What a Christian Scientist Should be Able to Expect from a Theologian
Someone Else's Conflict
This symposium marks a significant beginning for a public dialogue between scientists and theologians at Olivet Nazarene University. The significance of this symposium actually reaches well beyond the campus and the university to the church we serve. In this conversation we are, I believe, serving the church. So, for the sake of the church as well as the interest of education and scholarship we undertake this important and challenging dialogue.
As we begin this conversation it is important that we start in the right place. That requires establishing some context. And in the faith-science dialogue that is especially important because we run the risk of being drawn into someone else's conversation.
Have you ever entered a room or a group of people only to find that you are stepping into the middle of a conversation that is already well along? There have been times when I have stepped right into the middle - not only of a conversation, but - of a conflict. At times I have found myself assigned a position, already guilty of what I "would have said" or what someone expected me to say, already assigned a "side" and walking into a cross-fire. If you have had that experience you know how hard it is to escape the dynamics of that conflict once you are captured in it.
It is easy for the faith-science conversation to have that kind of dynamic. It is easy to step into someone else's conflict. It has become commonplace to assume that conflict is the assumed mode of relation between faith and science. In popular conversation we hear people refer to the centuries-old struggle between faith and science, assuming that this is simply the way it has always been. Then we take - or are assigned sides - in a conflict that has been ongoing for a long time. We assume, when we begin the kind of conversation we are initiating today, that our task is to find a remedy for this perennial conflict - the warfare of faith and science.
So the first thing I want to say to this dialogue is that the faith - science conflict is someone else's conversation. We don't have to start there. While the current conversation between faith and science is sometimes challenging the notion of long-term, perhaps permanent, conflict between these disciplines is simply not true. The concept and language and description of a historic conflict between faith and science are actually a fairy recent historical creation. It emerges in the 19th century and is widely recognized by contemporary historians of science. The conflict or warfare thesis is the product largely of two popular and influential writers.
In 1874 John William Draper published his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. Presented as a historical study Draper's book denounced religion - most particularly the Roman Catholic church - as an enemy of science. Immensely popular, this book went through fifty editions. Even more influential was the subsequent work of Andrew Dickson White. A significant educator, White was the first president of Cornell University. Anxious to defend a secular approach to education and emphatic in his support of science White waged a long-standing offensive against the interference of religion, culminating in his two-volume A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, published in 1896. While White's work enjoyed less popular success it became even more influential because of the extensive documentation and appearance of serious historical scholarship, leading to a presumption of authority and credibility. These two works together demonstrated in convincing ways that science and Christian Faith have been engaged in active conflict throughout the history of Christianity. In that long history the work of science has been consistently under attack by a church resistant to it, seeing science as an enemy to traditional faith. This has proved to be a powerful and influential thesis.
The influence of the thesis these writers popularized continues to the present, despite the fact that scholars in the history of science have come to broadly reject the claims of both writers. For example, the commonly held idea that religious people held to a flat earth view prior to Columbus' discovery of the New World is a lingering legacy of White's work. In fact, educated people (at least) have understood that the world was round since the ancient period. White's portrayal of simple clerics warning Columbus that he would fall off the end of the world was simply a fictional creation. Columbus was actually warned that he had dangerously underestimated the size of the earth, which was, in fact, true. Nevertheless, these ideas - supporting the thesis of warfare between faith and science - continue to persist in popular culture.1
Recent scholarship is discovering a much less conflicted history between Christian faith and science and a much more nuanced accounting of the dynamics of that history. For instance, in his study of Nikolaus Copernicus, historian Robert Westman concludes that while conflict with prevailing biblical interpretations was an element of Copernicus' proposal the most radical - and controversial - element was his re-ordering of the relative authority of scientific disciplines. His conclusions were based on the probative authority of mathematics superceding the (higher) authority of physics.2 The controversy surrounding Galileo was even more complex, involving after-effects of the Protestant Reformation, Papal politics and Galileo's perceived betrayal of Urban VIII, Galileo's insistence on presenting his findings as (validated) theory rather than (tentative) hypothesis, and Galileo's powerful personality and ego. Philosopher of science William Shea concludes, "Galileo's condemnation was the result of the complex interplay of untoward political circumstances, personal ambitions, and wounded prides."3 A simple characterization of these controversies in terms of a standing conflict between faith and science simply will not be sustained by careful scholarship
I have said all of that to say this, let's not own someone else's conflict. The history of the relationship between Christian faith and science is long, complex, sometimes problematic, but largely congenial. Modern science has been significantly formed by persons of committed Christian faith like Kepler, Descartes, and Newton, who would not have realized that they were, or were supposed to be, in conflict with Christian Faith. Unfortunately, the conflict posture of Draper and White has been rehearsed in our time by aggressive scientists like Richard Dawkins on the one hand and reactive Fundamentalist Christians on the other. But we don't have to own that conversation. It doesn't belong to us. It hasn't been our struggle. We're just being drawn into someone else's conflict. So, as we begin this colloquium - and the dialogue it creates - let's have our own conversation.
