Christian Case-Making

in a Modern World

Apologetics 101

Faith and Reason

Must Science and Christianity be in conflict? Do we have to choose between Reason and Faith? Are incompatible truths found by studying nature or scripture?

The Bible claims that since God both created the world and also gave us scripture by direct revelation, there can be no inherent discontinuity in truths discovered by looking closely at either one. All Truth is God's Truth. We are encouraged to

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. Mark 12:30

This clearly shows that we don't need to have a schizophrenic view of reality. There is no need to compartmentalize our beliefs about God and scientific discoveries, being one person in church and another in public or at work. Remember, Jesus said that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life! (John 14:6)

Historic Church Views

The early Church Fathers viewed faith and reason as going hand in hand. For instance, Augustine believed that they complemented each other, and did not conflict. He believed that reason does not cause faith, but that it supports faith and helps in our understanding of doctrine. Anselm called it "faith seeking understanding". Thomas Aquinas believed that "all truth is God's truth," so there really can be no conflict between faith and reason. He distinguished between natural reason and revealed faith, again complementary messages from God that support each other.

Many famous scientists have been believers in God. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Euler, Mendel, Newton, etc. all believed in the Creator, and yet studied His creation without fear of being led astray. Kepler said that he was merely trying to think God's thoughts after Him when he studied God's universe.

The Belgic Confession of 1561, presents these as the study of Two Books of Revelation from God.

We know him by two means:

First by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God. …

Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

Anti-Intellectualism

Unfortunately, perhaps as a reaction to scientific discoveries viewed as incompatible with scriptural teachings, there has been a drift away from studying science and philosophy in the church. What used to be the institution that founded our great colleges and universities, has largely disengaged from science, surrendering academia to the liberals and skeptics. That is to our culture's detriment, as we are no longer salt and light when we are not involved and are just cloistered in our own groups.

We need to rekindle the "Life of the Mind", and that starts with us individually. As Christian leaders and members, we need to encourage others to love God with not just our heart, soul, and strength, but also with our mind. We must be able to understand our culture and be able to influence it, otherwise we will continue to lose relevance in the minds of our children and society. We must be prepared to give answers to those who ask about our faith, but that takes time, reading, study, and practice.

Gone are the days when you can just assume that quotes from the Bible hold weight in the minds of many people. We have to start with where they are at, and that may be overcoming objections about the existence of God, creation and the history of life, the authenticity and authority of the Bible, or the historicity of Jesus and evidence for the Resurrection. We may be called to give reason and evidences, and that cannot be easily done, if at all, by burying our heads in the sand and embracing anti-intellectualism in the Church. We can't expect everyone to "just believe" when we share the Gospel. Yes, God has to change the heart, but often there are real objections and/or hurts that may need to be rationally, respectfully, and lovingly addressed before they are ready to "hear".

We need to embrace truth as found by both faith and reason whatever the source. As the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI 1982) puts forth:

We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.
We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.
We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.
We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

Conflicting Views of Concordance

Science and Faith conflicts are not new. Frequently people have held (or opposed) views that they strongly felt supported their understanding of either the natural record or of God's Word. Usually, they were resolved in the worst way, by whoever had the most power, suppressing or punishing their opposition. When hard lines are drawn, it is often impossible to dialog and try to come to an understanding that honors both sources of truth. It is possible that one or more of the sides is misinterpreting the data, misunderstanding the evidence being presented, or even refusing to consider arguments that are not in alignment with their current beliefs.

There are several different approaches that have been taken to resolving or avoiding conflict between faith and reason.

Separate Magisteria - As scientist Stephen J. Gould believed, science and theology are simply two distinct realms with little or no significant overlap. Hence the study of nature has nothing to say about Christianity, and the study of the Bible reveals no information about the functioning of the natural world. Some scientists even claim to only believe what can be seen, measured, observed, smelled, etc. and that science is the only (or at least the best) way to discover truth. Religious truths are viewed as separate areas of knowledge, and deal only with topics such as morality and how to live.
Hard/Bold Concordism - Some believers embrace science to such a degree that they search the Scriptures diligently to find modern scientific discoveries within it. They feel that scripture must be made to agree with every current finding of modern science, so they try to find unwarranted scientific details in bible passages, often using questionable interpretation methods. They claim absolute agreement between science and their often hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible. A view must be wrong if it says anything that appears to not align with current understandings of science, so they force it to fit their interpretation. For the skeptic, this disproves the truth of scripture when logic flaws are revealed.
Soft/Safe Concordism - This view holds that the Bible reveals only that there is a God who created the universe, the earth, and life, but little else. Because science is always changing, they don't want to embrace any biblical content that could ever be proven wrong by science, thereby embarrassing Christianity. Most miracles are viewed as exaggerations or instructive examples. In fact, some who hold this view (e.g. evolutionary creationists) really are almost the same as hard science concordists, who insist that science is the final authority and that scripture must yield if there is conflict.
Moderate/Modest Concordism - The view that the biblical narratives contain records of actual historical events, perhaps with figurative language or poetically, but not falsehoods. Since it corresponds to reality, and all truth is God's, we don't have to assume that God "accommodated" His inspired author's false beliefs and included those in scripture. Where the Bible does address facts of nature, we have no reason to reject them.

Reasons to Believe is an organization devoted to the integration of Christian faith with the study of God's creation. Their view aligns well with the moderate concordist view:

Scripture: We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a “God-breathed” revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God’s creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.

Creation: We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God’s existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God’s character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature—its physical, biological, and social aspects—can prove useful in a person’s search for truth. Properly understood, God’s Word (Scripture) and God’s world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other.

