This article arises somewhat out of my earlier Religion & Science: The Phony War. In interactions through various media since that article, I have been questioned about the rationality of Christian theology.
In short, what kinds of evidence does theology draw upon and how does it move towards making truth claims? Alongside these questions lies the issue of how science, if it’s not opposed to theology, works within the theological scheme.
It’s no small matter to try and respond. To be honest, in a short blog article, it may not really being doing Christian theology much justice… but, from a desire to attempt to illuminate the matter, I feel I ought to try.
What is ‘theology’?
Before we go further, let’s define a term: theology.
The term “theology” is widely used to mean something like “the systematic study of the ideas of a religion,” including the foundations, historical development, mutual relationship, and application to life of these ideas. The phrase “Christian theology” is therefore generally understood to mean the systematic study of the ideas of the Christian faith…
– McGrath, A.E. (2007) Christian Theology: An Introduction, Fourth Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Let’s also be clear that Christian theology is controversial, in that Christians are not universally agreed upon all the various facets of the subject. Discussion, thinking and debate has continued throughout the whole of the period since the birth of the Christian church. At many times, such as during the Age of Reformation (c. 1500 – c.1750), Christian theology has proven very heated indeed.
What sources does theology use?
Christian theology draws on a number of sources. While the relative importance and value of these various sources has remained controversial, most theologians would acknowledge the following:
- Scripture: specifically, the canonical books of the Christian Bible.
- Tradition: the continuous stream of Christian teaching, life, and interpretation traceable to the church’s founders.
- Reason: the critical use of our human faculties of thought.
- Experience: not just that which is acquired travelling through life, but that which is arises from one’s own subjective feelings and emotions.
All of these have been given different priority and weight by various theologians throughout the many eras of Christian theological thinking.
How do these apply? Well, in simple terms, the theologian faced with a key question draws upon their Bible, the historic traditions of the church, their own critical faculties, and the evidence of their experience, both subjective and general, to form a view.
All theology is provisional and it is constantly developing. Theology didn’t stop at any point in history, and it is alive and kicking today.
How does science fit in?
This is the question that perhaps most interests our readers right now.
In my last article I wrote:
…you owe it to yourself to delve into the rich and satisfying relationship that has generally continued to exist between science and religion. Both disciplines of science and theology have much to share and learn from one another.
Please be aware, that statement is based upon my own particular interpretation of the relationship between the natural sciences and theology. Let me explain…
Back to the 5th Century…
I turn to the works of Augustine of Hippo (354-430CE). Following the tradition of Clement of Alexandria, Augustine argued for the intellectual pursuit of theology. He insisted that reason and logical technique was necessary to theological enquiry.
Four key doctrines of Christian theology were espoused by Augustine:
- The Unity of Truth: everything we understand has to add up; contradictions must be resolved, not ignored.
- The Two Books: the book of scripture and the book of nature; God reveals truth to us through both, so both must agree.
- Both Books Require Interpretation: that is careful interpretation, which is hard; certain (sure) information from all sources must be taken into account.
- Scripture Has Primacy: in resolving tensions, scripture is paramount but other sources still must be taken into account.
Summarising Augustine is difficult, but it may be useful to consider his two equally valid statements which sit in opposition to one-another:
“I believe so that I may understand.”
“I understand so that I may believe.”
Where does this leave us?
Many Christian clergy historically studied what are now considered the natural sciences. Simply put, science can help us to better understand the nature of the physical world and our place within it. This information helps us to better understand the truths revealed in Scripture. Conversely, scripture helps us to better utilise the knowledge of natural science and consider how to apply it to everyday life.
It is a quirk of modern times that Christian fundamentalists, in their reaction against the assertions of Modernity, have tended to forget Augustine’s approach. It must be noted that this fundamentalism is recent and, although vocal, actually in the minority of Christian thinking. The media tends to like picking up on fundamentalist rhetoric, as it does with any extreme viewpoint that sits nicely in a 15-second soundbite, but this is not necessarily representative of Christian belief.
