Science & Religion: Myths, errors and new possibilities

One common view of science and religion is that they are in direct competition with each other, offering incompatible explanations for the same phenomena. Hence, conflict between science and religion is seen as inevitable. Projecting this idea back in time, the whole of Western history can be understood as a protracted battle between science and religion. Science seems now to be winning that battle, even though there remain significant pockets of religious resistance.

Above: Image courtesy of Wiki Commons

In recent years, historians of science have attacked this idea of a perennial conflict between science and religion, demonstrating the numerous ways in which, over the course of history, science has been supported by Christian ideas and assumptions. These positive relations came about partly because the boundaries of science and religion were understood quite differently in the past. In the 2014 New College lectures Professor Peter Harrison discussed how these boundaries shifted across the centuries, and the way this offers insights into science-religion relations in the present.

In the first lecture Prof Harrison began by looking at how we have come to understand the world in terms of the distinct categories “science” and “religion”. He explored how we came to separate the domain of material facts from the realm of moral and religious values.

He spent some time unpacking how the use of the Latin word ‘religio’ in pre-modern times, was not the same as the later English translation ‘religion’. Rather than signifying specific beliefs and practices, it was seen as a form of worship. He cited varied sources including Augustine, who described ‘true’ religion as involving a form of inner worship rightly directed at God. Early Christians he stressed saw ‘religio’ as a form of worship not just propositional content to be claimed and accepted.

In the second lecture he outlined how modern science was invented. He argued that for centuries Natural Philosophy like Theology was also seen as an inner quality, not just knowledge and propositions. Aquinas building on Aristotle’s teaching, argued that science too was an inner ‘habit’, an intellectual virtue that was a gift from God.

But while in the pre-modern period Christianity and Natural Philosophy were seen as rival spiritual practices, by the 19th Century we were to see Religion and Science replacing Theology & Natural Philosophy, and the unfolding of a fierce conflict between what were now seen as two incompatible sets of beliefs.

In the final lecture on night three, Professor Harrison considered how the myth of conflict between Science and Religion developed and offered an insight into the narrative of the two contending powers. He also considered the work of New Atheists and their failure to understand how and why faith and reason, or religion and science can be held in relationship to one another.

For my part, this has been an extremely engaging series of three wonderful lectures. If you would like to listen to all three lectures visit the New College website for the lectures and a copy of his powerpoint presentation that you will need while listening to them.

You will find Lectures 1 and 3 on our website as well as the powerpoint presentations for all three lectures HERE

We are unable to provide the second lecture as the audio file has been corrupted.

The Heavens Declare His Glory

Guest post written by Patrick Chan

Recently my wife Vivian and I went to the Sydney Observatory at night for our first wedding anniversary. It was a wonderful experience. We managed to learn a bit about astronomy, but we also had a real sense of the 'heavens declaring the glory of God'.

Today, the Sydney Observatory is in the middle of the city near the Rocks, where the First Fleet landed. However, it's set atop a hill so we could see the southern hemisphere's constellations - or at least some of them. Of course, we could see far more - and far more clearly - than if we happened to be in the Central Business District (CBD) or city centre or downtown of Sydney.

Nevertheless, the Sydney Observatory has not functioned as a research facility for several decades primarily due to its location which predisposes it to heavy light pollution. The city lights outshine the starry nights.

Perhaps because we both hadn't been out to simply stare and take in the skies at night in quite some time, we were taken aback by the sheer beauty of it all. Let alone when we peered through the observatory's telescopes and were able to observe celestial objects like the planet Venus and the Moon. And yet, we had to be warned by the astronomer not to expect Venus, for instance, to look anything near as lovely as a digital photograph, and to be reminded that the real privilege lay in seeing the real Venus with our naked eye as well as via a telescope.

Above: Image courtesy of Wiki Commons

As I said, it was all a sight to behold, and it filled us with a sense of awe and humble praise to the Lord God who has "set his glory in the heavens," who, when we considered "the work of [his] fingers, the moon and the stars, which [he has] set in place," in turn echoed in our hearts, "what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?" (Ps 8).

