Do Science and Christianity Have to Be Opposed?

[Zenith Darksea]

In recent decades we have seen, particularly in America, a debate emerge between so-called 'Creationists' (those who push a specific agenda, trying to prove the Book of Genesis through scientific methods) and so-called 'Evolutionists' (apparently those who try to prove it wrong through the same scientific methods). I need hardly explain this debate - it is more than famous by now. More recently, the Creationists have attempted to appear more subtle. We have seen the words 'intelligent design' appear more and more often lately, though ultimately it's the same idea from the same people.

One problem has emerged concerning the terms of the debate. It seems to have led the religious Christians of the American South to attempt to impose their theology on certain accommodating parts of science (whilst suppressing the parts that don't fit so well), while conversely there have been attempts, notably by the controversial figure of Richard Dawkins, to demonstrate science's superiority to theology. Indeed, this generally entails unfortunate forays into theology that demonstrate that the evolutionists have about as good a grasp of theology as creationists have of science. Having said that, I wouldn't necessarily maintain that creationists have such a good grasp of theology either (otherwise we'd see a lot more Orthodox churches in Southern America... sorry, personal views intruding)!

The one thing that strikes me is that the debate is hardly perfect (but then what debate is perfect?). Now you'll no doubt be thinking, "But Zenith, you're a Christian. Don't you believe in intelligent design?" Well, that's a good question actually. First of all however, we have to get a few things clear.

'Creationism' as we understand it in the West is a purely Protestant idea. More specifically, it's a purely American Protestant idea (I know a number of Anglicans and Scottish Presbyterians who would be quite unhappy to be linked to Creationism). American Protestantism is scarcely Orthodox, alas. Here's a summary from someone who is Orthodox, Fr Gregory Hallam:

In the use of atheism or religions and philosophies that do not believe that there is a god who creates, creationism means the doctrine of any manner of Creator God or gods. This not only rules out biblical cosmologies but also modern theistic evolutionary variants based on a critical use of biblical texts. As Richard Dawkins has said of those defending both God and evolution, the notion of a Creator God is gratuitous once evolution and natural selection is accepted. In this of course, he agrees with his creationist antagonists. As Laplace once declared:- "God? I have no need of that hypothesis."

In the use of certain fundamentalist Christians creationism means the doctrine that God created the heavens and the earth precisely and literally as the book of Genesis describes it. This use includes different schools of interpretation since Genesis itself is obscure on a number of points even from a literalist point of view. Thus we have Young Earth Creationists who believe that humans walked with dinosaurs on a 5000 year old earth and others who share the same aversion to evolution but see Genesis as applying over a much longer timescale. The Young Earth Creationists have a lot of explaining to do as they confront the fossil record. The usual tactic is to suppose that God for some bizarre reason deliberately fooled humanity by planting fossils that were much younger than they now appear to be. The Old Earth Creationists at least don’t try and falsify history but they still fall into the same trap of supposing that the Bible is an ageless science textbook.

Now, I have to say that I was taught evolution at school and I've noticed in the scientific community a general acceptance of the theory. Obviously there are a few inexplicable quantities (rather like theology, that), but broadly speaking it seems to be acceptable. Now quite often we get the 'God of the gaps' approach to evolution from the intelligent design camp - these components of the eye couldn't possibly work as individual parts, so the eye couldn't have come about by itself. I tend to find this quite an attractive argument, but it's not acceptable at any rate. Science could explain this away somehow, and probably has done. Fr Gregory again:

You would have thought that Christian apologists would have learned the lesson by now. This can be a difficult message to hear but a necessary one … an Intelligent Designer isn’t required to explain anything at all. God is not the solution to a difficult equation. He is something else entirely.

If God isn't needed to explain any part of evolution, then what use is He? The fact is that God isn't of any 'use' - but the wrong question has been asked.

The ancient Greek word logos was used to translate the Hebrew "Word" of God by the writers of the Gospels and the Fathers of the Church. It is a sophisticated word, meaning 'word', 'argument', 'reason', 'thought' - essentially almost anything that issues forth from the mind.

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

In the West this passage is often read at Christmas. Among the Orthodox however, it is read at Easter. Easter commemorates the resurrection of Christ, and as such the passage is associated with the New Creation.

What does this mean? For Christians, there is no 'God of the gaps', for there are no gaps. The divine Logos lies behind the Whole (the pleroma in Greek; see Ephesians 1:23); the Whole is where Christ is, and the Whole is where we are called to ascend. In other words, anything that we discover about the universe is a discovery about Christ. There is no conflict between science and Christianity - one is a revelation of the other.

What is this? Is this an attempt to side step the issue? Is it just a convenient formula to overcome the problems at hand? Can we really call it 'Orthodox'?

