Science and Christian Apologetics

This is a short talk I gave at a CASE Scholars Consultation on Friday 10 November, 2006. The purpose of the day was for the CASE scholars to share what we have been thinking about the links that can be made between our own disciplines and Christianity. I spoke about the opportunities and potential pitfalls of science-based apologetics. It's an issue I've been considering for awhile, though I haven't really come to any conclusions. I'd be interested in feedback from anyone who would like to offer some!

CASE SCHOLARS CONSULTATION
APOLOGETICS AND THE DISCIPLINES

SCIENCE-BASED APOLOGETICS: OPPORTUNITIES AND PITFALLS

I’m currently working on a PhD in the School of History and Philosophy of Science at UNSW. My thesis concerns relations between science and religion in 17th century England, but I’m also interested in current debates on the topic. Something I’ve been pondering for awhile is how science is used in Christian apologetics. I think science can be used in positive ways, but I also have a few reservations. I don’t have a clear position on this issue yet, so what I aiming to do here is to throw out a few ideas to see what people think.

I have sometimes wondered… If the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, what is the point of rational argument? As the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?1

I doubt that there is a better example of the “wisdom of the world” than modern science.

Although we should be cautious about relying on worldly wisdom, the apostle Peter called us to be ready to give a reason for the hope that we have.2 Can science have a role in Christian apologetics? More specifically, what are the advantages and possible pitfalls of science-based apologetics?

I found it useful in thinking about this topic to consider the different types of apologetics, such as those mentioned in this quote:

Apologetics attempts to render the Christian faith persuasive to the contemporary individual. For unbelievers, it is belief forming; it helps to defuse attacks upon Christianity, and to establish Christianity as credible by giving intellectual support to the explanatory value of a biblical world view. For believers, it is belief sustaining; it nurtures Christian faith by calling believers to love their Lord with their minds.3

I think there are three separate roles for apologetics here:

1. Answering challenges given by those who oppose Christianity
2. Providing arguments to establish the credibility of the Christian world view
3. Supporting the beliefs of people who are already Christians.

I’m going to look at these three in reverse order.


Belief Sustaining

I think there can be a tendency for some Christians to be wary of science. After all, we’re told all the time that there is an age-old conflict between science and religion, and that science will inevitably triumph. It’s not surprising that Christians are a bit suspicious.

I could give an entire lecture on how wrong this “conflict myth” is, but I’ll just make a few quick points. The major figures in the history of science – the “fathers” of modern science – were committed believers. Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton – they were all devout Christians.

In addition, there are theological concepts that were considered vital to the development of empirical science. The idea that empirical enquiry can tell us anything about the world, the concept of laws of nature… these are tied to theological debates about the will of God and his work in Creation. For many historians, it is no coincidence that modern science arose in the West instead of the East – it was the theological concept of a God who created of his own free will in an orderly and regular manner that allowed scientific investigation of the world to take place.

How might modern science be able to support Christians in their faith? Can science help us to love the Lord our God with all our mind?

Historically, we would be in good company here. Galileo, Kepler, and Boyle – the fathers of modern science – viewed their study of the natural world as understanding God’s creation. Both Kepler and Boyle regarded themselves as “priests of nature”, expounding the book of God’s works for their fellow man. Boyle described the pursuit of natural knowledge as “philosophical worship of God”.

Psalm 19:1 – “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” We know that God created everything – perhaps understanding his creation better will enable us to worship him more.


Belief Forming, Part 1 – Establishing Christianity as Credible

Can science prove the existence of God or any other doctrines of Christianity?

Historically, the answer was yes. Natural theology, particularly as it developed towards the end of the 17th century in England, could be seen as the attempt to use science to support religious belief.

Natural theology has gone out of fashion, particularly among Reformed Christians. However, there are people who are doing something similar today. The main example that comes to mind is Hugh Ross, the astronomer and director of the Reasons to Believe institute. Dr Ross has written a number of books which seek to establish the factual basis of the Bible using scientific discoveries.

I’m not qualified to discuss the science here, but regardless of the status of the science, I think there is a possible danger here. Do we really want to hitch theology too closely to science? The history of science shows that scientific theories are always open to revision, improvement, and even radical change. Think of the change from the Ptolemaic world system to the Copernican, or from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein’s relativity and quantum physics. What happens if we align our theology to a particular scientific theory, which is later overhauled? What will happen to our theology?

The philosopher George Santayana famously wrote that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I think it would be instructive at this point to look back to the past – specifically to the Galileo Affair. This event is most commonly viewed as a conflict between science and religion, but there are alternative interpretations. One is that the conflict was between two types of “science” - Aristotelianism and the new mechanism/Copernicanism. A few hundred years earlier, St Thomas Aquinas had Christianised the newly rediscovered Aristotelian natural philosophy. As Aristotelianism was so closely linked with Catholic theology, it was difficult for the Church to give it up when it was challenged. Attacks on Aristotelianism were viewed as attacks on Catholicism itself.