Indeed, the moon and the stars serve as fixed points in the present night sky, rotating in concentric circles around the south pole in the music of the spheres, some dipping under the horizon only to rise again in full crescendo. But though they're 'fixed' points, they're not permanently fixed, for the heavenly vault looks different now than it did in days gone past, and distant generations in future millennia to come will see what Vincent Van Gogh or Caspar David Friedrich did not.

Above: 'Starry Night Over the Rhone' Vincent van Gogh (courtesy Wiki Commons)

What Viv and I saw left us with great reverence for God. I can only imagine what previous generations of Christians must have seen, and how it affected them, for I suppose most would not have been city dwellers accustomed to skies occupied by skyscrapers and silence pushed out by the constant hum and background noise. I doubt they would have had to work so hard to peer beyond the fog and daze to see the cosmos glittering with its splendid gems and crystals. Perhaps they had a different, 'better' weight of glory to bear.

Believing Science

We believe in science. To be honest, we’d have to be crazy not to. Subject to the evidence of course. In our latest edition of Case magazine we explore the theme 'Believing Science'. The various writers in this issue acknowledge that science has taught us much about our world and how it works. It has led to amazing technologies hardly dreamt of before: test-tube babies, heart transplants, mobile phones, nuclear energy, space exploration. The news is full of the latest research that tells us all sorts of things, from what the surface of Mars is like, to whether people who drink red wine are healthier; from the development of new high-yield crops, to exciting new treatment possibilities for autism.

Science—and our acceptance of it—are so much a part of our lives that it is hard to imagine things being otherwise. But in terms of human history, science is a relatively recent phenomenon, and one that assumes a particular view of the natural world as regular and ordered.  In an excellent piece of historical analysis, Peter Harrison discusses the rise of Western science, and in particular, the role Christian theology played in legitimising the acceptance of the science we now take so for granted.

However it is not always easy to believe what science tells us, for a variety of reasons.  Sometimes scientific findings seem altogether too strange to be believable, as John Polkinghorne points out in his short essay. For our minds, which have developed their intuitions about how the world works amidst trees, tables and teenagers, such theories as quantum physics or relativity are difficult even to conceive, let alone believe. We need to rely not on what seems obvious, but what the evidence points to. And yet it remains the case that these same minds, which darkly reflect the mind of their creator, are able to explore and understand this ‘mysterious universe’.

Another stumbling block to believing science is the difficulty of working out exactly what it is that the science tells us. Using climate science as a case study, John Quinn explores some of the factors contributing to this difficulty. Science, he points out, is not a homogeneous endeavour. There are many different branches which employ different methods to study phenomena of varying complexity. Our confidence in the outcomes needs to be weighted accordingly. Taking another step back, for the non-specialist, there is the problem of sorting through the different accounts of what the science tells us via politicians, the media and other channels. Which ‘experts’ should we believe? Which of the conflicting reports can we trust? What approach should someone seeking to be a responsible citizen take, and is it any different to a Christian approach?

As well as addressing these aspects of ‘belief in science’, this issue of Case Magazine also looks at the ‘science of belief’ with two articles from a new and growing field of research, cognitive science of religion (CSR).  Religious belief and practice are near universal, but why is that the case? Can the study of human psychology throw any light on this? According to Jonathan Jong, the research indicates the answer is ‘yes’. Our minds are quick to attribute things that happen in the world to other agents or beings ‘out there’, and to readily believe in them.  Other features of human psychology are identified that help explain why it is that some religious traditions spread and flourish while others go nowhere.

Justin Barrett lays out what ‘natural religion’ looks like according to current research—the characteristics of the kind of religion that comes naturally to human minds.  He then looks at how this ‘natural religion’ relates to theology in established religious traditions like Christianity, and also at the potential for interaction between theology and cognitive science.

Because of its direct reference to religion, CSR is likely to be keenly watched by religious apologists and atheists alike. Both Jong and Barrett discuss the implications of CSR for Christian and other religious belief. Does explaining religious belief by appealing to human psychology mean that religion is ‘explained away’? While some have argued that this is the case, Jong and Barrett disagree, maintaining the distinction between explaining something and explaining it away is critical. He also suggests a number of strategies that are open to apologists.