Firstly, we must dismiss conventional creationism. Basically, it involves either saying that science is wrong ('Biblical sufficiency') or that Genesis must be 'interpreted' in a certain way ('Biblical literalism'). I'm not happy with either of these, to be honest. Believe it or not, the early Church Fathers were well aware of this:

"Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

Sounds refreshingly modern, doesn't it?

Finally, let us return to Genesis. Fr Deacon Andrei Kuarev has had the following to say in some of his recent lectures at Moscow State University:

In the Book of Genesis God names every creature and by this naming calls every creature from the abyss of non-being. In the lovely expression of St. Philaret of Moscow, the creative "Word articulates all creatures into being." What we see here in Genesis is a dialogue. The call produces a response to God's life-giving action. "The earth germinates, but it does not sprout that which it has but transforms that which it does not have, as much as God gives the strength to act," wrote St. Basil the Great. The seeds of life are not found in the earth; rather, "God’s word creates beings" and plants these in earth, which, in turn, germinates them. Earth is unable to be fertile by itself, yet there is no reason to downplay its role: "Let the earth bring forth by itself without having any need of help from without." While life proceeds from earth, the very life-giving ability of matter is a gift of the Creator…

On the other hand, unprejudiced reading of Scripture makes one notice a certain degree of activity that created matter has. It is not written that "God created grass," but, "Let the earth bring forth grass." Later on, God is depicted not as simply creating life out of nothing but as calling on waters so that they may "bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life…

The emergence of life in the Book of Genesis is both evolutionary (as earth is producing plants and simple organisms), and also a "leap towards life," occurring by the order of God.

God calls the Earth to a synergy, to a creativity that is indicative of the God-given internal creative abilities of the Earth. Different stages in the history of Creation open with God’s call upon "earth." The world, being called to growth and development, acts in cooperation with God. This theme of cooperation of God and His creation appears in the Bible long before the creation of man. The fact that the earth in response to the Word is producing life indicates that it is not merely a lifeless substance, out of which an external action is "moulding life," overcoming inert matter. The Bible is unlike the Vedanta, and matter in it is not a synonym of death and non-being.

This is how St. Basil is describing this creative response in his Homily V: "See how, at this short word, at this brief command, the cold and sterile earth travailed and hastened to bring forth its fruit, as it casts away its sad and dismal covering to clothe itself in a more brilliant robe, proud of its proper adornment and displaying the infinite variety of plants.

I'm sorry that this post was so long, but I think it was necessary to come anywhere near explaining the issue clearly enough. Christianity should not be battling against science. Perhaps it would be wise to remember the Orthodox attitude that has existed since the time of Christ and His Apostles. Science and Christianity are a reflection of each other in God's Logos.

[Cassy]

I find it's more an issue of maturity. A mature religious person should be able to accept that the Bible is not literal and that if there is a God then He created science too, for us to explore.

Mature scientists must accept that science does not disprove or prove the existence of God. Whatever Richard Dawkins says, believing in God is simply not the same as believing in the tooth faerie or the flying spagetti monster. In the words of Stan from South Park "Can't evolution be the answer to 'how' and not 'why'?"

[KingOfTheIsles]

Mature scientists must accept that science does not disprove or prove the existence of God.

Correct.

Whatever Richard Dawkins says, believing in God is simply not the same as believing in the tooth faerie or the flying spagetti monster.

Why not? How are any of these theories quantifiably worse than the "theory" of the existence of God?

[Cassy]

Correct.



Why not? How are any of these theories quantifiably worse than the "theory" of the existence of God?

I never mentioned scientific theory. If God does exist it is entirely plausible that he would exist outside scientific theory. The same cannot be said of the tooth faerie. Not that I am any way religious, I just find Dawkins to be an arrogant tosser.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

There is an interesting documentary on this topic, called 'Priviledged Planet', if I recall. It offers the opinion of learned minds in astronomy, geology, astrophysics, etc. I thought there were some good points in it, anyway. Just putting it out for those who are interested.

[Silver Guard]

Wait, please a moment of silence, Arrrgh has spoken using English!

On topic: Yes, they do. Because, quite simply they rest on other sides of the scale. Christianity is based on faith, faith in god, faith in church and faith in bible. If any one of these is lacking the individual is no longer Christian and instead something else. Without faith in god he is agnostic, without faith in church he is theist, without faith in bible he is also theist. Yet none of these equals Christian. Christians are theists, but theists are not all Christians.

The problem lies in that science dispells faith in anything but the provable, through matirial calculatable evidence (such as the mass of a rock) or through equasions (the accelaration due to gravity). That the bible is truth, the church is infallible (whichever church you follow) or that God exists have no basis in the above, and so are opposed to science. Science opposes ignorance. Faith opposes in all its basis of ignorance the march of science.

