"Why Believe in God in the Face of Modern Science?" - Chapter 8 of Know Why You Believe

Know Why You Believe
By K. Scott Oliphint

“Why Believe in God in the Face of Modern Science?” – Chapter 8

Introduction

• Shortsightedness
  
  • When we consider our present circumstances, we lack a historical horizon to give us perspective.
  • The comforts and conveniences that we use every day are relatively new in the history of the world.
  • This historical shortsightedness is detrimental:
    
    • Whenever we ignore anything beyond our own circumstances, we tend to think that what is “now” is normal.
      
      • We lose a critical perspective.
      • We lose context.
    • When we lose historical perspective, we tend to think that what is new is always better.
      
      • Technology makes some things better but some things worse.
• Now is not always normal. Newer is not always better.

Reasons

• The purpose of this lesson is to provide a historical perspective on the relationship between science and Christianity.
• Modern science began in the nineteenth century when science was defined and carried out in a radically different way than before.
• The word “scientist” was not even coined until the nineteenth century.
• There are two reasons for believing in Christianity in the face of modern science:
  
  • Historical
  • Foundational

Historical Reasons

• In its historical context, the relationship of science and Christian belief has been mostly harmonious, not hostile.
• Natural Philosophy or Natural Theology
• Natural philosophy concerned itself with the workings of nature. It sought to discover and utilize the forces and laws of nature in order:
  
  • To better understand how the world works
  • To improve the quality of life for people
• The goal of natural philosophy (or theology) was to connect the workings of the world with the “One” thing or being that could explain and justify those workings.
• Natural philosophy intuitively recognized that there had to be something that provided for the harmonious display of nature, something that connected all the different parts.
• From a Christian perspective “natural theology” understood that “nature” was a “book” written by the one God and that it could only be properly understood through God’s written book, the Bible.
  
  • Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
    
    • “Scientific Method”
    • Offered a genuinely Christian approach to nature. Bacon tried to eliminate pagan roots of natural philosophy and see its task in light of Christianity.
  • Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
    
    • One of the founders of modern chemistry
    • Believed that science could make no progress if viewed through atheistic assumptions.
    • It was God’s providence that provided for the constancy and regular and rapid motions of celestial bodies.
    • This consistency had to be there in order to pursue science.
  • Isaac Newton (1642-1726)
    
    • One of the most influential thinkers in Western civilization.
    • Recognized that his task was dependent on the character and activity of God.
      God, Providence, and therefore theology was central to any proper understanding of science and nature.
• The modern antipathy between science and Christianity is not normal in history.
• Science and Christianity are fully compatible and meant to work together.
• The divide between science and Christianity began to form during the Enlightenment.
  
  • All external authorities began to be challenged.
  • The problem with challenging all authority is that the one challenging becomes the ultimate authority.
  • The Age of Reason sought to ground all truth in individual thinking. Truth could not come from religion or a creed. The search for “real truth” needed to throw off the shackles of religion.
• We have all now been “breathing the air” of the Enlightenment for 300 years.
• Its influence is profound, deep, and nearly universal.
• The “battle” between science and Christianity began in earnest in America in the mid-19th century.
  
  • John William Draper – “History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science”
  • Andrew Dickson White – “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom”
  • Charles Darwin – “The Origin of the Species”
    
    • Probably the greatest influence on the divide between science and Christianity in the last 150+ years.
    • In the history of science, Darwin’s view is new, but it is not, from the historical perspective, normal.
    • The norm in the history of science was to see nature as understandable only within the context of nature’s God.
    • Darwin’s view didn’t need God.

Foundational Reasons

• New is not necessarily normal, and new is not always better.
• Darwin’s views are not better because they are new.
• The modern assumption of the separate and hostile spheres of religion and science is virtually universal.
• The concept of an unguided process of species development and change is nearly universal in the realm of science today.
• Richard Dawkins – “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
• To hold a Christian worldview and not believe in evolution is to invite the hatred (or pity) of much of today’s society.
• How could someone not believe in evolution in the 21st century?
  