Robert Stening’s review of The Principles of Neurotheology by Andrew Newberg, resonates with Jong and Barrett’s paper. Neurotheology is another field that seeks to investigate religious phenomena, this time using the methods of neuroscience. Our final review by Cath Finney Lamb also addresses religious belief but from a completely different angle, with a discussion of Elmer Thiessen’s important book, The Ethics of Evangelism.

For any Christian, a consideration of science and its claims is vital to an apologetic defence of one’s faith. We hope you enjoy this issue of Case Magazine.

Want to read some more?

Dr John Quinn's article on 'Finding the Truth in the Climate Change Debate' is a free download HERE.  You can buy this single issue of Case magazine HERE or become a CASE Associate for $55 AUD and receive all four quarterly issues as part of your subscription HERE.  

The lack of science in 'Live Science'

Don't you just love the way some atheists and 'scientists' opposed to religion often seek to undermine the relevance of religion and faith with dodgy 'science'. A classic example is the American website 'Live Science' that provided 'analysis' of a recently released US Gallup Poll. The opening paragraph was:

Americans' confidence in organized religion is at its lowest in more than three decades, with just 44 percent having a lot of faith in the church, a new Gallup poll released this week suggests.

The results follow a long-term decline in Americans' confidence in religion since the 1970s, when Americans ranked "the church or organized religion" higher than any other institution in the survey, beating out the military and the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1980s confidence in organized religion fell below 60 percent for the first time. Gallup officials say the dip may have resulted from scandals involving televangelist preachers Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart.

Then, in 2001 confidence increased to 60 percent, only to be hammered back down, possibly as a result of charges of child molestation by Catholic priests, Gallup suggests.

The survey item on which the article is based is as follows:

"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence, you, yourself (sic) have in each one - a great deal, quite a lot, some or very little?"

Now it's true that only 44% of people indicated they had a 'great deal' or 'quite a lot' of confidence in the church compared to 60% in 2001. What the article doesn't mention is any of the ratings for other institutions. First, it should be noted that the church was ranked 4th behind the military (75%), small business (63%) and the police (56%). Second, it might be helpful to reflect on some of the results for other institutions below the church. For example:

The Medical System (41%)
The Presidency (37%)
US Supreme Court (37%)
The Public School (29%)
The Criminal Justice System (29%)
Newspapers (25%)
TV News (21%)
Organised Labour (21%)
Banks (21%)
Big Business (21%)
Health Maintenance Organisations (19%)
Congress (13%)

Oh, and a third thing. While the confidence level for the church was at 60% in 2001, the average for the years 2002-2011 was 49% with variations from 45% to 53%. You might also read the data for all other institutions as well and you will notice that Americans seem to have lost confidence in many institutions since 2001. In fact many are at 'an all-time low', to use the 'Live Science' language. These include the Banks, Public Schools, and TV news (see Gallup's own article on this HERE).

Now I don't intend to dig any deeper to uncover further evidence of the casual use of data by an organisation that prides itself on being 'scientifically rigorous', because my confidence in 'Live Science' is already low enough.

Other links

You can read 'Americans' Confidence in the Church at All-Time Low' HERE  
You can read the Gallup Poll figures and trends HERE
You can read about the Metanexus project to 'Scientifically Honour Death' HERE
You can read the full 'Live Science' post HERE

Science and Faith

Post by Edwina Hine

Regular readers of CASE news would be aware that ISCAST and CASE were to hold a joint event this week. A Science-Faith Panel Discussion Meeting entitled ‘The questions students ask: Science and faith in the classroom’.  The forum was very helpful, as 50 attendees discussed some great topics including: Christianity and Evolution, Miracles, and the place of biotechnology in our society.

