The Pursuit of Science in a Christian Context

Randy Isaac

Modeling Dialogue Rather than Warfare

The prevailing public perception appears to be that both science and religion, particularly Christian faith, are important to daily life but should be kept in their respective corners. Most Americans profess to believe in some type of a deity while simultaneously enjoying a cornucopia of benefits from science and technology. Yet when science and religion meet, sparks often fly and headlines scream about the clash.

From school board decisions in Kansas to court rulings in Pennsylvania, widely publicized conflicts seem to confirm a disconnect between science and Christian faith. Science is portrayed as sparring with Christianity, pitting objectivity and reality against subjective mysticism and piety.

But the headlines do not tell enough of the story. I work with the American Scientific Affiliation, a group of nearly two thousand scientists who affirm the orthodox Christian creeds. My ASA colleagues do not segregate their science from their faith but actively seek to integrate their faith with their vocation. Far from being on the fringes of pseudoscience, they are involved in higher education and industry and are committed to integrity in science. Neither do they avoid areas of controversy but strive to sustain a healthy dialogue across the entire spectrum of views of Christian faith and mainstream science.

How do such scientists deal with the apparent dichotomy between science and Christianity? How do we handle the sharp differences of opinion on controversial issues? How can these conflicts be handled in our pluralistic society?

Not so simple

Underlying our approach is the conviction that the core assumptions and commitments of science and Christian faith are fundamentally in harmony. If science and faith were inherently incompatible, any effort to bring them together would be hopeless. A peaceful but wary coexistence would be the best one could hope for. But modern science itself arose in a strongly theistic milieu that helped to shape it in very important ways.

In a theistic understanding, the world makes sense because it is a product of the divine mind. The nature of nature as a created entity rather than as a divine being means that humans can explore nature and use it for their benefit within the limits of an appropriate stewardship. The freedom of the creator requires a science that looks for contingent order, not for necessary truths imposed on nature by our minds.

This is not to deny the presence of genuine conflict at certain points in history, such as the trial of Galileo or the fundamentalist rejection of large parts of modern science. Such conflicts are real, but they are complex phenomena that cannot be simply reduced to the standard metanarrative that “science” and “religion” are in a perpetual state of inevitable conflict.

In Galileo’s case, for example, he and his principal Vatican opponent, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, agreed that the Bible should not be reinterpreted without absolute proof of the earth’s motion. Galileo thought he had such proof, but his arguments, based on the phases of Venus and the cause of the tides, were logically flawed and he pushed them beyond their real force. In the process, he personally insulted his longtime friend, Pope Urban VIII, who retaliated by summoning Galileo to Rome to face charges of heresy. In short, there was plenty of blame to go around. It was not simply a matter of “science” versus “religion.”

In the hands of later apologists for science, however, Galileo became a martyr for scientific progress, the epitome of what would happen to the diligent scientist who simply pursued Truth against entrenched, unenlightened religious zealots. In reality, the truth is what is lost when such historically unsupported interpretations are advanced as established matters of fact.

An accurate understanding of the history of science and theology is therefore vital to understanding how science and Christian faith can and do relate.

Roots of harmony, modern aggression

Prior to the Enlightenment period, there was no sharp professional distinction between theology, philosophy, and science. The study of the natural world was an integral part of the search for God’s truth. For the most part, university positions and government funding were not available to enable creative minds to devote their lives to scientific research. Systematic observations of the natural world were often made by the clergy and independently wealthy amateur “natural philosophers.”

Philosophically, science and religion were often understood according to the “two-book” model, which views the natural world and the Bible as complementary revelations of God. The early Greek philosopher Heraclitus wrote in the fifth century BC of logos, the words or thoughts of God, being the organizing principle of the natural world. Later, the apostle John identified logos as the Maker of all things and as Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. This lays a foundation of harmony between science, the study of what was made, and Christian theology, the study of the Maker and his incarnate Son.

In many ways, the understanding that all nature was made by a single deity, rather than by a panoply of warring deities, was important to building confidence that science was even possible. A natural world responding to the whims of various gods would hardly be amenable to systematic scientific study.

During the Enlightenment, secularism advanced aggressively. One impact of the times on theology was the growth of deism, the view that the creator of the universe is not involved in its subsequent existence and development. Deism led ultimately to agnosticism and atheism. Especially in the nineteenth century, science came to be viewed as an alternative to a theistic explanation rather than as a way of understanding the ordinary, everyday actions of the deity.

