by David Goodman at SheWorships 
Hello blog world. She Worships has been invaded by a dude, most notably illustrated in the picture from Rocky IV situated to the left. No, this is not a shameless plug to get Sly Stallone on Sharon’s blog. This was the image that came to my mind when Sharon asked me to write about the relationship between science and theology. You see in the film Rocky is a fiery, passionate boxer with a mission to prove going up against the formidable Russian Ivan Drago, the machine-man that represents the overwhelming strength of the Cold War USSR who crushes opponents with almost superhuman force. At one point in the fight Rocky is dancing around the ring, taking punches from the Russian and taunting him saying “You ain’t so bad!” in an effort to tire him out.
Do you ever feel that way listening to reports from “scientists” that seem to shake the foundation of everything you believe in? Does it ever seem that despite your passion and fiery spirit you find yourself staring a giant of opposition in the face? Like Sharon said, we have been involved in an ongoing conversation with each other, our friends, and pastors about birth control and other touchy ethical issues.
What I want to address is a question Sharon posed to me after I spent hours scouring medical journals and textbooks for the exact pathophysiology of birth control and fertilization. She asked, “What is the point where science trumps theology, and how do you know just when to let Scripture speak for itself?” The real question is how much weight do particular scientific facts have to sway your theological beliefs one way or the other? Regarding this question I have a few introductory points:
1.
Everyone worships something. A misconception in the eyes of many people who would identify themselves as scientific is that they believe they don’t make faith decisions but instead trust fact. However, if you listen closely to the discussion of scientific individuals, you can hear how they have aligned themselves with a particular set of beliefs; several of which are based on faith, and have a common subculture analogous to the Christian subculture. We see the ultimate progression of this illustrated in a very appropriate episode of
South Park (no I am not endorsing
South Park, no I don’t watch it, no I don’t think you should) where Science becomes the new God in the future. People go to the First Church of Science, they take Science’s name in vain when they cuss, they pray to Science as if the term “Science” had been deified to take the place of God in our future society. In many ways this is happening today, but it is just not quite so conspicuous.
One topic common in some Christian teaching circles these days is the idea of idolatry. Idolatry in the sense that we trust something else besides the truth of the Gospel to meet our needs or that we find our ultimate fulfillment in something apart from Christ. Unless our hearts are focused solely on Christ we will use something else as our “functional Savior”. For many this can be your status, marriage, career, ministry, etc, but for our purposes here it is science or theology. Mark Driscoll points out that in order to make anything your functional Savior you have to demonize everything else. Postmodern scientists and philosophers demonize religion because for them science is the new idol, the new faith, the new religion. The problem is that many Christians, without even realizing it, often make their theological worldview their idol and demonize other views in order to irrationally protect theirs’.
I believe that God created the world with miraculous order and a specific purpose. In order to be most God-glorifying we have to learn how to appreciate science without stepping into defense mode every time some new objection is presented. As Christians we stand on the truth that the fact that God made the universe with order is precisely why science can exist and help to identify the guiding principles of that order.
2.
Everyone begins with assumptions. It is an undeniable reality that no one can be removed from their underlying worldview, and we all are biased in some direction. When I studied engineering at Clemson (woo hoo!) every problem began with listing the assumptions that we had to make in order to simplify and solve the problem. This is also true of science. I can’t tell you how many lectures, podcasts, and interviews I have listened to where scientists purposefully stated that they believed the supernatural was not true and immediately assumed it could not be the answer.
Think about this very clearly whenever you engage anyone in conversation. Ask yourself “What assumptions are they working off of?” and “What assumptions am I bringing into this discussion?” I was going to go into a few lengthy examples, but I think that simply being aware of this reality is sufficient.
Have you ever made the statement “A loving God would never _______.”? This is a perfect example about how you paint God with your assumptions for what he should be like. Think about this when you discuss things with people you disagree with. Often you will find that you can have a much more civil and productive discussion if you spend time on the front end talking about what assumptions the other person is making and clearly defining terms.