In my preparations for attending the event, I was reminded especially of Case edition 19 entitled “The God of Science”. The edition has some great articles. Kirsten Birkett explores naturalism and the biblical world view, God and evolution is discussed by Denis Alexander, and Lewis Jones illustrates the role and limits of science in moral reasoning. The book review was a highlight for me. I have read quite a few of John Lennox’s books, and  this  review is of one of his earlier titles, “God’s Undertaker: has science buried God”. The book weighs in on the ongoing public debate surrounding the compatibility of science and religion. Lennox, a respected mathematician, scientists and philosopher

“attempts to probe the relationship between science and religion, but ultimately demonstrates where the scientific evidence really points……. At the heart of Lennox’s thesis is the claim that the source of conflict is not actually between science and religion, as it is often purported to be, but rather between two worldviews—naturalism and theism”

Reviewer (Andrew Kyme), encourages us to read the book, especially since

“in the context of the ongoing debate regarding the compatibility of science and religion, Lennox has presented well-reasoned arguments to suggest that, when it comes to questions regarding the origin of life, an inference to design cannot be ruled out…… At the very least, Lennox has done an important service by exposing some key misconceptions in the science/religion debate, and by pulling together and analysing, in a relatively short space, much contemporary thought on it.”

Case Magazine #19 was not only a good read in light of last evening’s forum, but it served to remind me about the breath of article types our magazine has. The scholarly articles were an in-depth exploration on the topics surrounding God and Science, and as an avid reader I have found Case's book reviews an useful tool in discerning what publications to read.

CASE Associates would enjoy issue #19, why not pull the magazine off the bookshelf? The debate surrounding Science and Christianity is frequently publicised, so a refresher on the topic is always helpful. The review is free to read online here.  CASE Associates receive Case magazine 4 times per year as part of their benefits. For blog followers who are yet to be CASE Associates you can sign up HERE or order a single copy HERE.

Christian Responses to Global Atheism Convention

A team of atheists is touring Australia for the Global Atheist Convention to be held in Melbourne this weekend (13-15 April). The conference has received plenty of publicity. As a result, a number of Christian organisations have been responding in varied ways to ensure that there is balance, rather than simply another series of uninformed attacks on Christians and people of faith. CASE supports the efforts of several of these groups. In this post I want to point to a number of free resources on the CASE website and this blog that are relevant for anyone who wants to engage with atheists.

If you visit the CASE website you will find many of our online resources are free and that there are many more for our CASE associates. The resources are grouped on the sidebar by broad discipline. The 'Science and Medicine' link has a number of great articles. As well, the following articles and posts may be of interest:

A review of Richard Dawkin's book 'God's Undertaker' HERE
A review of 'Religion for Atheists' HERE
'Kant and the Early Moderns' HERE
'The Stem Cell Debate' HERE
'Five things I never learned in Science' HERE
'Kinsey,Truth and the Rhetoric of research' HERE
Review of 'Reason, faith and revolution' HERE
'Can science see the end?' HERE
'Belief in God, a trick of the brain?' HERE
'Embryo Liberation' HERE
'The Language of God' Review by Megan Best HERE
'Science, Uncertainty and Ambiguity' HERE

Human Embryonic Stem Cells - Wiki Commons

The Simeon Network is another group that has been offering an alternative voice. It has created a new website 'Doubting Dawkins' that will offer alternative ideas and resources.

Another group that CASE supports is 'The Reason for Faith Coalition'. It's partners include:

City Bible Forum
The Centre for Public Christianity (CPX):
Bible Society Australia
Outreach Media
The Simeon Network

You might also just search on the CASE website or this blog for other resources.

The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is scientifically accurate

We receive many books to review at CASE that we usually send on to reviewers. There is always a temptation to read every book yourself, but usually common sense over-rules the temptation and you pass each book on to someone else. I failed this test with Andrew Parker's book 'The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible is Scientifically Accurate'. A new book on Genesis is not unusual, nor is one that claims that the Bible is true. But what is more unusual is to find a scientist with no faith claiming that Genesis chapter 1 is consistent with the latest evidence-based science. This is in stark contrast to many scientists and atheists who spend a lot of time pointing to what they see as the inaccuracy of the Bible.