In the last half of the nineteenth century, opponents of religion became more militant. They seized upon Darwin’s theory of evolution as a primary piece of evidence to reject the role of a deity in forming the biological world. Thomas Huxley, John Tyndall, John Draper, Andrew White, and others aggressively advanced a model of inherent warfare between science and Christianity. White’s 1896 History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom became a worldwide staple in education. Though his work has since been decisively discredited by such historians as David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers, his assertions have had widespread influence and helped make the myth of a fundamental conflict between science and Christian faith into a basic assumption in academic circles. Restoring a more accurate understanding of both history and the relationship of faith and science will require deconstructing this misconception.

Today, those who accept the warfare model take a variety of approaches to the conflict. On one end of the spectrum, vocal advocates such as Dawkins, Dennett, and Provine claim that science has shown religion to be false and even dangerous. They proclaim that the existence of a deity has been disproved by science and that religious faith can even be detrimental to society. This view, however, is to mistakenly treat scientific explanations of phenomena as substitutes for God rather than expressions of the coherent actions of a monotheistic creator. A fact seldom clarified in their works is that their metaphysical conclusions are derived from their own presuppositions and are not a necessary consequence of scientific analysis.

Reacting to this provocation, some defenders of the Christian faith counter with claims that science as practiced today is inherently biased toward an atheistic presupposition and is thus no longer objective. Ideas ranging from scientific creationism to intelligent design are offered to demonstrate how “true” science is not in conflict with religion. Often such Christians make the same mistake as the vocal atheists in seeing the divine hand only where the laws of nature provide no other explanation. They accept the claims that science leads to the rejection of divine existence, but their response is to be skeptical of mainstream science, proposing an alternative theistic or Bible-based science. The result is an escalation of the warfare, particularly in the public classroom. This conflict has been a major factor in the growth of religious private schools where modified versions of science can be taught.

Those who hold these opposing approaches are sometimes called scientific fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists. Their conflicts are headline grabbers, and this makes it appear that their conflict is widespread. Nevertheless, many, if not most, scientists do not subscribe to either extreme. Some who represent the middle ground strive to keep science and religion separate. Stephen J. Gould, for example, championed the NOMA concept (Non-Overlapping MAgisteria), in which science and religion are considered to be separate, non-interacting spheres of influence. For most scientists this is a de facto description of everyday life. Religion doesn’t affect their work at the laboratory, and science has little influence on the average sermon in church. Philosophically, however, NOMA essentially means that religion is irrelevant to understanding the natural world. In essence, it reinforces the perception that science and religion are incompatible and need to be isolated in their respective corners to prevent culturally destructive warfare.

A more fruitful approach is to reject the warfare model itself and to recognize or argue for the genuine compatibility of modern science and traditional Christian belief. Most ASA members acknowledge this harmony and seek to integrate mainstream science and Christian faith without compromising the integrity and orthodoxy of either one. In our case, such integration is not reflected in a monolithic, single-minded perspective but rather in a spectrum of opinions sharpened by dialogue and growing understanding. We find that broad education in the history of science and of Christianity is a vital element in overcoming caricatures and maintaining order in this discussion.

One inherent conflict cannot be glossed over. There is a fundamental incompatibility between the opposing worldviews of metaphysical naturalism and atheism on one hand, and monotheistic Christianity on the other. Science is often caught in the crossfire and used by both sides in an attempt to bolster their own positions. Yet science provides no definitive proof for either side.

Dialogue as a path to understanding

Issues in science and Christian faith are complex. Many firmly held beliefs are rooted in traditions and presuppositions that are not fully vetted from a scholarly perspective. How can progress be made in bringing together such a vast array of opinions?

In the ASA, we find it fruitful to begin by establishing core commitments—on the one hand, a commitment to the orthodox creeds of the Christian faith; on the other hand, a commitment to integrity in science. Beyond those commitments we avoid taking a specific position as an organization on controversial issues.

Granted, such a policy has disadvantages, including the practical one that an organization without a specific position on controversial issues offers a less colorful rallying point. Dialogue and discussion can appear boring and banal compared with the excitement of presenting yourself as a group with the “answer” to some problem. And encouraging a diversity of opinions has its downside—while we all agree on the broad theological and metaphysical perspectives, much time and energy are spent on disagreements in the details.

The advantages, however, outweigh the disadvantages. We have made it our primary focus to foster scholarship and dialogue across the full spectrum of perspectives. The result has been a deeper understanding of the issues and an emphasis on unity based on common ground.

