One more time, just to make it clear what is going on here:
1. The bible provides information about how old the earth is, and when a global flood happened, and how humans came to be created.
2. Science has been not able to confirm these bible teachings, even though most early scientists assumed them to be true. In fact, it has become clear that the earth is older that 6,000 years (much older), that there was no global flood in 2500 bc, and that humans are related to, and evolved from, other life on the planet.
3. Therefore, some Christians believe that science has to be made wrong, in order for the bible (and their fatih) to be proven right.
Because science cannot "back up" bible claims, its assertion that it does not make theological statements is viewed as suspect at best, and simply untrue at worst. Because science cannot confirm these bible truths, science must be "anti-god."
The solution is for scientists to learn to communicate more effectively about what is known about the world, and what it means for science to limit itself to descriptions of the "natual" world. More moderate Christians need to speak up, and no longer allow themselves to be silenced by the fervor of YEC-ers, who make believing their dogma the litmus test for being a real christian.
Faith and science actually dovetail beautifully, because Christians believe that God created the world, and called it good, and that it reflects the glory of God. Christians should be able to enjoy science as an explanation of "how" God did his work - it is in no way a threat to faith.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Does Revelation Trump Science?
One of the fundamental questions we have to answer when we think about faith and science is the relationship between the natural world and revelation. Gnosticism is the belief that the "real truth" about ourselves and the world is hidden, and available only to those with special knowledge (gnosis). One the other hand, the Christian faith has been "out in the open." The gospel is plain, freely spoken, and God is the creator and animator of the world - He made it, and called it good.
When we discover things about the world that seem to be at odds with what the bible teaches, we have two options - we can decide that the Christian faith is really a kind of Gnostic religion (the world looks old, but we know it is really not), or we can respectfully ask if we have been reading the bible right. The difficulty is that if we cannot trust what we discover about the world, we have no way of knowing if our faith is true, either.
How was the revelation you base your faith on received? Well, it is based on the bible, you might say - the word of God. On what basis can you trust it, if you cannot have faith in how the world works? For example, think about your ideas as regards written words holding their shape and meaning over time. On what basis do you know that what was written in the 1st and 2nd century is what is displayed on those manuscripts now? Is it possible that the gospel writers wrote one set of words, but over time they drifted around to form different words altogether?
Nonsense, you think. Of course the words haven't morphed! Ink and parchment make a chemical bond... oh, that's right - if I can't be certain about the natural world, I am adrift when it comes to revelation as well. Science does discover true things about the world.
Now what do we do about the age of the earth? Well, some people dismiss uniformatarianism - the belief that the world always worked the way it does now. That way is madness. And has been demonstrated to be wrong. So some people take another approach and attack science - call it wrong, and provisional, and in the hands of godless atheists. This is also wrong - and very shortsighted. The other option, supported by the bible, is to view the world as telling us accurate things about God. If the world is old (and it is),then we have to deal with this, and in humility, let this fact help us interpret our bible - instead of insisting that God can't do this or mean that.
When we discover things about the world that seem to be at odds with what the bible teaches, we have two options - we can decide that the Christian faith is really a kind of Gnostic religion (the world looks old, but we know it is really not), or we can respectfully ask if we have been reading the bible right. The difficulty is that if we cannot trust what we discover about the world, we have no way of knowing if our faith is true, either.
How was the revelation you base your faith on received? Well, it is based on the bible, you might say - the word of God. On what basis can you trust it, if you cannot have faith in how the world works? For example, think about your ideas as regards written words holding their shape and meaning over time. On what basis do you know that what was written in the 1st and 2nd century is what is displayed on those manuscripts now? Is it possible that the gospel writers wrote one set of words, but over time they drifted around to form different words altogether?
Nonsense, you think. Of course the words haven't morphed! Ink and parchment make a chemical bond... oh, that's right - if I can't be certain about the natural world, I am adrift when it comes to revelation as well. Science does discover true things about the world.
Now what do we do about the age of the earth? Well, some people dismiss uniformatarianism - the belief that the world always worked the way it does now. That way is madness. And has been demonstrated to be wrong. So some people take another approach and attack science - call it wrong, and provisional, and in the hands of godless atheists. This is also wrong - and very shortsighted. The other option, supported by the bible, is to view the world as telling us accurate things about God. If the world is old (and it is),then we have to deal with this, and in humility, let this fact help us interpret our bible - instead of insisting that God can't do this or mean that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