Yet however against science faith is, it is far outstetched by its foundation, institutionalised faith, such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. All of these faiths have taken faith to a different level, to which point not only are their followers supposed to believe against all scientific analysis (yes he is not proven or disproven, but the first is the important bit) but they follow laws based on this yet changed according to the whims of those men who see in themselves the embodyment of what all others shoudl believe. Enter: Luke, John, Mohammed.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

The problem lies in that science dispells faith in anything but the provable, through matirial calculatable evidence (such as the mass of a rock) or through equasions (the accelaration due to gravity). That the bible is truth, the church is infallible (whichever church you follow) or that God exists have no basis in the above, and so are opposed to science. Science opposes ignorance. Faith opposes in all its basis of ignorance the march of science.

Science is the faith of doubt, you can never ever prove something to be true. In science, we often find out what something probably is by first defining what it probably isn't (this is where the accumulation of evidence comes into play). Remember, statistical analysis is based upon probablilities, so there is always a chance that what you have found is not what really happens. To put this into perspective, we usually use a probability of 5% when doign statistical tests. This means that there is a 5% chance that the conclusions are wrong. Staticically speaking, if you take 20 studies, there is a 100% probability that one of them has made a false conclusion. Do they have to be on opposing sides? I don't know. Though I do think it is hard to resolve the issue of doubt that the central pillar of science. But in my opinion, this is a much better way of attempting to define what something may be rather than simply accepting what someone else claims to be the word of a higher power.

Religion is best when it is used to guide people in thier lives, not to define the physical world they live in. Science cannot be used to instruct people on how to live a moral life. So to me there is no conflict if people use religion for one aspect of thier live and science for the other.

[Zenith Darksea]

Did anyone actually read the whole of my post? I know it's a bit of an effort, but really, if you can't even be bothered to do that...

[Wild Bill Kelso]

Did anyone actually read the whole of my post? I know it's a bit of an effort, but really, if you can't even be bothered to do that...

I have now . Either way I agree with your conlcusions.

[KingOfTheIsles]

They do not have to be "opposed", but neither can they ever be the same thing. Science has little to say on most religious matters though, to be honest, except that they haven't been proven.

[Manji]

@Zenith: I think your conclusions are right though I must say that this issue seems to be much more discussed in the US than in Europe.

Personally I don't think that religiosity, of any kind, is directly opposed to Science, unless we are talking about extremist perspectives. Many "men of science" both in the past and present were/are religious, it's a matter of balancing personal faith and logical thought.

[Silver Guard]

Sorry Zenith, I only got half way through before posting, I'll finish off and comment now

What I disagree with is the Bible being taken in any other way then literaly. It clearly was not meant to be taken in any other way, else it would not be so precise and to the point in its descriptivness, highlighting sections which the ancients found particuarily important. Even more important is that it is a man-made creation. No matter what Staunt Christians say about the enlightened apostles, the Bible is manufactured, not by the apostles themselves, but by the convention called to tie together the fragments Christianity had become.

I think this was the largest mistake made in theist history. Instead of leaving faith to be what the Bible said, leaving it to take its course as placed by 'God', it tied it down, using their all too human free will to make people believe what they wanted them to, not what God decreed.

How can the bible be taken literaly when the new testament is told by three different people who rarely agree? It shows how fragmented the message became after Jesus and how much of a shambles it was by the time the new testament was put together, clearly this should be discarded as insufficient.

The Old testament however, is the written history of a people, one of the most descriptive and precise accounts of any one culture about themselves. If it is not written to be taken literaly how is it written? Which bits do we beliee which do we discard as metaphorical? The reason it is so vague is because it was never written to be metaphorical. It was history as far as its heavenly-eyed writters could see it.

Science is the faith of doubt, you can never ever prove something to be true. In science, we often find out what something probably is by first defining what it probably isn't (this is where the accumulation of evidence comes into play). Remember, statistical analysis is based upon probablilities, so there is always a chance that what you have found is not what really happens. To put this into perspective, we usually use a probability of 5% when doign statistical tests. This means that there is a 5% chance that the conclusions are wrong. Staticically speaking, if you take 20 studies, there is a 100% probability that one of them has made a false conclusion.

That is a faulty conclusion, in the last part, in fact the situation is far more complex. Using a scientific calculator I find the statistical probability that one is wrong is: 20C1 x 0.95^19 x 0.05 = 0.37725 (38%). The probabilty that ATLEAST 1 has a false conclusion is: 20C0 x 0.95^20 = 0.6415 (64%). Just over half, so your analysis was false. It would take 100 takings for it to reach even 99.4% chance of atleast one being wrong. See, its a lot more precise then you think. Religion has no statistics, nothing statisticaly has even a 0% chance of existing, it is just blindly assumed to.

Religion is best when it is used to guide people in thier lives, not to define the physical world they live in. Science cannot be used to instruct people on how to live a moral life. So to me there is no conflict if people use religion for one aspect of thier live and science for the other.

