith on one hand, and the idea that anything not addressable by science is therefore false on the other. The latter opinion has an element of religious faith itself.
Science can therefore be defined as a process. Thus, "science" doesn't teach us anything. Scientists teach us things they have learned through the scientific process. As with the origins of the word, science can also mean the collected knowledge of scientists. Even so, it is the scientists that record the knowledge, not "the science". The distinction is important because we don't want to dismiss the process simply because some scientists misuse the process or abandon it.
Another important point is that each of us is somewhat of a philosopher and scientist, insofar as nearly everyone uses logical thought and some sort of experiment to determine what is true. Who hasn't seen a baby repeatedly drop things on the ground and observe that the dropped item remains there unless picked up by a parent? They are forming a conception of gravity through observation and repeated experiment. But when we use the term "scientist" it is short for "professional scientist" (ie a person who is paid to do science). It is the professional scientists that define what is scientifically true, which makes them somewhat like religious leaders. Science becomes a religion when someone considers the process to be the ultimate definer of truth, thus excluding religion and philosophy from consideration. It also becomes a religion when a person puts their faith in a scientist to the point of abandoning critical reasoning of their own.
So that it is clear where I settle on the foregoing, let me say this: I think the scientific method is brilliant as a way of getting to what is true about our physical world. I have to have some amount of faith in what professional scientists explain, if for no other reason than I simply do not have the time or equipment to independently confirm their explanations myself. But I also recognize that all scientists are humans with human foibles. They may not have followed the method, or they may simply be spouting their pet theory, or they may have done their experiments incorrectly and reached a wrong conclusion. Worse yet is how the scientists are represented by mass media. Journalism seems to have more than its share of idiots who end up reporting science in a way that is misleading at best. Again, I don't have the time to review every research paper on every reported scientific topic so I have to rely on the reporting. But I've learned to take such reporting with a grain of salt. I may have a bit of an advantage over the "average" person in that I've had a lifelong interest in the natural sciences that lets me cry "foul" more often when listening to the reporting. But all of us can, and should, use our own critical thinking, common sense, and personal observations to discern whether what we hear is probably true or questionable.
In the worst case, there are those who use the outward forms of science to represent unscientific theories. They use statistics, charts, scientific jargon, white lab coats, and misrepresented science to promote their theory. Such is what we refer to as "junk science" or "pseudoscience". It helps to be skeptical of everything we hear. The scientific method has been so successful in learning about the natural world that our amazing modern technology has been made possible. In turn, this has led to science being held in high esteem in our culture. But that makes the public open to any claim made by any "scientist". The amount of money spent on modern versions of snake oil must be stupendous.
Even when the science is solid, we don't always get it delivered accurately to us. Consider the ever-changing claims about diet. Often, these claims are widely reported before they are confirmed by other scientists. In other cases, the media misreports studies due to ignorance or stupidity. For instance, a study may report that 55% of patients treated with drug X had no new cancerous tumors detected over 12 months. The news reports this as "drug X cures cancer in most patients". But the news media is not alone in misrepresenting science. Hollywood produces a lot of television and movies that misrepresent science, or contain nothing more than pseudo-science. Many people believe that "wormholes" would allow faster-the-light travel at some point. However, the vast majority of physicists believe that any matter trying to transit a wormhole would immediately collapse it (not to mention that the diameter of a wormhole is too small for even a human to transit, much less a spaceship). And all of this assumes that wormholes even exist, which has not been proven. But science-fiction takes the unproven theory, alters it beyond recognition, and then promotes it as "science". We are a society that holds science in high regard but are woefully ignorant of it at the same time.
But even when the science (and reporting of it) are good, it isn't therefore correct. Sometimes theories are discarded after better explanations are discovered. Sometimes they are modified, as the theory of relativity refined Newtonian physics. But it often takes a long time to change an accepted theory. There is a certain inertia to change even in the scientific community. Group think affects scientists as much as any other humans.
Science can be divided into several different types. There is quite a bit of difference about these divisions depending on who you talk to, but I divide them thus:
- Observational Science: making and recording observations.
- Experimental Science: learning by repeated experiments.
- Empirical Science: A combination of Observational and Experimental Science.
- Forensic Science: Determining the past based on clues.
- Applied Science: Applying what we learn in science (ie technology).
- Theoretical Science: Creating theories (usually derived from mathematics) that cannot be proved by experiment at present, but possibly in the future.
According to the scientific method, technically, observational and forensic science aren't science because they aren't verifiable through repeated experience. Observational science is part of empirical science. Forensic science is partly science and partly speculation. Consider fire investigators who determine the cause of fires. Through observation and experiment (actual science) they determine how fire spreads and the clues it leaves behind. Applying these observations to a burned building allows them to reconstruct what happened. Now, I'm perfectly okay with believing what these experts say, but even so, I have to admit that their conclusions do not constitute "proof". There is no way to prove their conclusions unless there is video of the start of the fire. So they use science to come to their conclusions, but their conclusions are not technically "science" because a specific explanation can neither be proven or falsified. It could be challenged with an alternate explanation, of course, but an alternate forensic view is no more provable even if it is more believable.
