Can I Believe in God and Still Accept Science?
BY REV. RICHARD RANDOLPH, PH.D ., SENIOR PASTOR, CHRIST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
For many people, modern science makes it difficult, if not impossible to accept religious faith. Science permeates the way we think and see the world, today. So, how does a person of faith come to terms with science? Is there a way in which faith and science can relate with one another?
In his book, Religion and Science,1 the scientist-theologian Ian Barbour struggled with these questions. Barbour identified a typology of different ways in which persons might relate science and faith together. For my purposes, three of the categories identified by Barbour are important:
Conflict
For many people, there is an ongoing war between science and religion. These people – who locate themselves both inside and outside the Church – see science and religion as bitter rivals, with no possibility of reconciliation. This approach assumes that science and religion have two competing views of reality that are mutually exclusive. Ironically, proponents of this view can be divided into two sub-categories.
At one extreme is “scientific materialism.” This position holds that physical matter and energy are the only fundamental realities of the universe. Therefore, the scientific method is the only reliable path to genuine knowledge. Religious insight is not knowledge at all, but rather meaningless expressions of emotion or preference devoid of cognitive significance.
At the other extreme is “biblical literalism.” This position holds that scripture is literally true and inerrant in all aspects. Consequently, if there is a conflict between scientific results and scripture, then the science must be wrong. In the twentieth century, this led to “creation science,” an attempt to conduct science within the rigid parameters set by a literal, word-for-word reading of the scriptures. Both scientific materialism and biblical literalism abuse scientific inquiry. On the one hand, scientific materialists start with science, but then make broad philosophical and theological claims that cannot be
Both scientific materialism and biblical literalism abuse scientific inquiry. On the one hand, scientific materialists start with science, but then make broad philosophical and theological claims that cannot be supported by the science. On the other hand, biblical literalists start from theology and then try to make broad scientific claims based only on scientific data and theories that fit within their narrow interpretation of scripture.
Independence
Also known as “two worlds,” this approach sees science and religion as using their own distinct data, methodology, and paradigms of inquiry to examine completely different “worlds” or spheres of knowledge. Science explores the physical world, while religion explores the spiritual domain. As such, there is no interaction between the two endeavors.
It is as though science and religion are hermetically sealed and separated from one another.
By preserving the distinctive character of both science and religious reflection, independence avoids the inherent flaws in either scientific materialism or biblical literalism. Yet, this very emphasis on the distinctive character of both science and religion is also a serious problem. We do not experience life as neatly divided into separate boxes for religion and science. Rather, we experience the physical and the spiritual together, as an interconnected unity. Anyone, who has held an infant, watched a brilliant sunset, or stood in awe before a magnificent oak, will acknowledge that the spiritual and physical worlds should not be hermetically separated.
Dialogue
This approach assumes that there are areas where scientists and persons of faith can enter into constructive dialogue with one another. Scientists explore how the physical world operates, whereas theologians and other persons of faith explore the deeper meaning of why the physical world is as it is: For instance, physicists hope to understand how the universe originated, but it is up to theologians and persons of faith to explain why there is a universe at all. Similarly, geneticists can explain how genes work, but persons of faith can contribute to the ethical use of that knowledge
As a Christian, I have relied heavily on the dialogue method to relate science to my faith. For instance, the wave/particle duality in quantum mechanics holds, counter-intuitively, that light may be conceived as having the characteristics of both a wave and a particle.
In my faith pilgrimage, this quantum duality helped me accept the Christian claim that Jesus was simultaneously both human and divine. That is, quantum mechanics strengthened by Christian faith.
Religious faith can sometimes contribute to scientific research, as well, although usually this happens through ethics. Some years ago, I was invited by NASA to serve on a multi-year study group. Our task was to explore the “origin, extent, and future of life” from philosophical and faith perspectives. In my essay for the project, I wrote on astrobiology from a Christian ethical perspective.
Have questions? Contact Richard Randolph at Christ United Methodist Church by email at richard.randolph@christumclinc.org, or by phone at 402-489-9618.