Following on from our Deconstructing God preaching series, we are publishing a series of articles addressing some of the big questions raised by our secular culture against the Christian faith. In this post, Dr Joanna Diong tackles the question of science and faith. Jo is Senior Lecturer in anatomy at the University of Sydney and a scientist in applied physiology.
One prominent idea today is that science and faith are in conflict. The physicist Sean Carroll writes:
The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions … Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like ‘God made the universe in six days’, or ‘Jesus died and was resurrected’, or ‘Moses parted the red sea’, or ‘dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden’. And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.¹
These are strong words that warrant our attention. Many people think that only the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) provide genuine knowledge of reality. In other words, science explains everything—it either already explains what is known today, or eventually it will.
If this is true, then science makes faith unnecessary, perhaps even unhelpful. That is, faith is simply belief with no basis and has to involve a leap. If so, then the Christian faith is just wishful thinking.
Is this true? How can we work through these ideas?
DOES SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING?
‘Science’ refers to systems of knowledge of the physical world based on information obtained by experiments and observation.2 These include physics, chemistry, and biology, but also include engineering, mathematics, information and other technologies, biomedical sciences, natural and earth sciences, etc. Scientific methods obtain information by experimentally testing, observing, and verifying.
In order for science to explain everything (either now or in the future), science also needs to explain the view that ‘science explains everything’, because that view is part of ‘everything’.
But does it? How might it be possible to experimentally verify the view that ‘science explains everything’?
Well, perhaps we could interview a group of people who hold this view and compare what they say to another group of people who don’t. But how would we know which group is right? Is there a test for this? Maybe we could work out who is right by reading and analysing what they say?
But hang on… the fact that we want to test and compare what two groups of people believe, and think that we can find out the truth this way curiously implies some things. It implies that we think our ability to reason and rationalise are valid, that our ability to think and other cognitive functions are reliable, that different persons are distinct from one another and have separate minds, that our participants are real people and not simply part of our imaginations, that the present and the past are real, that our data can be recorded in an orderly and logical way, that order and logic are valid, and that the answer to the question (if we can work it out!) is meaningful to us.
How curious! We set out to ask whether ‘science explains everything’, but the very act of trying to answer that question raises many other implicit beliefs which we fundamentally accept as true. These beliefs can’t be explained by science if the only way to do science is to first hold to these beliefs.
In other words, science requires basic beliefs about nature and reality in order to be science.
One way to structure these ideas is to write them down like this:
1. If science explains everything, science also has to explain the view that ‘science explains everything’.
2. Science does not explain the view that ‘science explains everything’.
3. Therefore, science does not explain everything.
At face value, Carroll’s comments can seem insurmountable (also because he writes forcefully). But see how his comments do not articulate scientific claims since they can’t be experimentally verified?
The statement, “science explains everything” is not a scientific statement; it is a philosophical belief. And this belief is open to discussion, like all other beliefs. So, when we listen to people, it becomes easier to understand where they are coming from, and it allows us to separate scientifically verifiable claims from philosophical beliefs.
IS CHRISTIANITY WISHFUL THINKING?
Take the core beliefs of Christianity—the existence of God, the creation of the universe, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and the great commission. If these beliefs can’t be verified in the same way that the philosophical belief that science explains everything can’t be verified, how are Christians justified in their beliefs?
Well, the short answer is that based on the inward witness of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:16), knowing God exists is as basic a belief as knowing reality is real.3 The Christian faith is not a leap because the gospel can be known to be true. This answer is sufficient, but can be further unpacked by considering the arguments for the existence of God.
Importantly, the biblical worldview and ethic provides a framework that undergirds the conduct of science. This is because science alone cannot tell us whether experiments should be performed or how findings should be used.
For example, part of our understanding of the human physiological response to intense cold comes from brutal Nazi experiments on hypothermia performed in concentration camps in the name of ‘medical research’.4 Does the pursuit of knowledge justify the means to obtain it under any circumstance? Science cannot answer this question because it offers no moral or ethical guidance.
The discovery of moral and ethical standards belong to philosophy and religion, not science. Specifically, our mandate is to use science as a means to steward and care for people and the natural word—this is a moral directive, not a scientific one.
DOES FAITH MEAN SCIENCE IS NOT NEEDED?
So, if science does not explain everything and does not guide its own conduct, does that mean all we need is faith? Is science the enemy?
The short answer is no. Scientific endeavours help us learn about the world around us. It’s easy to see how: scientists in infectious disease epidemiology, immunology, and evidence synthesis contribute tremendously in the ongoing pandemic, those in information technology and engineering developed the electronic devices we use to read this blog, and those in agriculture and food sciences help ensure there is enough to feed the nation with leftover. Most of us have benefited more from science than we realise, and science still has much to offer.
Interestingly, science can provide evidence that leads to conclusions which have theological implications.5 Science gives clues to the existence of God.
For example, based on modern cosmology, it is now widely agreed that the universe (including space and time) began to exist at an instant from nothing, which raises the question “how can something come from nothing?”. Well, this implies that either: (1) the universe caused itself; or (2) it always existed; or (3) Someone had to be there sans universe to begin it. Although these ideas are still an active area of discussion, there is strong agreement between the findings of modern cosmology and the core beliefs of Christianity.
Most scientists have a natural curiosity about the world and exercise this in their fields. Speaking from experience as a practising scientist, sure, we learn about the world to steward it, but learning something new in itself brings the thrill.
Even as Christians, there are many great questions that we struggle with, be they in nature or faith. Science can play a role in helping us learn to wrestle with these questions and seek answers. Christianity is a faith that seeks to understand.
REFERENCES
1. Carroll, S. (2009) Science and religion are not compatible. Discover Magazine: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible [Accessed Aug 2020]
2. Moreland, JP. (2018) Scientism and secularism: Learning to respond to a dangerous ideology. Crossway: IL, USA.
3. Plantinga, A. (2015) Knowledge and Christian belief. Eerdmans: Michigan, USA.
4. Berger, RL. (1990) Nazi science – The Dachau hypothermia experiments. New England Journal of Medicine 322:1435-1440.
5. Craig, WL. (2008) Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics. (3rd Ed) Crossway: IL, USA.