Is the Church Anti-Science?

Is the church anti-science?

This was a question posed by the local chapter of Ratio Christi and the topic I chose to discuss at one of the Friday meetings of this group.

Is the church anti-science?  Yes.

And No.

To really look at this question carefully, we need to define Science and Church.  By "the Church" I simply mean the visible representation of Christianity, across time (but with an emphasis on present day.)  Related to "the Church" is the concept of "Biblical teaching", that is, concepts that are expressed or taught by Scripture.

By "Science" I mean the knowledge built up from investigation, experimentation and measurement. (From Wikipedia, "Science ... builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.")

Is it Church or Culture?

The culture I live in (early 21st century USA) is often ignorant of scientific concepts, unaware of the meanings of probability and correlation and is confused about the role of scientific experiment.

In our culture, people misjudge lottery odds, see a cold snap as disproving global warming, drink coca-cola (or coffee or red wine) based on a news reports about a recent "scientific discovery". At times this is humorous (I love Big Bang Theory) but society's abuse of science can be deadly, for example, when it comes to serious misunderstandings about vaccines or tobacco.  (One example of a significant misunderstanding in Italy led to geologists being charged with manslaughter after an earthquake, see here.)

Our culture reveres scientists and yet, at the same time, makes fun of them and feels threatened by them.  These different reactions are connected.  They are due to significant misunderstanding of scientific development.  It is easy to fear someone that is highly revered or appears very powerful, whether a scientist, wizard or politician.

Because of the reverence for science, our culture often hears of "scientific" concepts that support a certain viewpoint (or corporate product) but which may have no real relationship to scientific experimentation.

The church in America (sadly) reflects our culture.  Everything said about our society can be said about the church in America.

The conflict between science and faith

Although the church in America reflects our culture, there is a sharper conflict between the church and science (on some levels) because of the nature of religious faith and practice.  This is often expressed as "Faith versus Science" but this phrase is misleading.

The conflict might be better described as "Conviction versus Science". And in this realm there is some legitimacy to claims by scientists that certain aspects of the Church rebuff scientific investigation and discovery.

The attacks by scientists on "faith" is easily deflected. Where religious people use the word "faith", many of us might use "trust".  We "trust" God based on our experiences and reasoning about the nature of God and most of us don't use "blind faith", despite the claim by (almost) every atheist that we do!

However the church often asks for "complete conviction" on issues where there is not a Biblical need for confidence.  The church (in various times and places) has insisted that its followers affirm a set of beliefs and has not allowed questioning or dissent.

It is OK to say, "I don't know"

If you think you know all the answers, then a genuine seeker, one who is thoughtful and mature,  will tend to shy away from you, for they will see your confident answers as simplistic attempts to cover up deep problems.

This is true in science. Most genuine scientists have lots of questions about almost everything, including the nature of the universe and the existence of God or the actions of God in the universe. If our faith makes us claim to know all the answers (to very hard questions!) then we should not be surprised if they shy away.

Two stories

Years ago, I had a friend, a philosophy professor, tutor me through a number of the great works of philosophy, beginning with Plato's Republic.  (I think we spent a year in Plato's Republic! It was wonderful!)  After two to three years of this conversational friendship -- with me learning much more from him than he from me -- my friend called me up one Saturday morning and said, "Ken, I just thought you should know, since you wear your religion on your shirt sleeves, that I have decided to set aside the next semester to study God and learn how to love God."  Our years of philosophy conversation had led me to a place where I was certainly more humble than I had been before and I think it also contributed (a little?) to my friend's decision to make God and Christ the focus of his personal philosophy and beliefs.

This occurred because I wanted to learn and I genuinely enjoyed our friendship. I was not confident and sure of everything.

I did not make my friend an evangelistic target.

Another time, I was invited to be in a debate over Christianity and Atheism.  This debate was hosted by the university Philosophy Club and would  take the following format: each side would have a student advocate and a professor advocate.  I and a philosophy major (who happened to attend my church) would defend Christianity and debate an atheist philosophy professor and another philosophy student.  I agreed to the debate, on the condition that my professorial opponent go out with me for beers afterwards.  This condition was acceped, indeed, two philosophy professors joined me for drinks afterwards at a local pub.

In the debate I took the stance that I was still learning and still seeking answers. I was weary of the stereotypical church stance, "I know all the answers and have no doubts."  In fact, I was quite willing to admit to having lots of questions. (I had learned a great deal from my philosophy tutor, mentioned earlier!)  It was somewhat easy for me to take this "humble approach" since everyone knew I was a mathematics professor and not a philosophy professor!

I think the debate went well.  There were some things I could have answered better, and at least once, in a question from a genuine seeker, I clearly missed the mark.  (Some of the fumbling on my part were overcome by a very articulate young Christian woman who was my partner in the debate!)

One of the things that is still vivid to me from the debate is that in the Question and Answer period at the end of the debate, several guys sitting in the back row tried to "fix" my answers.  I had not come across as the confident Christian they knew I should have been!  I had not corrected some the "errors" of my opponents.  These young college men did not really ask questions but made a number of strong statements in support of Christianity.  They acted out the very stereotype I had tried to avoid -- they knew all the answers and were frustrated that I was so dumb.  (Or so it seemed.)

I don't think anyone was convinced by the cocky claims of these young men.  I appreciate their desire to serve Jesus, but the questions we were discussing were hard! If you are 22 and think you have all the answers, the main thing you communicate will be your youthfulness, not your wisdom!

At the pub afterwards, I had an enjoyable evening.  I asked lots of questions.  At one point I suggested a trade -- we each should share the most vulnerable aspects of our own beliefs.  What is the weakest part of our beliefs?  (I love that question!)  My answer was, "The existence of evil."  Both of my friends (one an aggressive atheist, the other agnostic) said, quickly, "The issue of design."  The universe seems beautiful.  It has the "illusion" of design.  If anything keeps an atheist awake at night (listening to my friends) it would be the nagging belief that maybe the beauty and design of the universe is not illusion!

Question authority!

The modern science vs. religion debate is much more complicated than popular science would imply. (See, for example, the Galileo dispute.)

Unfortunately, some within the Christian community attempt a "homerun" against science, trying to derail scientific reasoning by claiming evidence for a "young earth". As people in the church argue for a young earth, other Christians in the sciences push back against this.  This has been going on for a long time! More recently, in the last decade, a number of Christians have confronted the half-truth approach of young-earth organizations such as Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research. It is my opinion that Christians need to be more aggressive in confronting groups like AIG or ICR. These groups make a mockery of the depth and complexity of the Bible and Christian belief. I appreciate posts like this review of a recent Christian film on creation.

There are a variety of good resources for Christians in the sciences. For example, here for an article from Reasons to Believe (an organization started by astronomer Hugh Ross.)  Reasons to Believe (RTB) also has some nice articles on engaging the Church in intellectual pursuits.  I recommend this article at RTB. (I appreciate colleague Darren Williams recommending this link to me.)

I personally recommend BioLogos, started by NIH director, Francis Collins. A related excellent blog is Musings on Science and Theology by RJS, a Michigan scientist who is a friend of a friend.

At some point it comes down to us. What do we say within the church and how do we say it?  (I led a class on Science and Creation at a church, working through parts of Genesis.  I am also more confrontational with AIG people....)

At times the emphasis on conviction is on the other foot: see typical simplistic Facebook quotes of Bertrand Russell.

It is OK to not know, to be unsure, to have questions. But don't stop with the questions!