On Faith and Science
Thanks to my friend Dean Miller for content contributions and editorial feedback.
I have been asked several times over the years, and especially recently, what I believe about the relationship between science and Christianity. Let’s start by saying no, I do not think they need to be - or are - in conflict.
To lay the groundwork here, I am not a scientist, though my wife might arguably qualify. I’m more of a “science enthusiast”. I am also not a seminary-trained theologian. I have no claims to any specific expertise that would not be available to others who are similarly inclined to do some research into these subjects. But I do have deep interest in both. And both play central roles in my worldview.
Conflict and Harmony
I find the historical record regarding conflict between the two to be mixed. There is a lot of mythology around how much conflict there has been, and why, and how severe. But there has definitely been conflict. There has also been harmony - some of the most influential scientists in history were committed christians. Michael Faraday (discovered electromagnetic induction), James Clark Maxwell (unified theories of electricity and magnetism, kinetics), Gregor Mendel (created the field of genetics), Sir Isaac Newton (described gravity and motion, much more) - to name only a few. But let’s look at a couple of instances in which there definitely were conflicts, and what happened in each. And I think there is a good argument to be made that, whichever was in the “wrong” (ready the rotten tomatoes), science has thus far been the hero of the story.
Two examples of conflict
Example 1: Copernicus found that the earth was not the center of the universe, which did not sit well with the Christians of the day. Although there is debate about the foundations and motives of the church’s position at the time, it is true that they did hold to the idea that the earth was the center of things and that heliocentrism was heresy. The ultimate “persecution” of Galileo by The Inquisition as a result of espousing Copernican views was - though often exaggerated - an actual thing. But as the evidence mounted and became undeniable, Christians had to re-examine how to view passages that appeared to support geocentrism, learning to understand their metaphorical nature and context. We also learned that adjusting in this way did not lose or water down the essential truths of the passages, because physics and cosmology were not the point.
Example 2: In the early 20th century, most scientists assumed an essentially static, infinite universe. After he published his General Theory of Relativity in 1915, Einstein and other cosmologists set out to explore what his new theory implied about the universe. One of the first to work out these specific implications was a Belgian named Georges Lemaître (also an ordained Catholic priest). Based on calculations of redshift of nearby stars and galaxies by another astronomer, Vesto Slipher, and distance calculations of those same stars by the now more famous Edwin Hubble, Lemaître combined this information to demonstrate a key prediction of General Relativity’s equations - the universe appeared to be expanding. A couple of years later in 1929, Hubble took this a step further and showed that it was not only expanding, but the further away stars and galaxies are, the faster they’re moving away from us and each other. In 1931, Lemaître asserted the game-changing implications for cosmology. If you ran Einstein’s equations backward in time, you would come to a point when the universe was concentrated in a central spot in the finite (albeit distant) past. A “beginning”.
The findings by Lemaître and Hubble were perhaps the first major observational evidence in support of “the big bang”, but for the most part the scientific community, Einstein included, remained skeptical. The name “big bang” was itself coined as an intended insult in 1949 by Fred Hoyle, who advocated for a “steady state” model. Einstein himself introduced a new term into his equations he called “the cosmological constant” in order to counteract the expansion and keep the universe static. He later described the cosmological constant as his “greatest blunder”, after it failed to be confirmed by observations or lead to new theoretical insights. He revised his equations again to remove it, and General Relativity became what we have today - arguably the most supported theory by observational evidence in cosmology.
Even so, the cosmology community remained divided between the “big bang” model and the “steady state” model for several decades. The turning point came in the 1960s with the early research of Stephen Hawking. Hawking’s Ph.D. thesis confirmed that if you run the equations of general relativity backward in time, you eventually reach a point where the universe becomes a “singularity” (a point with virtually no dimensions, but infinite density). Hawking’s landmark contribution was to recognize that he could apply the same reasoning and math that was used to describe black holes, another kind of “singularity”. Hawking’s work also predicted that if this explanation was correct, the universe would be filled with leftover radiation from the expansion and cooling of this initial singularity. This radiation was discovered quite by accident by two AT&T researchers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (1978 Nobel Prize), who detected it as radio noise in their new ultra-sensitive microwave antenna (after initially dismissing it as coming from bird poo in the antenna). Realizing that Penzias and Wilson’s “noise” was the “cosmic microwave background radiation” predicted by Hawking’s version of the big bang proved to be the decisive factor (more important than Hubble’s discovery) in providing experimental verification for the “big bang”.
Even prominent atheistic and agnostic scientists were forced to admit that, though we can’t empirically know much about how or why it happened, the evidence definitely indicates the universe did, indeed, have a “beginning”, and that this was arguably the greatest scientific win for Christianity in history to date. In this case, the tables were turned, and science began to support, however generally, a major biblical claim.
Hero of truth
With these two examples, the “conflict” between science and Christianity might appear to be a draw, the battle tied 1 - 1. But if we look carefully, there is a common hero in both examples: science. In example 1, it moved us away from erroneous interpretation of scripture. In example 2, it provided a path to greater understanding of the physical world and empirical evidence of a fundamental biblical concept. And in both cases, we got there by following the evidence.
