Science or faith, or science plus faith?

As I showed last day there is no such thing as a neutral position in these Faith/Science debates. This being the case the question in the title of today's post is easy to answer, it has to be science plus faith. The big question then, as I said last day is "Which faith?" To say it in a slightly different way, the question becomes "Do we interpret reality in terms of the faith of some type of naturalism, or in terms of some theistic faith?" I pointed to my February post which argues that "The Bible has the best explanation of reality.” But there is another issue here, and it is knowing (on both sides) that logically that our views are positions of faith, how do we proceed in the debate? In other words knowing it can only be Science plus faith how do we hold these two things in tension and still have a reasonable and respectful debate?

As a thinking Christian I have to say that there are time that those who say they are on my side make me want to cringe. It was always the case that not everything religious was good, take the Pharisees of Jesus day for example. It is also the case that many who belong to Him do not love Him with their whole mind. Too much of what is presented is defensive or shallow or just plain wrong. There is nothing new here either. I am thinking of dear old Galileo who was forced by the Church to withdraw his “theory” that the Earth went round the sun. It was said that this theory contradicted the Scripture but the Scriptures nowhere imply this. Mind you astronomers of his day also resisted his theory.

The saying of Einstein comes to mind “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." We don't know exactly what he meant by this, and it is too late to ask him :-). But there are two dangers here. The first is to believe that Science has arrived and that everything that Scientist say is 100% correct, the second to believe that we have a perfect understanding of the Bible. With regards to the former, there is an interesting book I could recommend “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. One of his main points is that the old guys have to die before their pet theories can be overthrown. Science progresses by two steps forward one step back. The advantage of being old is that you see this over and over even in the course of one short life here on earth. No Science has not arrived.

With regard to our understanding of Scripture there are two errors here too, both warned against in the Bible. In the first Paul warns against those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). The context is talking about those who suppress the fundamental truths concerning such things as sin, righteousness and judgement by their unrighteous deeds. In other words about the fundamentals of salvation. The context of the second is spoken to those who think they know it all and are “puffed up” in their knowledge. The saying is “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2). Christians need take a lesson from poor old Galileo, and learn to say “I don't know.” It is not that Galileo’s Science contradicted what the Scriptures say, it is that it contradicted what was read into the scriptures by the Church of the day. We need to learn not to go beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).

In short neither Science nor our understanding of Scripture is complete! Science may seem to contradict my understanding of Scripture or my understanding of the exact way that Scripture is inspired, and on the other hand, since there are times when Science is proved wrong, we are wise on both sides to put certain issues on hold. When we present ourselves as being able to answer every question (again on both sides), we are in grave danger of coming across as pat and shallow and frankly unbelievable and even arrogant. For the Christian we need to understand that this is not the essence of being an Ambassador for Christ (2 Corinthian 5:20). So is it Science or faith, or is it Science and faith? What I am saying is that it is the latter, that certain things need to be held in tension (for example Science and Faith), judgement deferred at times, and that both sides in the inevitable debates, need to learn a little humility!