Has religion killed or saved more people? Personaly I am capable of leading a perfectly moral life without any influence by religion, or even the law. Sadly the second is neccissary for those who can't. Religion has and will continue to kill thousands every decade, how many will it keep from murder or from going against the law? I'd say not many.

[Dunecat]

What about in Luke, when it states:

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Does this not imply that Adam is a single man, not the race of man?

I don't know. I trust in scientists' certainty in evolution, but I also trust in the Bible.

[RZZZA]

As long as christians insist on opposing scientific progress...on rejecting science that tells us important things concerning human sexuality, medecine, biology, anthropology, genetics and agriculture....then religion and science will be at odds.

Its a war between the old ways and the new ways. Religion falls into the "old ways" category, while the social and scientific progress that started in the 60's and on composes the "new wave" of thought. Religion looks to keep the status quo, even if that means rejecting important truths about ourselves that science has revealed to us. For example, sexuality. Scientists have been studying human sexuality for a long time now and theyve decided that there is nothing strange or wrong with homosexuality. But religious people dont agree, they still want gay people to be discriminated against, they still believe that a man and woman is the natural state even if science disagrees.

In the field of genetics, we are prevented from saving lives because religious fundamentalists think stem cells offend Jesus. etc...etc...you get the point I think, of why religous and science arent very comptible.

Uh...so my anser is yes, religion and science must be opposed to one another

[Dunecat]

As long as christians insist on opposing scientific progress...on rejecting science that tells us important things concerning human sexuality, medecine, biology, anthropology, genetics and agriculture....then religion and science will be at odds.

Its a war between the old ways and the new ways. Religion falls into the "old ways" category, while the social and scientific progress that started in the 60's and on composes the "new wave" of thought. Religion looks to keep the status quo, even if that means rejecting important truths about ourselves that science has revealed to us. For example, sexuality. Scientists have been studying human sexuality for a long time now and they've decided that there is nothing strange or wrong with homosexuality. But religious people don't agree, they still want gay people to be discriminated against, they still believe that a man and woman is the natural state even if science disagrees.

In the field of genetics, we are prevented from saving lives because religious fundamentalists think stem cells offend Jesus. etc...etc...you get the point I think, of why religous and science arent very comptible.

Uh...so my anser is yes, religion and science must be opposed to one another

I think it's important to note that the religious right do not represent the views of every religious person.

Including me. .

So no, of course religion/faith and science are not opposed. It's a false dilemma. It's not one OR the other is right. BOTH are right. They deal with different aspects and methods of truth.

Science deals with gaining truth through empirical studies. Philosophy with reason-based ones. And religion with faith (desired truth) and revealed truth.

They're not opposed. They all revolve around the same thing. Now, something inside those categories might be false (such as some Christians' denouncing of homosexuality), but they do not inherently contradict each other.

At least, that's what I like to tell myself.

[Syron]

Faith and Empiricism are naturally opposed

Personally I’d like to see both kept well away from each other!

[LSJ]

I think some sciences are incompatible with religion, but others are not. There is no conflict between chemistry, physics, and religion. Physics is just the study of natural forces of the universe. No claim is being made that God did not make those forces. Chemistry is straightforward. It only describes the interaction of atoms in the physical world.

The problematic science is biology. It is fine to a certain extent, such as how plants produce sugar, how cells multiply... Biology claims that humans evolved from another species, whereas religions often say that they were created by god as they are today.
Then astronomy claims that the earth was created by gravity of large pockets of debris coming together from the "big bang", which was the explosion of an unstable mass of extremely compact matter, while religion says that god created the earth. Luckily, science does not have anything to do with the origin of the universe, so the debate would stay in science and not go into philosophy.

A lot of sciences can be agreed upon by Christians by the phrase "god created the forces and matter". But the issues are whether or not evolution is responsible for our current form, and whether earth was created naturally or supernaturally. Although the latter could be agreed upon by saying that God, who created gravity, moved the atoms together to form earth.

So truly, the only real conflict is evolution, where there is enough proof for it that the scientists will always refuse to agree with the idea of humanity being created instantaneously. And since faith vs logic does not work out, science as a whole and Christianity will never not be opposed.

[Dunecat]

Find me a scientific theory/hypothesis that attempts to disprove God.

[Manji]

As long as christians insist on opposing scientific progress...on rejecting science that tells us important things concerning human sexuality, medecine, biology, anthropology, genetics and agriculture....then religion and science will be at odds.

Logical fallacy.
Not all Christians oppose scientific progress.
Not all Christians reject science.

Again, many scientists are religious, of the Christian faith or others, religion is not self exclusive and redundant towards science.
Do not confuse extremist Christian cults with the larger spectrum of Christianity, that's like saying "all men are evil" because some are evil.

[Gelgoog]

science + religion = scientology right?