It is interesting to note that, in the 1998 encyclical ‘Faith and Reason’, the Roman Catholic Church re-affirmed Augustine’s approach. In this document they reject ‘fideism’ (blind faith over reason) and ‘biblicism’ (reliance on Biblical texts alone). On the other hand, this document also criticizes ‘scientism’ (the idea that all true knowledge is attainable by science alone). The Church seems to feel that “human life has meaning” and that “there exists an eternal and transcendent truth.”
Do you care?
Probably not as much as I.
If you hold the faith-statement that there is no god then much of this is probably seemingly irrelevant. Except, that is, if you want to make the charge that Christian theology is nothing more than statements of faith.
Theology is built upon careful and meticulous thinking, drawing upon multiple sources. Good theology, that which acknowledges the place of Reason and Experience alongside Scripture and Tradition, cannot and does not ignore the evidence presented by the natural sciences.
Yes, theologians are often cautious in accepting scientific claims – after all, science has provided many examples of being wrong in the short term. But, when the evidence is compelling, good theology incorporates the experience and reasoning of the natural sciences into itself.
For we theists, then, our knowledge of God and of the Christian life is informed by all information at our disposal. The theologically savvy Christian does not have a ‘blind faith’. They have a faith informed by multiple sources, always curious and ever-growing in its understanding.
I find the idea that science and religion can co-exist deeply flawed. Faith based people who promote the idea always remind me of the Alice in Wonderland quote “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast”. They accept the science behind mobile phones and penicillin yet stick their fingers in their ears when science tells them that their dogma is ludicrous.
Science is a never ending process of observation, hypothesis, experimentation and analysis. Above all it is about repeatability – the idea that two people with completely different backgrounds in completely different locations can reproduce the same results.
Faith is personal. An individual experience. Two people’s faiths are never completely identical and faith, almost by definition, ignores the evidence.
Though science we can prove that gods, as depicted by the major religions, are as unlikely to exist as little green men on Mars. Of course it is impossible to prove there is no god just like it is impossible there no green men. Even if we could walk all over Mars, we can never prove they are not hiding just out of sight. But science is about the alignment between the evidence and the hypothesis and that clearly shows that there are no little green men on Mars.
Anyone accepting a scientific, rational approach cannot accept the existence of the divine other than through an act of blind faith.
This is not a problem. Many great scientists have been religious but these people did not let their faith in a concept of a god interfere with their science. Where there is a problem is when religious people ignore or distort science because of their blind faith.
Science demonstrates that men and women are effectively identical genetically and in their capabilities. It also clearly shows that homosexuality is nature in all populations and has no detrimental effects on that persons abilities. Yet every major religion openly discriminates against these people. No major religion will allow a woman or an openly gay man to be its head because, according to faith, only straight men can be god’s messenger on earth.
Likewise science tells us that access to cheap and reliable contraception saves countless lives through reduced STD infections and child-birth. Yet the world’s largest christen religion ignores the science and condemns millions to an early grave based on faith.
Religion and science cannot co-exist because science disproves or makes redundant the dogma of religions.
A purely internal, personal faith and search for inner peace can co-exist with science because these are the domain of philosophy and ethics, areas that are beyond the realm of the science method.
Well, Chris, thank you for sharing your dogmatic atheist faith-statements once again. You are, as ever, the proud proponent of scientism.
I am compelled to point out that it is as much a statement of ‘blind faith’ to assert that there is no God. Through the application of study of scripture, tradition, reason and experience I must conclude the opposite of your faith claims.
As far as commenting on this post, however, you are clearly closed to any suggestion that any Christian can believe and accept scientific claims. This is, to be honest, a deeply flawed assertion and one which seems calculated to offend. God is not comparable to little green men because, if both were to exist, then God would have created the green men; creator and created are qualitatively different.
In fact, as philosophy and theology concede, God can only be perceived through direct revelation. This revelation is the core truth claim of the Christian church – the person of Jesus is, in fact, the direct physical revelation of God. Saying “I don’t believe that” is merely a faith statement which chooses to ignore the evidence and experience of other human beings who do.
By all means, be strident in your assertions about your own faith, Chris. Be careful, however, that you do not over-simplify a relationship between theology and science that is much richer than you are prepared to accept. Your fundamentalism is, in my view, really quite narrow.
your dogmatic atheist faith-statements
My statements are not dogmatic nor faith based, they are evidenced based. Show me new evidence and I we will reassess my position. Show me compelling evidence and I will run down the street proclaiming I was wrong and that God exists.
