1) Matt, it seems that many people today maintain a sharp division between science and theology. Have the fields of science and theology always been so separated? If not, what would you say contributed to their division (Do your best to be briefJ)?
Let me start by admitting that I am not a historian of science, caveat emptor. Thus, I would characterize myself as an educated layperson with regards to the history of science apart from some formal education I received when I took my undergraduate degree in evolutionary biology. Much of what I know I have learned from being an avid reader. That being said, I would suggest that the line drawn between science and Christian theology is somewhat overstated. Granted, in some corners the demarcation can be quite sharp, at least for some subdisciplines within the sciences (e.g. evolutionary biology) and for some corners of the Christian church (e.g. some fundamentalist movements in Evangelicalism). That particular demarcation really begins in the 19th century and is primarily flamed by Andrew Dickson White, who notably wrote a book which propagandized and overstated the conflict, and who is a co-founder of Cornell University. During the rise of fundamentalism in the 1920s and 1930s, the retreat of certain parts of the conservative Christian churches from public intellectual engagement meant there was a widening divide between science and Christianity in that there was very little conversation between the two. Of course, I am speaking in monolithic tones, and it’s always difficult to say “Science did this” or the “Church did that.” Nonetheless, the point is that there has not always been a separation, and it is even possible that the separation is overstated, though it is particularly pointed in some circles. ‘Division’ connotes conflict. And so, while we know only about 7% of members of the National Academy of Sciences profess belief in a “personal God who answers prayer” (with %70.2 disbelieving and %20.8 agnostic on the issue), this does not necessarily mean there is conflict.
2) How would you describe the contemporary intersection of science and theology? Is it nothing more than a 40 car pileup or is there a steady traffic of ideas exchanged?
There are more ideas exchanged than people realize, at least for those academics who work at the intersection of science and theology. If there is anything like a “40-car pileup” it happens when we don’t converse with the sciences, or vice versa. The interaction between the two domains of science and theology has been typically characterized in a four-fold typology: conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. This typology was made most widely know by Ian Barbour. In my opinion, the most energetic exchanges are happening in the realms of physics and evolutionary biology. That being said, I’m not certain that scientific disciplines are being shaped as much by Christian thought, as Christian thought is being currently shaped by the sciences. Of course, there are those that would disagree with me. Dr. Jim Baird at Oklahoma Christian, who took his Ph.D from Oxford and worked with Richard Swinburne, contends that the contemporary scientific method is completely undergirded by a Christian-derived worldview—which is the assumption that we live in an ordered universe where laws are consistent across space and time. His contends this ordered view of the world arises from theistic belief. If he is right (he likely is) then the modern scientific methodology is more beholden to Christianity than it might like to admit. In my opinion, most scientists are completely unaware of this. I certainly was before I studied the philosophy of religion.
3) In your experience as a scientist, was there a pressure from fellow scientists or the content of your education to dismiss your belief in God? If so, what was it that helped you retain your faith?
There was no explicit pressure, per se, but to the majority of scientists in my department who were non-believers, I think my faith was something that was either not widely known, or if it was known, it was looked at as something that was quirky. I sensed the attitude was one of incredulity—meaning, those who knew about my faith either didn’t really care or they quietly wondered why someone who was intelligent and had a promising career in biology ahead of them would believe in these supernatural things. I never really had any sharp exchanges over the issue. But I also didn’t make a point of talking about it widely either.
That being said, we have all heard about students who go off to college and lose their faith. I realize this happens. But why does it happen? One reason I think it happens is because students are encouraged to think through what they believe while in college. They are encouraged to ask critical questions and to turn things over and look inside. We don’t do that as well in our churches. Thus, when students do it in college, things can sometimes crumble because they have not had to do this for their Christian faith before. That doesn’t happen for everyone of course. Many people’s faith gets stronger in college. But it does happen to some. Churches should coach their young people about where secular worldviews are going to come into conflict with Christian thought, and help them respond accordingly. The Christian faith is strong, and will stand up to investigation. Not all of our “sacred cows” will survive of course, but the important things will, in my opinion.
4) The science community is excited to see the anticipated discovery of ‘the God particle.’ The very name may make some Christians fearful that this discovery will be more evidence to disprove the existence of God. What is your reaction to the possibility of ‘the God particle’ and the general progress of science as it relates to a belief in God? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-science-found-the-god-particle-6276634.html. )
Well, the particle physics community is certainly excited by the idea of discovering evidence for the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, but I think most are troubled by the moniker “the God particle.” And for good reason, the Higgs Boson has no religious significance, but it is significant because its existence is predicted by the Standard Model. Its discovery would in no way serve to prove or disprove the existence of God, just to be clear. The term is the result of a 1993 book titled The God Particle by Leon Lederman. Many scientists have regretted that he chose to title the book this way, and are especially ungrateful that the term became so widely used in the popular media. The Higgs Boson has no theological significance, except in so much as it shows us the way that God might have invested the early universe with mass. Scientists who are not believers would not describe it this way, but I am a Christian believer, and I make no apologies describing it this way.
5) Can one believe in God and believe in evolution? If one can, how can one understand Genesis 1-3?
Yes, absolutely. I’m not saying you can maintain certain Christian commitments, such a literalist or materialist readings of Genesis 1-3, and believe in contemporary evolutionary biology’s portrait of the development of life on earth. But yes, you can believe in both God and biological evolution. You will likely not have an easy time reconciling all things with your belief in God, and I would not even suggest that one do this. But the two things are diametrically opposed.
