http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=270
Is There a Place for Science and Faith in a Postmodern World?
| by |
Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A. |
The minds of many Christians today harbor an interesting mixture of
premodern and modern ways of thinking. For example, we know we have one
foot planted squarely in the premodern world when we express certainty
in the promises of God, and accept the authority of His revelation. At
the same time, we know we have the other foot planted squarely in the
modern world when we use scientific reasoning to defend our faith, and
when we encourage belief based on reasonable grounds, and a careful
weighing of what others have to say.
The modern creation movement is itself a seething confluence of these two worlds. In Whitcomb and Morris’
The Genesis Flood
(1961), we find an attempt to synthesize science with a literal
understanding of the Bible. As far as they were able, the authors strove
for scientific credibility by limiting divine interventions to those
instances referred to explicitly by Scripture. In the end, however, the
biblical text was to have the final say.
Modernism plays a greater role when consensus positions of science
define a theological position. A fine example of such a project relevant
to many of our readers can be found in the work of astronomer Hugh
Ross. Implicit in Ross’ approach is the idea that the Big Bang provides
the best scientific evidence available for the existence of a
Creator-God. It would seem, from this perspective, that if Christians
were to attack the Big Bang they would, in effect, be undermining their
own faith and erecting barriers to the faith of others (Ross, 1991, pp.
163-164). Here is an apologetic that integrates entirely a modernistic
agenda.
Traditionally, whether we have leaned toward premodern or modern ways
of thinking, most of us in the West have cherished certain crucial
ideas. These would include, for instance, the concept of truth—that
there is a way to know that what is, is. It also would include the idea
of an intelligible Universe—an idea that itself stems from the Christian
view that we live in a world created by a rational, loving, intelligent
Being. However, modern science eventually concluded that nature was the
only thing we could understand—God was taken out of the picture
altogether. Empiricism, in its extreme form, gave way to positivism,
which writes off as nonsensical any utterances that include references
to the nonempirical. To say, “God loves you,” is a meaningless noise in
the ears of the positivist.
Postmodernism challenges Christianity and modernity because both claim
to be “true” (Fields, 1995). For the postmodernist, truth neither is
revealed (as it is in Scripture) nor is it discovered (as it is in
science). That absolute truth and empirical science primarily are
Western concepts is reason enough to reject their universal application.
Different views of reality, held by other cultures, are no less true.
If a tribe in Borneo believes that a certain ritual will cure a tumor,
then who are Christians with their prayer, or Western doctors with their
high-tech medicine, to tell them otherwise? In other words, truth is
local and relative.
This immediately plunges the postmodernist into all sorts of
difficulties. What would happen, for instance, if I were to claim that
truth is absolute? If the postmodernist says I am wrong, then truth is
not relative after all. If the postmodernist allows that I am right,
then truth really is absolute as I claim.
Nonetheless, a limited idea of truth already is well ensconced in
Western society, even if postmodernism’s greatest supporters are
confined at present to a narrow segment of academia. There is no reason
at this point to believe that such ideas will go away merely by closing
our eyes. That Christian apologetics should have to reposition itself to
this fresh challenge is nothing new. The first apologists used and
responded to Greek philosophy, and the apologists of the modern era did
the same with the arrival of empirical science.
Despite its horrible inconsistencies and rejection of traditional
biblical faith, postmodern criticism could open certain doors for
Christianity. Most important, it challenges positivism by asserting that
empirical science does not have exclusive rights to truth. This move
away from modernism may recover a place for a transcendent God (i.e, for
something beyond nature).
Although hardly a postmodernist, this is precisely the tact taken by
Berkeley law professor, Phillip E. Johnson (see, especially, his 1995
book,
Reason in the Balance). Rather than affirming an overt
belief in a Creator, he seeks official invitations from science and
philosophy departments (still strongholds of modernism), in which he
then challenges the supremacy of naturalism.
Creationists also have drawn upon works that critique the way science
works (Numbers, 1992, p. 247). This is borne out of a sense of
frustration that scientists, as a group, will not allow anybody else to
join in unless they play by the rules of naturalism. It is on this point
that the controversial work of Thomas Kuhn figures significantly.
In his
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn spoke of scientists as members of a community who hold to what he called a
paradigm—a
shared “constellation of beliefs, values, and techniques” (1970, p.
175). A revolution in the paradigm would be accomplished only by a
process of conversion (when existing scientists accept new ideas on
“faith”) or replacement (when a new generation takes over from the “old
guard”). Here are elements that sound almost religious and political.
Certainly it is not the picture of scientists always making an
unimpassioned choice of the “best” theory. Dissenters may not have much
of a say in this community, but they are not wrong merely because they
disagree with the prevailing paradigm.
Many scientists who believe in a creation and global flood identify
with this analysis. They feel that their dissent from majority opinions
should not signal their expulsion from the community. Further, it is
possible that science really may benefit from what they have to offer.