3.
The Bible was never meant to be a scientific textbook. The Bible exists to provide an everlasting record of the story of God in his efforts to redeem humanity and to display the majesty of his grace, for his glory and our joy. The Bible exists to illustrate Christ as the centerpiece of redemption. Take Genesis and the origin of Creation for example. What God is doing in Genesis is telling the story of how the nation of Israel came into existence. It is describing the process by which mankind was created and fell, and it begins to tell the story of how God chose a people for himself to be the vessel of his truth until the fullness of time arrived when Jesus would come on the scene. Somehow this all got messed up around the time that Christians became very defensive against the Scientific Revolution.
Do I believe in a God that created the world? Yes. Do I know exactly how that happened? No. Look at our formation as human beings as an example. The Bible says that God made man from the dust of the earth. Now, are you made of dirt? No. You know what you are made of? Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, etc. The same fundamental building blocks that inhabit other organic materials and are found in dirt. The Bible should say, “God formed man by causing to exist subatomic particles that interact with one another in order to create defined elements that function as the building blocks for the precise physiological mechanisms consistent with life.” I’m glad Moses just wrote that we were made from dirt.
What I am trying to say is that we simply cannot make the Bible say something it was never intended to speak to. The Bible is sufficient for describing the story of how one is to be saved and it does it with impeccable precision.
Comments (26)
If you think scientists worship "Science," you know very little about science. (I think you misunderstood the South Park episode, which was actually mocking how ridiculous a notion that is.)
Science is a methodology of inquiry and a body of knowledge; worshiping science would be like worshiping philosophy or worshiping history. The scientific method is a constellation of logical, mathematical, and empirical approaches to reality that have been shown to produce accurate results; scientific knowledge is the accumulation of understanding gained through using these methods. In short, the scientific method is what works and scientific knowledge is what is true. The entire system is self-checking and self-expanding, and it has brought us from the age when people prayed to the Great Juju for rain, to the modern era in which meteorologists track rainclouds and engineers build irrigation systems.
Everyone begins with assumptions, yes... but scientists begin with only the most basic assumptions necessary for any kind of rational understanding of anything. "I am not a brain in a vat," "2+2=4", "Contradictions are false." It is commonly said that science presupposes the non-existence of divine beings; but if there were valid evidence for divine beings that could be examined rationally, I can't imagine a scientist in the world rejecting it on the grounds of "methodological naturalism." The fact is simply that there is no such evidence, and has never been.
As for the idea that the Bible is not a science book, therefore we need not take its science seriously? What, then, is it? What should we take seriously within it? Its history, which claims that many more Jews than lived at the time migrated from a place they never were by magically creating a landbridge in an enormous sea and left no evidence of this? Its morality, which says that religious genocide is obligatory, slavery is acceptable, women are property, and people who are envious should be put to death?
Moreover, there are millions of people who consider the Bible the best source of scientific knowledge, about things like natural history, biology, and cosmology. They are wrong, of course; deeply wrong. But they are many, and seem as validly "Christian" as you; moreover, I am not convinced that the history and morality within the Bible is any better.
Do you ever feel that way listening to reports from “scientists” that seem to shake the foundation of everything you believe in?
If what is accomplished through science is truthful and not bound to a political agenda like global warming, then it can only confirm the glory of God.
Science is greatly limited in relation to God because it is bound by empiricism. But empiricism is powerful in that it is a reasonable, systematic approach to uncovering the mysteries of our universe. For every scientific discovery, there result an additional multitude of mysteries that await explanation.
This is also true with faith. As long as we remain disciples our development in faith continues to yield the yet to be discovered.
Our science and our faith are in constant development. Since reason and faith have the same Creator, they cannot contradict each other.