Over the years, we have found that discussion of the integration of science and faith falls into several basic areas, each requiring a different approach. The first area is philosophical, or metaphysical, seeking to understand the big picture of the relationship between the natural world, humanity, and God. This includes the warfare models discussed above as well as conceptual relationships between God, humans, and nature. The existence of God, the philosophy of science, the truth of theology, the meaning of life, and many other issues have been discussed for millennia and will long continue to be the focus of debate. Dialogue in this area requires a basic understanding of philosophy, theology, and general science.

The second area involves the interpretation of the Bible. The most frequent source of conflict in what we think should be a landscape of inherent harmony is a specific interpretation of a passage of Scripture. The most well-known of these is the interpretation of the first chapter of the book of Genesis as proclaiming that the earth and its inhabitants appeared during a 144-hour period approximately 6–10,000 years ago. Though neither a historical nor orthodox interpretation, this has become a hallmark of biblical inerrancy for those reacting to the rise of religious modernism with its challenge to the reliability of the Bible.

Secularists accept this interpretation as the norm and conclude that scientific evidence of a 13.7 billion-year-old universe disproves the Bible and therefore the existence of God. Fundamentalists and other Christians who remain convinced of the accuracy of this interpretation conclude that scientists are biased and have failed to interpret the data correctly. Meanwhile the real issue is the hermeneutics, or the method of interpretation, of the passage. When interpreted from the perspective of the language and culture of the era in which it was written, it is not certain that any chronology is taught by this passage.

In any religion, the interpretation of sacred texts is a cornerstone of the faith, arousing a passionate apologetic. Different religious leaders emphasize nuances relating to issues they consider important, resulting in a vast spectrum of interpretations. Dialogue in this area requires extensive study and knowledge of original texts and the writings of diverse theologians.

The third area for dialogue involves the application of science and religious perspectives to ethical issues. In this area it is not possible (nor desirable) to keep science and religion separate. Well-known battlegrounds of abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, and ecology are areas where both science and religion have something to say. Deep scientific knowledge is necessary to understand the nature of cells and embryos. Religious views of life and the respect and reverence to be accorded to various types of cells are a vital check and balance to the insatiable appetite for scientific research. The biggest threat of all is ignorance. Dialogue requires both scientific expertise and a firm grasp of the religious and social basis for our ethical standards.

Technology is not immune from the discussion. Many engineers consider technology and its development to be ethically neutral, leaving the producers and users of such technology to be the arbiters of ethical behavior. Yet such a NOMA-like approach is an abrogation of responsibility. Consideration of the human impact and implications of a technological project should be a core consideration at every step of the work. Dialogue in this arena requires a sensitivity and knowledge of the implications of technology in our global economy.

Finally, the fourth area relates to the nature of human beings. While scientists have growing confidence in theories of the origin of species, and are hot in pursuit of a viable theory of the origin of life, the origin of consciousness and humanness itself is still beyond our grasp. It is not at all clear from science alone why a species should exist that can ponder the meaning of its own existence and that of the universe around it. As scientists are rapidly gathering more information about the details of the brain and its operation, still more questions arise about the relative role of physical and spiritual influence on behavior. These issues may be more divisive in the future than issues of origins are today. Dialogue in this area requires a vast knowledge of all types of scientific data regarding human beings, including psychology, neuroscience, and theology.

Respect and resolution

Much of the hostility expressed publicly over the various issues cited above derives from adamant adherence to a particular viewpoint, coupled with a lack of understanding of alternatives. The approach that we take in the ASA, by contrast, embraces a wide range of perspectives within the Christian theological framework, and therefore offers the opportunity to make real progress in the resolution of critical issues.

Our method is also worth noting, for we seek to resolve issues under an umbrella of respect for each person’s view. As is common in ordinary scientific debates, tempers may flare and strong words may be exchanged in the passion of a heated debate, but we have found that fundamental respect, especially displayed in the art of listening to each other, is a necessary starting point for resolution.

The model of warfare between science and Christian faith seems to pervade our culture and cause many of the open clashes. By pursuing an understanding of diverse views within a wider model of harmony, the ASA helps the many Christians in the scientific community integrate their vocation and their faith—and model a better approach for the wider culture.  

This article is adapted with permission from the Phi Kappa Phi Forum. Randy Isaac, PhD, is executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (founded 1941). He was previously the vice president, Science and Technology, for the IBM Research Division, where he had worldwide responsibility for semiconductor, packaging, and communications technologies. Dr. Isaac received his PhD in 1977 in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a Senior Member of IEEE, a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and a Fellow of the American Scientific Affiliation.

2 Responses (comments are closed) • Features, Faiths and Worldviews, Science and Technology, Thu 14 Feb 2008