Do science and Christianity conflict?
Most people don’t think about science and faith. If they do, the first thing that comes to their minds is conflict. To most people they are irreconcilable enemies – and science is the undisputed victor. The ‘science has disproved the Bible’ kind of response is common when discussing Christian things with people.
In the student world, the problem is worse among arts students. Interestingly, science and engineering students far outnumber arts students in many Christian Unions. But, in those bastions of objectivity, the science faculties, there are plenty who feel the same – even if they don’t put it it quite so bluntly. They think science is intellectually superior and that religion is a load of unsubstantiated, subjective claptrap. There are many Christians, too, who see Christianity and science as being at war. For them, if there is conflict, it’s the science that is wrong.
Bulldog v. Bishop
There certainly has been plenty of controversy over the years – some of it very bitter. The Galileo affair is a classic example. Another is the origins debate that really flared up after the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of the Species in 1859 having been flickering for a hundred years already. Thomas Huxley was soon championing Darwin’s cause (earning the nickname ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’). Huxley was keen to support because of his approval of Darwin’s naturalistic approach (leaving God out of the picture) rather than for the details of the theory.
The now famous debate between Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce took place at the British Association for the Advancement of Science meetings in Oxford in June of 1860. The bishop unwisely concluded (or so the story goes) by asking Huxley whether it was ‘through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey.’ Huxley’s reply was that, if it came to the choice between an ape for a grandfather or a man who misused his speaking gifts to bring ridicule into a scientific discussion, he would prefer the ape.
Propaganda
In fact, the debate wasn’t as significant at the time as we now assume it to be. As with the Galileo affair, it is far from the full picture. It only became useful propaganda much later as the importance of the church waned, and science grew in importance in the culture. It’s possible that the story is only remembered now because we have inherited the scientific worldview and the story puts the Victorian church in a bad light.
The conflict has not gone away – if anything it has probably intensified over the years with battle lines still being drawn up on both sides of the debate. Why is there such conflict? After all, isn’t the God of the Bible the God of nature as well?
Different Approaches
One of the reasons for the apparent conflict between science and faith is that we have forgotten that science and theology have different approaches. They ask different questions and have different fields of interest.
Science is limited: it is restricted to the physical space-time world of matter and energy. It depends on experiment, observation and measurement. It is descriptive. Science asks ‘How?’ ‘How does it work?’ Its perspective is mechanistic: ‘How do things operate in the universe?’ Scientists may make bold statements about metaphysics (literally ‘beyond the physics’ – i.e. things beyond the physical world) but they do so on the same basis as anyone else. Science does not and cannot enable anyone to investigate anything that is not part of the physical world. Scientists’ statements carry no more weight simply because they are scientists.
On the other hand, Christianity – and the Bible it’s based on – asks ‘Why?’ It is about significance. Its perspective is theological: ‘Why is it here? What meaning does it have?’ It is not concerned primarily about mechanisms but about meanings.
However, although science and Christianity are asking different questions, they do have overlapping circles of interest – especially in the area of origins. Science and theology are both interested in where the universe came from and what human beings are – but they approach these issues at different levels of explanation.
Complementarity
These are complementary, not conflicting, levels of talking about reality. Stephen Hawking appears to recognise this in Black Holes and Baby Universes where he writes:
… even if there is only one unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern? Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence. Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist? I don’t know the answer to that.
Even if he arrives at his theory of everything, he won’t be any more able to draw any conclusions about God. What – or who – is behind those equations? Why do they work? They will not exclude God but will be an expression of the way God is constantly involved in creating and sustaining the universe.
These posts may be related:
- Uncertain Answers Can we be so sure of what we think we know? In the previous article we looked at one reason for the apparent conflict between science and faith: they have...
- Ten Things You Need to Know About the Creation-Evolution Debate 2 Part two of a two-part article first published in Christianity magazine in 2005. [...]...
- Ten Things You Need to Know About the Creation-Evolution Debate 1 Writing anything on creation and evolution within these pages feels akin to sticking a sign on my back reading, ‘Kick me!' I'm exposing myself to attack from one side or...
- Ten Things You Need to Know About the Creation-Evolution Debate – further reading Further reading on the Creation-Evolution debate [...]...
- Science, Creation and all that Jazz This is the event at which I’m speaking on Friday evening: ...