The motivation for the book

Parker's exploration of the topic arose after he had published a popular scientific book called 'In the Blink of an Eye'. The book explores the origins of life on earth and in it he outlines his 'light switch' theory that forms part of many scientists' understanding of how life began. His theory based on fossil evidence, holds that it was the sudden introduction of vision on earth that triggered the sudden explosion of complex animal life in the Cambrian era. After the publication of his book on the theory he started to receive letters from Christians pointing out that his scientific theories had parallels with the first chapter of the book of Genesis in the Bible. He decided to have a look at Genesis 'mainly out of courtesy' and was surprised to find that there were a whole series of parallels between the Bible's creation narrative and modern scientific accounts of the beginnings of life.

The Genesis Enigma is the result of his reading of Genesis, exploration of biblical history, and discussions with leading Christian scientists like Professor John Lennox, apologist Alistair McGrath and others. He writes the book as an agnostic scientist. I don't think he calls himself an 'agnostic, but as he writes the book this is what he seems rather than an atheist. In the first chapter of the book he explores the evidence for the authenticity of the Old Testament and evidence for the claims that it is an accurate non-fictional work. In the remaining chapters he provides an explanation of how scientific understanding of the origins of life developed over time and parallels this with the Genesis chapter 1 account.

What does he conclude?

In short, he concludes that the parallels between Genesis 1 and science are so strong that the writer must have either made an extraordinarily lucky guess, or that the writing was inspired. He sums up his arguments in the final chapter of the book this way:

"...the Genesis Enigma holds that the Bible has, in its opening page, correctly predicted the history of life on earth, with its series of macro-evolutionary steps, or fits and starts, from the origin of our solar system to the evolution of birds and mammals. We can be certain that the author of this biblical account would have had no idea of these scientifically established events, covering billions of years....The possible explanations for this parallel.....are clear-cut: either the writer of the creation account of Genesis 1 was directed by divine intervention, or he made a lucky guess" (pp 202-203).

In summing up his work he asks himself (and the reader) a serious question. "Could it be real?" Has the Bible survived as an authoritative text for many millions of people because it carries a divine message that strikes a chord with humanity? He concludes:

"But I must admit, rather nervously as a scientist averse to entertaining such an idea, that the evidence that the writer of the opening page of the Bible was divinely inspired is strong. I have never before encountered such powerful, impartial evidence to suggest that the Bible is the product of divine inspiration. The Genesis Enigma may provide us with support for this proposition on a whole new level" (p.238).

What Parker is NOT saying

Lest Six Day Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates see Parker's book as support for their readings of Scripture, Parker is at pains to dismiss such arguments. In no way is he trying to suggest that Genesis 1 is a scientific account. While accepting that people are free to believe both these theories, he suggests that they are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Parker isn't suggesting that the Bible is science. Rather, he is suggesting that faith and science can co-exist. He goes further to accept that it is possible to find "...God within the confines of the evidence of evolution..". Whatever theory is accepted for the origins of life, Parker suggests that a prerequisite is needed and that science cannot provide the answers. He continues to speculate and pose many questions as he tries to make sense of his discovery. Why is there a human propensity towards religious thought? Why has this persisted throughout the ages? Did the concept of God evolve in humans because it was needed to raise our emotional state (the claim of some atheists and scientists)? Or was it God-given? Could religion be a critical element in the human mind?

Reservations about this book

The dangers with a book like this is that in writing such an honest account of one's pondering about faith and the origin of life, the writer leaves himself open to criticism from absolutely everyone. Some scientists will critique his science, Christian's may critique his reading of Genesis, theologians might question his reading of Scripture and his understanding of God, and historians could question some of the historical analysis. But in spite of this, I find myself filled with admiration for Parker's honesty and humility in exposing his inner struggles to reconcile the coexistence of faith and science. In the final pages of the book he displays his vulnerability with these words:

"I am a scientist, and incorporating God into my thinking feels like a quantum leap. But I am at least comfortable with the idea that my acceptance of evolution, and science in general, does not affect, or is not affected by, my feelings about God" (p. 235)

Parker's book is an interesting apologetic from a surprising source. It's worth a read.