Science and the Christian Worldview

A worldview is how a person, or even a culture, views reality and their place in it. Some worldviews are compatible with a systematic study of nature, while others really hinder objective discoveries. Some worldview impediments to science include:

A Cyclical View of Time
Astrology
Deifying Nature
Arbitrary and Whimsical Nature of God(s)

For example, the Buddha said, "A wise man, recognizing that the world is but an illusion, does not act as if it is real, so he escapes the suffering."

On the other hand, Jules Verne said, "It must be, for there is a logic to everything on this earth and nothing is done without a reason, that God sometimes lets scientists discover."

"The universe has been brought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator." - Nicolaus Copernicus

Several civilizations achieved some measure of scientific progress, but most failed to flourish. European civilization finally succeeded under the guidance of the Christian worldview. Indeed, most of the founding fathers of science also had Christian worldviews. The presuppositions of this worldview provided the fundamental pieces of the scientific method and the intellectual framework required. It provided the motivation to study and explore the creation that their God had designed and they strove to understand its depths. The presuppositions listed below are all found in Christian theism.

Other civilizations were scientifically “stillborn” because they were missing critical worldview pieces or had severe worldview flaws. For example, some lacked experimental testing procedures that could have provided verification or falsification of theories. Others incorporated pseudo-science, capriciousness, lack of an expectation of order, or mysticism into their view of nature. Some even viewed the world as not objectively real. On the other hand, by believing that the God of the Bible created the natural world, European Christians had reason to investigate it. The universe was expected to be orderly and well-designed.

Science Flourished Under a Christian Worldview

The physical, material world exists as an objective reality. The world is real and can be studied. We can generally trust that our senses and perceptions can be used to make valid observations of the universe and are able to be used to make valid conclusions.
The world and whole universe had a beginning and were created by God from nothing. The fact of a beginning has profound implications, including the concept of a linear view of time progression, and even cause and effect relationships. If the world is not cyclical, then real progress can be made and should be expected.
The universe should be rational and understandable because it reflects the nature of the One who designed it. We can expect that underlying laws of nature will tend to be orderly and uniform and not needlessly complex. We should also not expect the rules to arbitrarily change.
Humans were created in God’s image and thus are able to reason and discover the design and order of the universe which He had made. Logic and math are valid because they are part of the design of a rational creation. Also, moral responsibility for the care of nature and the wise use of what we learn comes from God’s command to be stewards of His creation. Recognizing that we individually have flaws and biases, we should strive for consensus and acceptance of our views and discoveries. The Christian worldview requires us to test and examine ourselves, our beliefs, and our world.

Necessary Conditions for Science

The physical universe is a distinct, objective reality.
The laws of nature exhibit order, patterns, and regularity.
The laws of nature are uniform throughout the physical universe.
The physical universe is intelligible.
The world is good, valuable, and worthy of careful study.
Because the world is not divine and therefore not a proper object of worship, it can be an object of rational study.
Human beings possess the ability to discover the universe’s intelligibility.
The free agency of the Creator makes the empirical method necessary.
God encourages, even propels, science through his imperative to humans to take dominion over nature.
The intellectual virtues essential to carrying out the scientific enterprise are part of God’s moral law.

Abstract, non-empirical realities are more compatible with Christian theism than with naturalism, since materialism is powerless to adequately explain the origin (or perception) of colors, thoughts and memories, the seemingly independent existence of math and numbers and correspondence with physics, or even love and emotions.

Christianity is also compatible with the prevailing views of science, that

The universe began to exist at some point.
The universe had a singular beginning, ex nihilo.
The universe is continuously expanding.
Matter, energy, space, and time had a specific beginning.
The universe experiences decay.
The universe will come to an end.

Reflections on Science and Faith

I feel that the modern church has given up some ground in this area. By willfully choosing to embrace popular scriptural interpretations (e.g. Young Earth Creationism and Flood Geology) that are not fully true and consistent with both the Bible and the evidence from God’s creation, we have lost credibility in the arena of public opinion. Others in the church have abandoned any attempt to have scripture say anything at all about nature. They declare that science and faith should only deal with their own realms and never have any overlap, as Stephen J. Gould proclaimed. The net result is that our modern world views Christianity as out of touch with reality and as just another subjective religion meant for those who are anti-intellectual. They conclude that if the Bible can’t get the first few pages right about reality, then it must not be of any value.

On the other hand, if we can make a case for the total reliability of the Bible in whatever it addresses, then we have our foundation back under us. All truth is God’s truth, and much of that can be discovered by carefully investigating His Word and His World. Our interpretations of both need to be fair and consistent with each other and within themselves. The Bible requires us to test everything and to be humble about being corrected. This applies to science as well as to theology. If we present coherent, rational reasons to believe that science and Christian faith are compatible, then we can once again have a positive impact on our world. Without it, Christianity is in for some dark ages.

Our study of Apologetics is about Truth, so questions are okay. Everyone needs to examine why they believe what they say they believe. We can and should challenge ideas and test them. Christianity really has nothing to fear from philosophic, scientific, or historic examination.

God’s Revelation, in Two Books

The Author can’t/won’t contradict Himself. Nor can He lie or deceive.
All revelation that is from God must be consistent and complementary.
Various books and parts of revelation can help us understand the correct meaning of other parts.
Not all truths are easy to discover or understand. Thus we can misunderstand (misinterpret)!

Takeaways

Faith and Reason are compatible.
The Church has historically rejected anti-intellectualism and upheld that the Bible is inerrant in all subjects that it addresses.
A moderate concordance between God's Word and God's World is expected.
The Christian worldview allowed science to be birthed and flourish.
Christians need to re-engage our society in the realms of science, philosophy, and the Gospel.

Sunday, October 6, 2024

Apologetics 101 - Christian Case-Making - Faith and Reason