If we think about it, this property of science as the hero leading to greater truth should not be surprising. In fact, we rely on some of its most esoteric principles in our everyday lives. For example, Einstein’s principle that time actually runs at different rates depending on speed and gravity (Special Relativity) is quite weird. But if it weren’t true, or at least the closest to “true” that science has yet taken us on the topic, your GPS would lead you to the wrong destination, and it would get less and less accurate all the time. The process of science is iterative and self-correcting over time, leading us closer to truth about the physical world.
Which truth?
This does not in any way discount the value of faith or biblical truth, or make it somehow subordinate to truth about the physical world. Biblical truth is of an altogether different nature for reasons that I hope to someday explain. I personally do believe the Christian Bible is authoritative, is the inspired word of God written by many authors in their own times, their own styles, and directed originally at their own contemporary audiences. And despite this, it tells a single, overarching story about our relationship to God, how we can know Him, and how He loves us. It provides meaning and teaches us about both our nature and God’s - truth about who we are, who God is, and how we relate to one another. Truth also, but much different.
We have to remember that Bible is not a science textbook, and should not be used as such. The earth doesn’t have four corners, doesn’t rest on pillars, etc. We need to account for many factors of biblical interpretation - time of writing, author’s intent, cultural and historical context, intended audience, contemporary styles of writing, and crucially, common metaphors and storytelling devices - when trying to interpret and apply. Scripture also can have several purposes. Some content is informative, some is intended as teaching for us to follow and emulate, some is written only for the original audience for a particular purpose and it would be inappropriate to try to apply. These are factors considered and techniques used on any ancient documents, not just scripture. This is not a destruction of scripture, but rather I believe this is honoring it in the highest way to ensure we get from it what the ultimate author intended. Once we take this type of treatment of scripture, I believe we are positioned properly to understand God’s message for us and how we should conduct ourselves as a result.
So now we have two “truths” - truth about the nature of God and ourselves, and truth about the physical world. The thing about truth is that it is ultimately absolute, but can vary situationally and be constrained by context. Assuming the same context and constraints, two “truths”, if both are really “true”, cannot be in conflict (that’s a whole other topic I’ll explore in the future - it’s not as mind-bending as it might seem). The Bible provides truth in one context, science in another. But in order to be both true, they must ultimately agree. Do they?
What the Bible says about the physical world
The Bible’s truth not only doesn’t conflict with scientific truth, it actually tells us it’s good for us to study creation, as it leads to deeper understanding and revelation of the glory of God:
Psalms 19:1-4 (ESV)
1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world….
Acts 14:15-17 (ESV)
15 “… you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. 16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”
Romans 1:19-20 (ESV)
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Why should we fear what we learn from studying creation if doing so would leave us “without excuse” for ignorance of God’s power and divine nature? Further, and more to the point, why would scripture, which the believer holds as trustworthy and true, encourage us toward scientific investigation if we needed to reject what we learned from it? The Bible defines truth as a direct attribute of God - an innate aspect of His character. So when we read something in scripture that doesn’t seem to match with what we know as the current, best “truth” scientifically, we can look at it one of three ways.
Decide to reject science’s validity, discounting all the millennia of evidence;
Decide to reject the Bible, and with it, our faith, and try to make up some other meaning;
Decide that perhaps we have been misinterpreting certain passages and missing their intended point, or are missing a factor scientifically.
My chosen approach is #3, mainly because I would have to throw out whole categories of convincing evidence and logic to adopt #1 or #2. Science is quite good at acknowledging pieces might be missing and being challenged to reinterpret itself in new ways based on what it learns. Christianity, not so much when it comes to biblical interpretation. So we need to incorporate questions like whether the central point of the account of creation in Genesis 1 gets lost or destroyed if we’re mistaken and the world was not created in 6 literal days. I haven’t heard a convincing argument that any damage is done to the principles the creation account teaches. There was a reason the author wrote it the way it is, but it almost certainly wasn’t to educate on the mechanics of the creation process. It defines our relationship to God, how we messed it up, and ultimately why we need redemption through Jesus Christ. That message is not diminished in any way if science appears to reveal something other than 6 literal days. Is God’s majesty reduced if the earth doesn’t literally stand on pillars or have foundations? Of course not - that terminology was written for a different purpose than to explain physics and cosmology.
God is not a liar
My final point is that, if God is the embodiment of truth, and science helps reveal truth, and scripture itself says we can see testimony of God’s nature directly from creation, then we’re left with no choice but to conclude that science must not conflict with what God wants us to know. If, as some have asserted, He created things in such a way so that it “just looks like it”, or He created natural process mid-stream, we have to make up tortured explanations for everyday natural processes we see all around us and is either not supported at all or in direct conflict with the progression of evidence. That would indicate God has set things up so as to deceive us. That is something the embodiment of truth could not do and would be utterly contrary to His character. Therefore, I cannot accept it. It is far more likely, and consistent with God’s character, that we humans are focusing on the wrong things and missing the big picture. Come to think of it, doing so seems consistent with our character, isn’t it?
About the image
Cropped portion of “Bleiglasfenster in der Pfarrkirche Saint-Leu-Saint-Gilles in Paris” from GFreihalter. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported via Wikimedia Commons