  • Initial thoughts:
    
    • The theory of evolution has gone through numerous changes and mutations since its ascendancy in the last hundred years. There are really numerous theories of evolution (not just one).
    • The main reason Darwin’s theory caught on and developed is not because it was a completely new and previously never conceived theory. Ideas like Darwin’s can be traced back to ancient Greece.
    • Darwin’s theories caught on and spread like wild fire because they were planted in the soil of the of the Enlightenment.
    • The Enlightenment was intent on abolishing all external authority and finding answers by human reason alone.
    • Evolution and Enlightenment goals were mutually affirming and acted like gasoline being poured on a small flame.
    • With an evolutionary explanation for all things, the Enlightenment could now get rid of God once and for all.
• Evolution suffers from a major flaw: it is intellectually incoherent (despite its near universal acceptance).
  
  • Evolution believes the universe is random and chance-produced and only natural (no supernatural allowed) and only made up of matter (nothing immaterial or spiritual).
  • Everything we believe about this view is produced somehow by the material that makes up a human being. All of our beliefs are a product of the matter that composes our bodies.
  • If all of this is true, how can we have any guarantee that our beliefs our true?
    
    • These beliefs might help us adapt to our environment.
    • But whether our beliefs are true or not cannot be determined simply through the material workings of our brains and bodies.
    • Belief in evolution is nothing more than a random collection of chemical reactions or bodily materials. It is no more special or unique than carbonated bubbles.
• Evolution in reality has no foundation. It is a theory that cannot make sense of itself.
• A lack of foundation is not just an academic or philosophical problem; it goes to the heart of what is true and why it is true.
• An atheistic physicist has no way to affirm or argue why the laws of physics are the way they are. He can only teach the laws. He has no way to guarantee that the laws are actually laws and that they will be there tomorrow and continue to run in a predictable pattern.
• In order to approach the world in any kind of predictable and stable way, we must assume some organizing principle or being that makes it predictable and stable.
• Any theory that is based only on the natural and the material will never be able to make sense of the world.
• In the history of science, the recognition of a unifying principle of nature found its true home in Christianity. It gives us a true starting point for a proper understanding of human life and all of nature.
• Given the relative novelty of modern science it would be more appropriate to ask how could someone believe in modern science in the face of Christianity?
• The Enlightenment was not an argument that human beings were self-sufficient; it was a declaration that they wanted to be.
• Modern science has done nothing to discredit the truths of Christianity; it has simply dismissed them.
• The rejection of Christianity is more about self-autonomy than it is about “science.”
• Unlike unguided evolution, belief in Christianity has a foundation. That foundation is in what God has said in his Word and his world.
• Science can flourish with a solid foundation in God’s revelation.
• Without this foundation the scientist has no place to stand. He is unable to produce the coherence needed for science to thrive.

Responses

• What about the fossil record that show evolutionary changes in species?
  
  • Darwin himself recognized that the fossil record was actually an evidential argument against evolution.
  • If evolution were true, then we should have an abundance of fossils of intermediate species not just changes within species.
  • Some scientists responded with “punctuated equilibrium” – quick evolutionary changes that didn’t have time to leave a fossil record of intermediate species.
    
    • This is only a red herring solely designed because of the lack of fossil evidence of intermediate species, not because there is actually any evidence of rapid evolutionary change.
  • The evolutionary view of the fossil record assumes a principle of uniformity, that things have progressed at relatively stable rates throughout time. But there is really no scientific evidence of this kind of uniformity; it is simply assumed.
  • Scripture provides one explanation for the fossil record: the cataclysmic universal flood. Given the flood we simply cannot assume a principle of uniformity in the formation of fossils and other evidence.
• Don’t Christians just assume their position, while evolution is based on scientific evidence?
  
  • Lewis: “I believe Christianity as I believe the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
  • We believe Christianity because we see it. We see it in God’s world. We see it in Scripture. We see it in the church. We see it in our friends and ourselves. It is our life.
  • Through Christianity we see everything else and make sense of God’s world.
  • Christianity is a full worldview that can carry the weight of all of life’s most important questions.
  • Evolution is not a comprehensive worldview; it cannot answer many of life’s questions. It doesn’t provide a full view of the world. It can’t even sufficiently account for its own theory.
  • Evolution is random, unguided, and without moral or ethical content.
    Christianity provides the only sure foundation for scientific inquiry.

Questions

• Why is it important for most who believe in evolution that it be unguided?
• How should Christians respond to the Enlightenment view of human reason?
• In what ways does the abundance of design in the universe refute typical views of evolution?
• Is it possible to believe what the Bible says and to believe in evolution?