Related posts

'The God of Science' (here)
'Five Things I Never Learnt in a Science Class' (here)
'The Wonders of Space' (here)

The God of Science

The latest edition of Case magazine is out, and if you’re not a CASE associate then you’re missing out on some great articles. As I write in my introduction to this issue, at a time when Atheists like Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins are seeking to negate the place of faith in understanding the origins and purpose of life, it is important to assert that there are varied views on the compatibility of science and faith.

The theme in this issue is ‘The God of Science’. This should signal that we believe that rather than God and science being in opposition, that science can help us to understand the ‘what’ of creation while still allowing us to accept that God is the ultimate answer to the ‘why’. God has knowledge of all the answers to the questions that science explores. The efforts of scientists to pose questions and then to try and answer them should strengthen our insights into the wonder of God’s creation. The aim of Case #19 is to stimulate discussion about the fundamental question, can faith and science complement one another, or are they inevitably in conflict?

Articles and reviews on the theme

Kirsten Birkett offers a valuable historical foundation in her piece 'I Believe in Nature' and explores how naturalism became entrenched as the predominant discourse. She shows how key scientists managed to drive a wedge between science and faith to create the common perception that science is all that there is.

Michael Murray’s article ‘Belief in God: A trick of our brain?’ considers scientific evidence that humans are naturally disposed towards religious belief, ritual and moral behaviour as an outcome of natural evolutionary processes. Atheists like Dawkins take this evidence and conclude that religion is a by-product of the built-in irrationality mechanism in the brain, and that humans would believe in God even if he did not exist. But Murray suggests that all the science demonstrates is that natural causes are involved in the origin of religious beliefs. He concludes that there is no evidence to counter the Christian belief articulated by John Calvin 400+ years ago, that God as creator built within us a desire to know him.

Dennis Alexander argues in his article ‘God and Evolution’ that science and faith are complementary and that Darwinism is not at odds with belief in a creator God. His article will challenge some readers but like Birkett, Lennox and Frankenberry, Alexander argues for compatibility between faith and science; that science and faith can coexist. Alexander suggests that you can accept the science as an explanation of the origins of biological diversity on the earth, but still see it as the outworking of God’s will as creator. “If there is a personal God with intentions and purposes for his creation, then we expect order, directionality and the emergence of personhood.”

Alexander’s position is that man evolved from an archaic species of homo sapiens, and that God in his grace, chose a couple of Neolithic farmers to reveal himself to mankind. He called them into fellowship so that we might know him as a personal God. These he argues were “divine humans”, who the Bible gives the names Adam and Eve. But rather than being the ‘first’ humans, they were chosen to be representatives of a new humanity. There will be dissenters from this view. As well, there will be some who will question whether Alexander’s view can be reconciled with the Scriptures.

Lewis Jones concludes our discussion by bringing us back to a fundamental point, that science cannot answer questions about the purpose of creation. Jones suggests that the relationship between science and purpose is more rightly seen as the relationship between the nature of things and the rightness of our actions. “God is the sole revealer of his purposes for creation."

We also have two reviews on books relevant to the theme. Andrew Kyme reviews John Lennox’s book 'God’s undertaker: Has Science Buried God?' Patrick Chan reviews Nancy Frankenberry’s book ‘The Faith of Scientists: In their own words’ which offers an insight into how twenty one scientists relate matters of faith to their science.

Collectively, the writers who have contributed to this edition of Case support the truth that God is the God of Science as well as creation:

“The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers” (Psalm 24:1-2).

Our God owns all and founded all. Furthermore, as Paul reminds us in Colossians 1:15-16, God sustains all things by, for and through Christ:

As the writers in this issue demonstrate, knowledge of science need not weaken faith; in fact it might just strengthen it. It is possible to understand what science teaches and to seek to reconcile this to our knowledge a God who seeks to reconcile us to himself through Christ.

Related links

You can read Roberta Kwan’s reflections on the topic as she worked on this edition of Case (here)

From the CASE vault - Cells and Souls, Kirsten Birkett (here)

From the CASE vault - Can Science see the end? Ross McKenzie & Greg Clarke (here)