This willingness to accept new evidence is the difference between rational science and faith.
Witness the number of Christians who believe that the world is only 6000 years old despite the clear, irrefutable evidence to the contrary. As an act of faith, they stick with the bible.
This is the heart of the problem of trying to combine science with faith. One is based on observable, repeatable, testable evidence and one is based on supposition and internal belief.
you are clearly closed to any suggestion that any Christian can believe and accept scientific claims
I think you need to read my post again. I said.
“They accept the science behind mobile phones and penicillin yet stick their fingers in their ears when science tells them that their dogma is ludicrous. ”
As I clearly state, religious people do routinely accept science but it is where science contradicts their dogma that a problem occurs.
God is not comparable to little green men because, if both were to exist, then God would have created the green men; creator and created are qualitatively different.
Here is a clear example of the conflict of faith and science.
As a statement of faith, I have to accept your belief because your theology places God beyond the understanding of men and thus whilst we may be able to find little green men, we can never find God.
As a statement of rationality, it is illogical rubbish.
As an example – “creator and created are qualitatively different”. This is an assertion without evidence. Both God and little green men are unknowns quantities and may or may not exist. Therefore we cannot make any statements about their relationship and more than I can say X > Y without knowing that both X and Y exist and knowing their respective values.
Saying “I don’t believe that” is merely a faith statement which chooses to ignore the evidence and experience of other human beings who do.
You are correct – “I don’t believe” is a statement of faith but that is not what I wrote nor the scientific method. A correct statement is “I don’t believe in God because on the basis of available evidence and the application of occam’s razor there is no reason to believe in God.”
Nothing in my comment says that I ignore the evidence of others who do believe. I am well aware of the billions on this planet who believe in a god or gods. I am aware that through-out history, nearly everyone has believed in gods. This is part of the evidence that I have considered and reconsidered many many times over the years.
But rationality is not about belief, it is about observable, testable, repeatable evidence and there is not one iota of evidence for God that fits that description. (Please feel free to cite any evidence you may have, as a good rationalist, I am always open to new evidence).
So I am left with a choice. Accept the beliefs of others as an act of faith or place my trust in rationality.
The principles of science has solved hugely complicated problems and given me everything in my life. It created the materials I wear, the machines to create the desk I sit at, the very device I am typing this on now. Simply put, most of those billions of people around the world who believe in gods would not be alive today if it was not science.
The same cannot be said for faith.
Given the overwhelming evidence that science delivers results, when it comes to the big question of “does God exist”, accepting the scientific evidence is the only rational cause of action. To accept everything that science teaches us, to embrace the methodology and rationality of science, is entirely incompatible with placing blind trust in the beliefs of others.
Post Script:
Faith and science can and should co-exist.
Faith is about the individual, an internal journey that can provide a personal philosophy which enables a person to do many great things.
Science is external, about the many and the universe we live in.
But they are incompatible. Like matter and ant-matter, they cannot exist in the same place. When science and faith are in conflict it is because one of them is stepping outside of its proper domain.
Faith attempting to dictate the actions of many or trying to explain the universe is equally bad as science attempting to provide a personal philosophy or dictate an individual’s journey of discovery.
Fair enough, Chris. I would suggest, however, that we are talking at cross purposes because the way you are using the terms “rationality” and “faith” is not the same as the way that I am using them. If you re-read my articles you will get some definitions from my perspective. As far as I can tell, you seem to be suggesting that rationality is only applicable to physical evidence… but I cannot quite be sure. Whatever your definitions and meanings, we are not going to have a useful discussion until we can agree on the terms and meanings of core concepts. Alas, until (if) we can, adieu.
This comes from me. My mind is on other things so while I want to contribute, I cannot take the time to find the support you to have on this subject.
There is no war between science and religion, its a war amongst humans. Science is a tool, pure and simple. It requires some of the greatest minds, each generation, to keep that tool working and focussed on its primary goal.
The war between humans is simply over belief. Its a war between different belief structures, including in my mind atheism. I am firmly of the “belief” that there currently is no proof for the existence, or lack of existence, of gods. At this stage its a purely philosophical/theological debate and as such does not interact with science or state or a few other societal structures. We are in a place in modern life where laicism is of real benefit to us all.