Galileo was aware of this point. In a comment added to his own copy of the Dialogue on the Great World Systems, he wrote:

Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of the sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position – eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still.

- Note added by Galileo in the preliminary leaves of his copy of Dialogue on the Great World Systems, 1632

Similarly, Thomas Burnet (British cosmologist and theologian), wrote:

’Tis a dangerous thing to ingage the authority of Scripture in disputes about the Natural World, in opposition to Reason; lest Time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made Scripture to assert.
- The Sacred Theory of the Earth, 1691

I wonder if we could be facing something similar with Darwinism today. On the one hand, if we reject it entirely, it doesn’t look good for Christianity if evidence keeps mounting for it. On the other hand, if we work too hard to align Genesis and evolution, what happens if the theory of evolution is overthrown? Even Richard Dawkins, the arch anti-Christian evolutionist, acknowledges that this is a possibility:

Darwin may be triumphant at the end of the twentieth century, but we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the twenty-first century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition.4

I’m not sure what the solution is here – or even if there is one – I’m just tossing out a few ideas for consideration!5


Belief Forming, Part 2 – Defusing Attacks on Christianity

We come now to the third type of apologetics – defusing attacks on Christianity. It is here that I think science, but more particularly the history, philosophy and sociology of science, might be useful.

For some scientists and science writers – most notably Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett – science has replaced religion. Science is all there is, and now that we’re “grown up”, there is no need for childish superstitions. By being informed on issues relating to science, I think we can challenge the worldview of scientific materialism. It is here that the history, philosophy and sociology of science might be particularly useful.

Take the example of the Oxford scientist and theologian Alister McGrath. In his recent book, Dawkins’ God, McGrath mentions the history and philosophy of science as a factor in his changing attitude to science, which in turn enabled him to rethink his previously critical attitude to Christianity. He writes:

Issues such as the underdetermination of theory by data, radical theory change in the history of science, the difficulties in devising a ‘crucial experiment,’ and the enormously complex issues associated with determining what was the ‘best explanation’ of a given set of observations crowded in on me, muddying what I had taken to be the clear, still water of scientific truth.6

The sociology of science is something that hasn’t been used much in Christian apologetics, as far as I know, but I’m inclined to think that it could have a role. Simply put, a sociological approach treats science as a human social activity. Science is what scientists do. It is not an objective search for Truth with a capital T. We cannot simply assume that it gives us unbiased access to the facts of nature.

Christian scientists tend to shy away from sociology of science, or reject it outright, perhaps because it challenges the idea of truth. I think it is possible to use it to critique science while insulating Christianity as a different type of knowledge, but I haven’t worked that out in detail yet.7 For the moment, I think it is sufficient to suggest that the sociology of science may provide a way to knock science of the pedestal that it currently occupies in our society as the sole arbiter of truth about the natural world.

So where does this leave us? Firstly, I suggest that science is something that Christians should not shy away from, as understanding more about the world we live in might help us to appreciate God’s creative power just a little more. Secondly, I am cautious about the use of science in attempting to argue for the validity of Christianity – the existence of God, the supernatural authority of the Bible – simply because science is, by definition, open to change. Christianity isn’t, and this is where one of the fundamental differences lies. Thirdly, I think that Christians should be challenging the materialist world view of science, as well as the position of authority that science occupies in our society. The history, philosophy and sociology of science cast doubt on the view of science as an entirely rational, unbiased pursuit of truth about the natural world. For this reason, I think that these more critical approaches to science could be useful in defusing attacks on Christianity.

Finally, it is important to keep these discussions in perspective. In the light of the gospel, how important is it to determine the exact relation between scientific theories and Christianity?

In his book, The Battle for the Beginning: Creationism, Evolution and the Bible, John MacArthur writes:

The battle for a true view of the beginning is not optional. Our faith and the future of our world hang on the truth about creation.

Really? Contrast with this comment from a Sydney Anglican online discussion:

My greatest problem with Creationism is that it often seems to distract from the gospel. Massive amounts of literature are produced trying to convince people of the impossibility of evolution, or the young age of the universe. I believe a straightforward proclamation of Christ crucified using the same resources would be more effective.

I'm certain that the evolution debate is similar to the heliocentric debate of a few hundred years ago. Back then there were people who genuinely believed that the Bible taught the earth was fixed and the sun revolved about it, and to deny this would undermine Christianity. Of course it didn't.8

Notes:
1. 1 Corinthians 1:20.
2. 1 Peter 3:15.
3. Elwell, Dictionary of Evangelical Theology.
4. A Devil’s Chaplain, 2003, 81. I found this quote in Alister McGrath's Dawkins' God. McGrath points out that Dawkins does seem to think that a “core Darwinism” could be isolated which might be immune to historical erosion.
5. Yes, I know that's a cop-out, but I'm still thinking these issues through!
6. Alister McGrath, Dawkins' God, 4-5.
7. Another cop out, perhaps, but I'm still working on this! I do know of one extremely eminent historian of religion and philosophy who takes this view, but unfortunately he hasn't published anything on the topic.
8. Craig, online at Sydney Anglicans.