Our Conversation
What is the context, then, for our conversation? As theologians and scientists at Olivet Nazarene University, representing the Church of the Nazarene and the Wesleyan-holiness tradition, what should this conversation look like?
Since, as in any conversation, each partner only really controls his or her part of the conversation, I will try to address the dialogue from the side of the theologian. What should a Christian scientist be able to expect from Christian theologian in this dialogue? Let me suggest four qualities or principles that I believe should guide the participation of the theologian.
Grace
First, our conversation should be characterized by grace. Both professional courtesy to fellow faculty and a spirit of honoring persons in Christ should be standards to which our conduct should be held accountable. Even when issues are difficult or we find positions held by scientists to be problematic we should be able to affirm persons and begin with the assumption that we are all trying our best to honor our commitment to Christ in our personal faith and professional disciplines. We should recognize that scientists are often wrestling with challenging issues and points of tension - if not apparent outright conflict - with assumed commitments of traditional faith. We also bear a responsibility for interceding with the church - local pastors and laymen - on behalf of Christian scientists, calling for similar expressions of grace toward Christian brothers and sisters.
I would fault some of our brothers and sisters who reflect a more conservative understanding of Scripture and faith. Whether some of the substantive critique from adherents of creationism is true or valid (that is another conversation) I have often been struck by the lack of grace in that dialogue. We can disagree - even strongly - about important issues without denigrating or de-Christianizing each other.
This is not to dismiss or deny the importance - even necessity - of dialogue and critique, but to call for that dialogue and critique to reflect an essential grace.
Generosity
As theologians we need to affirm appropriate ranges of Christian opinion. In the broad consensual tradition of the church there are some issues that have been consistently central to our understanding of the Christian faith. The doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ are examples of central, defining commitments of Christian faith. There are, however, many more issues that have been matters of different interpretation. Most of those have little to do with the dialogue between faith and science. For instance, there are very different views between the Wesleyan and Reformed traditions concerning the doctrine of election, or predestination. But this is a difference of interpretation within the Christian tradition. We may hold that the interpretation of the Reformed tradition is less satisfactory than the Wesleyan view, or even believe that it is a wrong interpretation, but that doesn't mean we believe Calvinists are not Christians, just Christians that interpret this doctrine differently.
Some issues are relevant to the dialogue between faith and science. For instance, the question of interpreting the meaning of "days" in Genesis 1-2 and the consequent question of time in creation are an important focus of faith-science conversation. However, it should be clearly noted that the consensual Christian tradition does not speak with one voice on this matter. Important Christian interpreters have advocated instantaneous creation, six-24 hour days of creation, or extended, perhaps immense, periods of time in creation as the appropriate interpretation - which honors the authority and intent of Scripture. We are free to advocate for whichever view we may feel is the best interpretation but we are not free to say that those who hold another interpretation are not Christians. They may simply be Christians that interpret this text differently.
As theologians we can help scientists by identifying ranges of interpretive options creating space for the scientist to work within the faith.
Respect
Christian scientists deserve the respect of theologians for their disciplines. The sciences are identifiable disciplines of study and knowledge - as validated by their place among the disciplines of the university. The disciplines all have rules or principles that govern their work and measure their success. In the sciences empirical observation and measurement of the physical universe establishes their principles of verification - what is referred to in philosophy as epistemology, the question of what we know, or can know, with certainty. Theologians work under other epistemological assumptions. We should not, however, insist that scientists work under our "rules" (at least until they begin to work theologically). We should be careful not to fault a scientist whose discipline leads to conclusions that are different from constructions of Christian Faith.
Respect for the disciplines of science means that we cannot simply require Christian scientists to modify how they do science in accordance with our theological or biblical conclusions. The geologist, chemist or biologist should be free to do their work in their discipline under the rules of that discipline. It is no more appropriate for a theologian to tell a geologist how to do geology that it would be for a geologist to tell the theologian how to do theology.
This is not to say that there should not be any engagement between disciplines. In fact, there must be, because the accounts of Christian Faith and the conclusions of science sometimes do not reconcile very well. Earnest and serious engagement is needed, but it needs to begin with a mutual respect for disciplines.