In my opinion, the best way to understand Genesis 1-3 is as a functional description of God’s creation, and not as a literal material description. One has to understand what creation stories were meant to do in the Ancient Near East. It would take too long to describe what a functional reading of Genesis 1-3 is, but fortunately there are some wonderful resources out there that will guide you in this better way of reading Genesis. I would recommend John Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One. Also, www.biologos.org has some very helpful resources for exploring the intersection of belief in God and evolution.
6) How can the Christian Church as a whole better minister to a secular world?
First, by faithfully communicating the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In my opinion, exploring the intersection of science and theology is important, but it is not the Great Commission. Telling the Gospel is the Great Commission. That being said, sometimes people wholesale reject the sciences as ungodly and even atheistic. This anti-intellectual posture from some in the churches can be a hindrance to some who work in these fields. Thus, the Gospel can in some ways be hindered when we are not able to converse about things that important to unbelievers, such as the sciences. Remember, Paul on Mars Hill in Acts 17 spoke to the Athenians in ways that they understood and were moved by. We should be able and willing to do the same. Does this mean that every pastor should get a Ph.D in the sciences? No, of course not. But pastors should be humble about what they don’t know about. If they have no training in the sciences or have not received a good education in the areas that seem to be in conversation with theology, then they should read and discern and become better trained. It’s a time when those who are educated will know something about the sciences, because ‘Science’ is a powerful way of knowing things about our world.
7) What materials would you recommend for those beginning to explore the intersection of science and theology?
I would recommend reading good books that explore the intersection between science and theology. Ian Barbour is an important thinker in this area. His 1966 work Issues in Science and Religion is a good place to start. Though it is an older work, it helps one understand the staging area for jumping off into the conversation. Early on in my explorations, I was helped by Ted Peter’s Science and Theology, a collection of essays that survey the field and the conversation. From there, I like to point people to the book resource page at the BioLogos Foundation (http://biologos.org/resources/books). When they ask me what to read, I suggest they just dive into the resources listed there and read what sounds exciting and interesting. Also, it is helpful for the advanced reader who is very interested in these topics, to know something about the philosophy of science. A good resource to jump into is Blackwell’s new anthology of the philosophy of science (ISBN: 978-1405175425). Also, there are two academic journals dedicated to the intersection of theology and science: Zygon and Theology and Science. Both are quite excellent. Finally, it might be helpful to actually know what is happening in the sciences. Two generalist journals which are excellent for science news and research are Science and Nature. They both maintain websites with excellent coverage of news in the sciences (Science: http://news.sciencemag.org/) and (Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/).
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
An interesting interview, to be sure. Count me, however, as skeptical that Christianity is a significant influence on the scientific method. While Sir Francis Bacon (who may or may not have been the real author of Shakespeare's works-j/k) is often credited with the invention of the scientific method, the history of the scientific method is too complex to assign it to one person. Everyone from ancient Egyptians, Hellenistic scholars, Persian philosophers and, yes, that English poet-statesman-scientist, who shares a name with the prince of meats, has had a hand in it.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally "the assumption that we live in an ordered universe where laws are consistent across space and time" is not uniquely Christian. Actually, it predates Christianity by quite some time. It would be more correct to say that Christianity and the scientific methods share a foundation than to suggest that Christianity is the foundation of or even a significant influence on the scientific method.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteI am a novice when it comes to the history of science and appreciate both yours and Matts contributions. What say you about 'the God particle'? What is your basic philosophy with the intersection of science and theology?
I agree with Matt entirely about the "God particle." It may not even exist. It is an entirely speculative particle. It was invented by theoreticians to plug a hole in their equations so its discovery would be a remarkable validation. If it were unambiguously detected, it would, like all of science, be entirely neutral on the question of God's (or gods') existence.
ReplyDeleteI also largely agree with Matt about the intersection of science and religion. I dislike the term "intersection," however. I prefer to think of science and religion as parallel and parallel lines never intersect. Science answers the question how (e.g. how do plants convert photons to chemical energy? how did the mountains get so big? how did the universe form?). Religion answers the question why (e.g. why are we here? why do bad things happen to good people? why is life hard?) In the latter case there is implied intent. In the former, intent is irrelevant. Conflict between science and religion (entirely fabricated and usually reactionary) occurs when practitioners of science or religion leave the realms of their expertise to speak authoritatively on issues they best not. A pastor (or seminary teacher) may say, “Evolution is a lie.” A scientist may say, “Science proves God does not exist.” Both statements come about by over-reaching yet incomplete interpretations of literature and both statements are incorrect. Evolution (yes, including human evolution) is irrefutable but science is neutral and takes no position on the existence of God.
For what it's worth, I think one of the most profound, yet accessible books on science and religion is "Reflections of a Scientist" by Henry Eyring. Eyring was one of the most prominent chemists of the 20th century, revolutionizing our understanding of molecular interaction and reaction kinetics. The book is short, but deals interestingly with the public disagreement that Eyring had with Joseph Fielding Smith about evolution and the age of the earth. Unfortunately, I think it's out of print, but you might be able to find it online or at a library.
My cousin Daniel Fairbanks wrote a book called "Relics of Eden," which is mostly a review of the molecular evidence of evolution (really, much more convincing than any fossil record). He does, however, devote two chapters to the "false dichotomy" of science and religion. Also definitely worth a read. I have a copy of that book in storage at the in-law's place in MO. If you can find it, you're welcome to borrow it. Or, you might be able to find it at a library too.
ReplyDeleteI'll try the library :) Thanks for the thoughts and input.
ReplyDelete