As for UR’s post, while I don’t pretend to grasp it all, for me why should religion ignore science? Its a tool, but like all tools its misues can cause far more damage than good and I think that is where modern fricition between the various belief structures come in to play. Creationism vs Evolution is a classic, if little extreme example. What has always struck me as illogical is the inability of some religious people to let go. Someone who is omnipotent and omniscient would have as much justification for creating this planet as an experiment to enjoy, or design the laws of physics as labour saving device as we have with using a washing machine, or making up a cooking recipe. In this regard where religion falls fouls is in the need for control, and unfortunately science has consistently challenged that control of supremacy of knowledge of the natural world that religions on the whole have tried to exert. Even if we use science to disprove the existence of gods, its not science that is to blame. As we know, a bad workman blames his tools.
In the end this isn’t science vs religion. This is human vs human, philosophical certainty vs philosophical certainty. Time to leave science out of the whole debate I feel.
It’s late at night, and I have had an unbelieveably busy fortnight, so this is being said as a matter of observation, not as a ‘go-look-this-up-in-the-link-below’ way.
In the Western world, Science is pretty much the child of the Judaeo-Christian world view – as the Rat has already suggested – it is the Judaeo-Christian understanding of a Rational God who creates an ordered Universe which encouraged the birth and development, however slowly, of a Scientific worldview. Although there were Atheists (in the modern definition) in the Mediaeval, Renaissance, and Reformation worlds, they were a relatively quiet group, and where, like Spinoza (of Jewish upbringing), they did dissent, they usually didn’t look to upset the ‘apple cart’ too much. This changed under the philosophe of the Enlightenment.
Likewise the philosophical school which came to then define Science (Empiricism), had a few major treatises written, but with a number of inconsistencies which need to be borne in mind. David Hume -who said quite a bit about everything – made the following observations (if memory serves, they may all be found in his ‘Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding’ (but it’s late, and I don’t have the willpower to re-check in the copy on my shelf, sorry)): Humans are creatures of habit, they like to perceive order even when it may not be there, or have a direct causal link; these habits of observation lead us to expect permenance of the observed causal link, i.e. because we observe it to happen consistently over a period of time we expect it to continue to be like that, and we read it into the times outside our frame of reference (i.e. past, future, everywhere on the globe); this is something which should not be the case, just because we have ‘always’ seen it to be the case, does not mean that it always has been the case nor will it, necessarily, always be the case. He then makes a metaphysical jump and asserts that miracles do not happen because they are breaking the Laws of nature, and this is not possible. But as he has already argued that the so-called Laws of Science are nothing more than the ‘habit’ of us creatures seeing a repeated causal pattern which may not necessarily be a consistent causal link, this seems a pretty big assertion and jump to make. But that is for a blog on what I as a Christian understand a miracle to be.
And this is where I dovetail with FH completely, for me it is the combination of the Deistic worldview and the Enlightenment agenda of the philosophe (and their ilk) which helped to create a pseudo-war between Scienc and religion – but a war that is about humans manipulating paradigms against each other. As a Christian, I have no issue with accepting the definitively proven facts of Science, but as with anyone, I am not required to subscribe to the as yet unproven theories of Science as fact, but will happily do so when they cease to be theories. As McGrath says, the theories may be the best models currently available for explaining what is going on, and how we got here, but, for me, it is still a theory. The best example I am prepared to give with my brain on the shut-down mode is Dawkins’ invention of that unbelievable pile of tosh called the meme. Thankfully, it isnow a theory on its way out. But that didn’t stop a number of people taking it as fact, and even making their academic careers out of it. I would argue that that is a pretty big example of faith, even if it is in the person of dawkins or his theories.
Faith is something we all have and exercise, by definition, but that doesn’t make it irrational, quite the opposite really. I have said it befoer, and I will say it again. I have not issue with Science, but I do have issue with those who promote scientism, as mcuh as I have an issue with fideists. Both are guilty of ‘blind faith’ in the truth of their own positions, whilst denying the possibility that not only can the science and religion co-exist, but actually have a great deal to say to each other, and even have a very fruitful relationship.
Now to bed.