Integrity
Christian Scientists should expect theologians to engage in this conversation with integrity. In this context I am thinking about the integrity of the theologians' commitment to their own discipline. Just as scientists must work within the parameters of their particular disciplines, following the consensually agreed principles of that discipline so theologians must work within those parameters of our discipline. When dealing with challenging issues or points of tension between traditional Christian Faith and science scientists should expect that theologians in that tradition may need to follow their own discipline without understanding that as a rejection of science or the contribution of the scientist. To take science seriously is not to defer to science unconditionally. Sometimes theologians will need to listen to scientists then go back to serious conversations between theologians to process what science seems to be saying to Christian Faith.
ConclusionAcross the history of Christianity the valuation of the natural world as a source of knowledge about God (natural theology) has varied widely. I appreciate John Calvin's understanding of creation as a theater of God's glory. He saw creation as a magnificent display of God's handiwork, reflecting and expressing His power and character. But the lessons of creation are not always clear, the natural world sends ambiguous messages. For Calvin, the great value of creation as a demonstration of God's work and character becomes clear when creation is observed through the spectacles of Scripture. The special revelation of God helps to bring the meaning of creation into clear focus. Then we see clearly the majesty, beauty and grace displayed in this theater of God's creation. And then we can say, "The heavens declare the glory of God."
Resources:
Science and Religion - Some Historical Perspectives, John Heldey Brooke, Cambridge university Press, 1991. This book is an important in-depth (and lengthy) study of the historical dynamics and issues in the relations of faith and science by a scholar in the history of science that moves beyond the Draper-White thesis.
Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking - The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion, Phil Dowe, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2005. An introduction to the Philosophy of Science, this is an interesting and fairly accessible study of the interaction of Christian Faith and science by a philosopher. He concludes that interaction between science and Christian Faith has been largely harmonious with frequent fruitful interaction. Although this is a philosophy text Dowe includes a very helpful section on biblical hermeneutics.
The Galileo Affair - A Documentary History, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, University of California Press, 1989. This recent work makes the important documents in the Galileo easily accessible. The Galileo Affair has been more often been touted than carefully studied. This book makes that study generally possible.
The Foundations of Dialogue in Science & Religion, Alister McGrath, Blackwell Publishers, 1998. Alister McGrath is a prominent evangelical theologian who also holds a doctorate from Oxford in molecular biology from Oxford. This books attempts to establish some constructive foundations for substantive dialogue between theology and science. See also Science and Religion - An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing, 1999.
"Augustine on the Creation Days," Louis Lavallee, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (December 1989), pp.457-464. This is an interesting historical study of the understanding of the days of creation in the patristic period.
God and Nature - Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, Berkely:University of California Press, 1986. This is a relatively recent collection of essays of historians of science and philosophers of science from a conference at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective, edited by David N. Livingstone, D.G. Hart, Mark Noll, New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. This is a collection of historical studies/essays that moves beyond the Draper-White warfare thesis to attempt serious historical studies of events and issues in the relationship of evangelicalism and science.
Evolution from Creation to New Creation - Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence, Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Abingdon Press, 2003. This is an accessible study of the history of the interaction of the Christian community and Darwin's proposal of evolution by a (Lutheran) systematic theologian and a (Roman Catholic) biologist. This book offers a balanced and thoughtful study of the debate about evolution and creation. The historical analysis is more helpful, in my view, than the concluding alternative proposal.
"Science and Religion," a series of recorded lectures by Lawrence M. Principe, professor of History of Science and Technology and Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University. Available through The Teaching Company, Chantilly, VA. This is an engaging and helpful series of lectures that provides a painless introduction into the broad sweep of this subject.
Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity, David Sedley, University of California Press, 2007. This book explores the debate about creation in pre-Christian antiquity. It demonstrates that many of the critical contemporary issues in the debates about creation are also present in antiquity among the defining philosophers and thinkers of that period.
The Ground and Grammar of Theology, Thomas Torrance, T & T Clark, 1980. This is a fascinating study integrating theology and science by one of the most prominent recent theologians who was keenly interested in engaging theology and science. In this volume he uses insights from Albert Einstein as a framework for a study and proposal for thinking about reality - theologically and scientifically.
How to Relate Science and Religion - A Multi-Demensional Model, Mikel Stenmark, Eerdmanns Publishing, 2004. This is a serious philosophical study of the disciplines of science and theology and how they relate by a Swedish scholar in Philosophy of Religion whose specialty is science and theology. Though sometimes quite technical this text offers interesting comparative study of how the disciplines function, concluding significant similarity between them. He also proposes an alternative paradigm to Ian Barbour's four-fold typology for the relations of faith and science.
1 "For a helpful overview of this background see God and Nature - Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, Berkely:University of California Press, 1986, pp.1-14.
2 "The Copernicans and the Churches," by Robert S. Westman, in Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, Berkely:University of California Press, 1986, 76-103.
3 William Shea, "Galileo and the Church," in God and Nature - Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, Berkely:University of California Press, 1986, 132.