Theoretical science could also be considered non-science since the theories cannot be tested at present. However, I have no problem considering it science because it should be testable in the future (in theory). The drawback of theories based on mathematics (which is much of theoretical science) is that it is useful in determining that certain things are impossible, but not was is real. Just because the math doesn't disallow a theory does not mean that it supports the theory. Proof must come from experimentation. A valid theory in this field is one that comes with specific ways in which it could be disproved. A valid falsification has to be one in which a specific experiment can disprove the theory, not merely that a lack of evidence would disprove it. For instance, Darwin postulated that a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record would disprove his theory of evolution. But a lack of evidence is not an evidence of a lack. Thus, that particular postulate of falsification is useless.
The issue of scientific consensus is both useful and potentially problematic. With the dramatic increase in professional scientists over the last century we have to consider who funds their research. In a university setting, only research that seems likely to support the agenda of the university is going to be approved. Added to this is that the funding tends to come from the government, which means that only research which supports the government agenda will be funded. Companies fund research that they hope will affect their bottom line in a positive way. Private institutions get funding from private individuals, which means the research they do will be in line with those providing the funding (or else run the risk of losing future funding). So, though pouring money into scientific research has spurred our understanding, it also has the tendency to promote group think. Can you imagine the outcry if the federal government funded research intended to "prove" Noah's flood? We must be aware of this and remember that a lack of evidence (or research) is not the same as an evidence of a lack.
Worse, there is "junk science" and pseudoscience, neither of which is real science but are sometimes confused with it. Also, as we discussed in the previous article, science-fiction is mostly fiction (bordering on complete fantasy) with wild ideas that are made up by imaginative people. All of these have several things in common that we should be aware of so we don't fall prey to believing they are valid. First, they often rely on the appearance of legitimacy through the use of scientific symbols (lab coats, googles, supposed diplomas on walls, microscopes and other laboratory equipment, and the use of technical terms). Secondly, they often misuse technical terms that are not well understood by the general public. Thirdly, they rely on the public's unfamiliarity with science to misrepresent theories or proof of those theories. Finally, they appeal to "studies", or statements by supposed "experts", or statistics, or completely unsupported claims. We must ask "what studies? Were the studies well-designed? What experts? What makes them experts? What experimental support is there for their claims?" Of special note is the use of statistics. It is easy to present statistics in a way that appears to support the opposite of what the statistics actually show. Remember also that correlation does not prove causation. Obviously, none of us has time to investigate every claim we hear, so we must rely on what others tell us. But skepticism is your friend, whether you are a scientist or not. Especially be skeptical of advertisements that use "science", and what passes for science in Hollywood.
The crux of the foregoing is that science is a matter of experiments that prove or falsify theories that come from observation. Consensus, or a lack thereof, serves to help non-scientists grasp the current state of scientific understanding but is subject to group think and agendas. We should be skeptical of any claim of truth from anyone, but our society practically worships science and people are often all too willing to believe everything that someone with a PhD says. We must not check our brains at the door just because an expert tells us something. Further, realize that the science is never "settled". Reasoned questioning of the accepted science is the most scientific endeavor.
This is a lot of information, but understanding what science is provides an important foundation for the following articles.
Why does it matter?
Why should science matter to Christians? It is important to understand science (and history) because it may provide insight on some scripture. Cultural context is important and we get this from historians and archaeologists. Granted, some historians are revisionist, so one must use discernment here. Also, whenever there is a disagreement between science and the Bible, there are only four possibilities: 1) there is a misunderstanding of science, 2) there is a misunderstanding of scripture, 3) both the Bible and the science are misunderstood, or 4) the "science" is wrong. The Bible, properly interpreted, is inerrant. See the earlier article on this. But I've seen arguments between people on both sides of some issues who were ignorant of both the science and the scripture. Before you get into a discussion on a controversial subject you should ask yourself if it is important enough for an argument. This requires being steeped enough in the Bible (and yielded enough to the Spirit) that you can discern whether or not it is an important issue. Second, you should understand the opposing side enough that you could play "Devil's advocate" and argue for the opposition. If you cannot do that, you do not understand the other side enough to be in an argument in the first place. Third, you should always carry some self-doubt about something you are not expert in - but you shouldn't doubt what is clearly stated in scripture. However, if you are Biblically illiterate, how can you know what the scripture clearly states? Therefore, study the Bible! Finally, there are some portions of scripture that are open to interpretation and you may find that many Godly men have differing opinions about those passages.
An even greater reason for science to matter to the believer is that God created the universe and everything in it. Paul tells us that creation reveals something about God1. Therefore, the more we know about nature, the more we know about God. Scripture says that "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."2 God has hidden amazing things in His creation that only diligent searching out (science) reveals. As the royalty of the Kingdom of heaven, it is our inheritance to search out the marvels that God has hidden in His creation. To avoid science is to ignore this aspect of our spiritual life. Should science be left to those who hate God? I am, of course, talking about true science - not that which is unprovable theory.
I know some believers that seem to be afraid of learning too much about the science, perhaps thinking that if they know too much, it would contradict the Bible and/or their faith. This can only be the result of an ignorance of scripture and a spiritual poverty that comes from a lack of engagement with the Holy Spirit. We Christians have the least to fear from the truth. After all, we know the Truth.3