Of all the objections to a religious worldview that have existed throughout history, the most famous one seems to be the lack of symmetry between supernatural belief and scientific revelation. The terms commonly used to represent these differing positions are faith and reason. One of Christianity’s major cultural defeats in contemporary times has been the societal acceptance of this dichotomy. People today either choose to base their life around what can be physically observed and analyzed in a logical way, or they accept an impossible but empowering notion of faith in the divine. This outcome is no accident, especially in the modern era.
One of the most famous and influential scientists of the 21st century, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, once said in an interview that he sees no reconcilable relationship between the notion of faith and science, and by extension, faith and reason. In the same interview from 2010, Tyson famously summarized his view of religion and science by saying,
“at any given moment [in human history] there is a frontier. And there tends to be an urge, especially among religious people, to assert that across that boundary of the unknown lies the handiwork of God.”
Laurence Krauss, another prominent scientist who is an atheist, shares this sentiment, believing that there is absolutely nothing related or correlated between religion and science.
This is not only a flaw in modern secular thinking. This dichotomy has also tragically been accepted among certain sects of Christians.
Jason Lisle, an associate of Answers in Genesis, a prominent evangelical organization that vehemently denies evolution, says that “we are never to attempt to reason in opposition to the word of God.” He was making an argument for what he called “biblical reasoning,” a framework for using arithmetic in strict adherence to a literal understanding of the Bible. What he was really getting at is that pursuing objective scientific discovery should be met with skepticism or even opposition if it threatens a presupposed biblical view, one derived from a fundamental interpretation of the Christian holy book.
While there are several layers of flaws with this thinking, the one that is most troubling is the indirect agreement it has with Tyson’s and Krauss’ view that when religious faith is met with scientific scrutiny, the faith crumbles in its credibility and logical coherence.
Both the atheists and the fundamentalists buy into this framework and go to opposite extremes from there.
Tyson and Krauss think that religion cannot be reconciled to objective reason and so they embrace a radical scientism of sorts. Krauss himself said that science can be a source of “spiritual consolation.” Lisle, meanwhile, in addition to other prominent fundamentalists such as Ken Ham, conclude that only the Bible has acceptably true details and facts of all measures of life, including science. Therefore, any scientific conclusions or theories tried and tested through experimentation can be automatically deemed false or heretical if it appears to contradict scripture – that is, the strictly literal interpretation of scripture that they hold to.
Despite seeming to exclude each other, both of these views are only made possible by the same pseudo-premise that faith and reason being can be at odds with each other. While this has certainly highlighted the core flaws of these extremes, the question remains if the two can truly be reconciled at the very least.
The good news is that, within the Christian tradition, the answer is a resounding yes.
In the epistemological history of the tradition, Christians have long affirmed that the revelation of God is revealed through the direct intervention of divine figures such as prophets, holy men, and Christ himself, in addition to a general and natural order of creation. These categories are called special revelation and natural revelation. The compilation of the canonized Bible represents the bulk of special revelation, with the rest being referred to as sacred tradition. The creation accounts of Genesis, the Gospels of Christ, and the Pauline letters are all derived from this view of special revelation.
Natural Revelation, on the other hand, focuses on all other forms of creation and their relationship with humanity. This would include facts and observations of the universe. Since science is focused on discovering more about the universe through experimental methods, the scientific pursuits of society have long been considered a means of understanding and witnessing natural revelation. The Catholic Church, for instance, has long viewed scientific studies as critical to society, which is why most great institutions of higher education during the medieval period were founded and maintained by the Church or by Catholic orders such as the Franciscans or Dominicans. They understood that it was scientific revelation that could disclose – not negate – the Christian claim of a created universe by a divine deity.
Part of the beauty of Christianity is the presupposition that the world is intelligible because it was created with perfect precision to the very last atom. Science explores the laws of nature from a perspective that it can – and must – be understandable because it is cohesive and logical, or in other words, intelligible. They mutually authenticate each other. One need look no further than Newton’s laws of motion to see this.
The main criticism that comes from secularists on this part is what is known as the “God of the Gaps” theory, which states that religious groups only believe in the divine because they do not have the answers, or the knowledge, or how reality truly works, so they place a superficial belief in a deity to feel confident in having the answers to life’s important questions. Over time, however, as scientists begin to uncover more truths and more understanding, the need for God shrinks, and this goes on and on until, at least theoretically, there is no longer any need for religion.
This argument is easier to make if your opponents are biblical fundamentalists like people from the Answers in Genesis institution, who see no room in their worldviews for authentic scientific discovery. However, the argument is a very shallow refutation of the Christian faith. Its main problem is that orthodox Christianity does not argue that God is the explanation for only undiscovered phenomena. Rather, it has long been argued that God is the explanation for everything. Under this framework, there is simply no need to attribute scientific ignorance to the need for God when Christians believe that he is already responsible for everything.
To the confident Christian, there is nothing that science can prove that is capable of contradicting the Christian claim. Over our lifetime, civilization will undoubtedly discover much more about the cosmos, marine biology, technology, and even neurology. We should be looking at this as a miracle, that we have the capacity to uncover more truth about the universe, and to use what we discover to better the human race.
It is a nihilistic perspective to have that, as scientific discovery and innovation moves forward, religious believers should treat it with unconditional skepticism and aggression as if it offends our very worldviews. Likewise, viewing anything outside empirically collected data, observations, or calculations as being fantasied or meaningless is equally as strayed.
When society tells you that you must choose between radical scientism and fringe fundamentalism, you are left with young people digging their heels into ideological extremes that prevent them from living confident and fulfilled lives.
It is my hope that, as we move into a time of both further innovation and religious revival, we are able to revive the beautiful harmony between faith and reason. If you choose one over the other, they become equally meaningless.
Accepting both as intrinsic with reality, however, yields the greatest understanding possible of the universe in accordance with faith in the divine life.