For example, perhaps geology should consider the possibility of global
catastrophes; perhaps anatomy should investigate “vestigial” organs and
structures, rather than writing them off as useless remnants of previous
evolutionary stages; and perhaps questions of origins should at least
include the possibility that the answer may lie beyond nature itself.
Postmodernists have raised objections in other areas of interest to the
believing scientist. For example, in the field of medical technology,
some have questioned whether researchers should do anything merely
because it is possible. In 1993, Robert Stillman and Jerry Hall reported
the “cloning” (test-tube twinning) of human embryos. Stillman received
approval for this work from an institutional review board, but he
neglected to tell the board that the work already had been done because
he thought it would “bias their judgment” (
Science, 1994,
266:1949). Earlier, Hall admitted that pushing the ethical envelope was a
prime motivation for doing the experiment (Kolberg, 1996, 262:652).
Today, this aspect of modernism—pursuing the truth at any cost,
regardless of what the rest of society thinks—seems terribly arrogant to
many people outside of science. Christians can enter the discussion by
upholding concern for others and valuing life itself.
On a similar vein, postmodernism perceives technology as driving a
wedge between humanity and nature. Christians may be able to explain
this sense of detachment by showing that while technology is useful, it
is necessary only because sin separated us from an ideal state in which
the first man and woman worked intimately with nature and in communion
with God (Genesis 2:8; 3:8). Humans were granted a very special place in
the order of things, but their role is one of stewardship, not
exploitation (Genesis 2:15). Further, humans are uniquely situated to
experience the wonders of creation in the world around them (Psalm 8).
It is too early to announce a winner in the debate between modernism
and postmodernism. Christians may end up benefiting from the exchange,
but there are some pitfalls to avoid. Principally, Christians should not
feel compelled to defend the prevailing views of any historical period.
Their prime concern is to preach Christ and Him crucified (1
Corinthians 2:2). To depend on, rather than judiciously employ, the
tools of culture is to make the Faith vulnerable to the sort of attacks
leveled by postmodernism against systems established on its older
rivals. If modernism really is adopted as the “Christian” way of
thinking about our Universe, with God playing less and less of a role in
His creation, then Christianity may fail to transcend culture. In
something so impermanent as culture there is no foundation for concepts
such as eternal truth (Psalm 119:52).
What would really happen to Ross’ apologetics if (and this is not a
very big “if ”) the Big Bang were relegated to the trash heap of
unfashionable scientific theories? Is this to be the best solution that
theism can offer after more than two centuries of wrangling over faith
and science? Perhaps Ross will succeed in reaching fellow modernists,
but what will it tell them about God, and what will it do for the rest
of society? In fact, we already have had ample lessons to teach us that
matters of faith should not rest on prevailing scientific opinion. Few
Christians today, for instance, would take up the cudgels for something
like geocentrism. Surely scientific knowledge can grow, and benefit
humanity, without dictating the content of religious belief.
Finally, if Christians expect to use the methods and findings of
science as a testament to the Creator, then they must take care not to
diminish the possibility of doing good science. There is always room for
taking a second look at how science works, but making a mockery of it
may confuse the real issue (i.e., questioning the assumptions and
interpretations of the scientists themselves). Science arguably is the
greatest tool bequeathed to us by the modern period. It is no friend of
theism in its positivistic guise, but the master whose hands have been
bitten should, nonetheless, foster those worthy aspects of science that
may be used in the service of faith.
REFERENCES
Fields, D. Martin (1995), “Postmodernism,”
Premise, 2[8]:5.
Johnson, Phillip E. (1995),
Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
Kolberg, Rebecca (1993), “Human Embryo Cloning Reported,”
Science, 262:652-653, October 29.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970),
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, second edition).
Numbers, Ronald (1992),
The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).
Ross, Hugh (1991),
The Fingerprint of God (Orange, CA: Promise, second edition).
Science (1994), “Embryo Cloners Jumped the Gun,” 266:1949, December 23.
Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris (1961),
The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
It
might surprise some to learn that Thomas was not the only “doubting
disciple” immediately following Jesus’ resurrection. Do you recall what
happened when Mary Magdalene, the first person to whom Jesus appeared,
went to alert the mourning apostles of Jesus’ empty tomb and
resurrection? When the apostles “heard that He was alive and had been
seen by her, they did not believe” (Mark 16:11, emp.
added). According to Luke, the words of Mary Magdalene and the women who
accompanied her seemed to the apostles “like idle tales” (24:11) or
“nonsense” (24:11, NASB). Later, when the two disciples on the road to
Emmaus reported to the apostles how Jesus had appeared to them as well,
the apostles “did not believe them either” (Mark 16:13). When Jesus
finally appeared to the apostles (not including Thomas) on the evening
of His resurrection (John 20:19), He questioned their “doubts” (Luke
24:38) and “rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they
did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen” (Mark 16:14).
Then, when Jesus appeared to the apostles eight days later, this time
with Thomas present, Jesus instructed him to “not be unbelieving, but
believing” (John 20:27).