"I can’t tell you how many lectures, podcasts, and interviews I have
listened to where scientists purposefully stated that they believed the
supernatural was not true and immediately assumed it could not be the
answer."
there is a huge difference between stating that you do not believe in something, and acknowledging that you cannot prove its existence. are you' sure you're not confusing one for the other? most scientists i know have faith, and they would resent your own assumption that scientists are incapable of such a thing.
@pnrj@xanga -
If you think scientists don't worship "Science," you know very little about worship.
StrokeofThought@xanga "If you think scientists don't worship "Science," you know very little about worship."
'Tou-che' !!
LAW--
not everyone worships something. and come on, south park parodies everything.
@StrokeofThought@xanga - Great reply! :)
@StrokeofThought@xanga - "If you think scientists don't worship "Science," you know very little about worship."
I agree with this statement... and it is somewhat painful to read after having worked for professors, in that I was torn between being a roll model for students on the one hand, and trying to not contradict professors on the other; professors have a good memory; now I work in a dumpy factory.
@pnrj@xanga - what kind of evidence could there be for divine beings? usually we have a conception of evidence for a claim; that's how we base an expectation of evidence for it. what kind of empirical evidence do you require?
@StrokeofThought@xanga - That's it, you've just crossed the line. After months of tolerating your comment, I'm gonna sub.
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - Empirical evidence for religion? Any one of the following would cause me to seriously question and possibly abandon my atheism:
1. A controlled double-blind experiment in prayer that showed an effect statistically greater than chance. (We've done the experiments; the results are the same as chance.)
2. A direct, corroborated observation of a divine being.
3. A direct, corroborated observation of a miracle---combined with clear and compelling evidence that it was not a natural phenomenon.
4. A logical proof of the existence of God that holds up under the standards of mathematical rigor.
@StrokeofThought@xanga - So, can you worship history? Can you worship philosophy? How exactly does one worship a field of inquiry and a body of knowledge?
Physicists do not pray to the Higgs boson every night; biologists do not wear bracelets asking, "What would Darwin do?" (except perhaps in jest); mathematicians do not gather every Sunday to sing about the glory of the Pythagorean Theorem.
If what scientists do constitutes "worship," then just about anything is "worship," and the word has no meaning.
@StarAndSpiral@xanga - The problem is not that God did not describe the chemical reactions in detail. (Though, I really don't see what is so difficult about saying something like: Water is made of tiny, tiny particles, each of which is three substances bonded together, two of a smaller kind called "hydrogen," one of a larger kind called "oxygen"; oxygen is what humans breathe, hydrogen is what fuels the Sun; witness the unity of laws of chemistry God has designed.)
The problem is that when the Bible says things about science, they are unequivocally, ridiculously false. The Bible says that day was created before the Sun, that the sky is a solid dome dividing the "waters above" from the "waters below," that stars are little points of light in the dome, that whales appeared before land mammals, that flowers appeared before animals, that all the world's species could be contained in a single seaworthy vessel (oh, and by the way, that human beings can reproduce by parthenogenesis and that consciousness survives the destruction of the brain).
I never understood the point of making an enemy out of evolution. It might contradict the Bible in some ways, but it's not worth making it a stumbling block for non-believers who feel that disregarding all science is a pre-requisite for becoming a Christian. It's not. Acknowledging your sin and accepting Jesus' sacrifice on the cross IS.
We can debate about evolution and creationism and all other "science issues" the Bible presents until we're blue in the face, but the Gospel will always remain the same!
@sarahzthoughts@xanga - Evolution undermines the authority of scripture by presenting an alternative to the Genesis account. If you undermine Genesis you undermine the gospel. Evolution is not true science anyway, as it is purely faith based because there is nothing in science to support it. If evolution were true, there would be no need for Jesus sacrifice, as there was really no fall of man in the garden thus no need for redemption.
@cornerstonechwk - Excellent! Evolution has the appearance of being unbiased and fact based, but it's nothing more than a belief system. You get it!
@cornerstonechwk - I already said that evolution contradicts Genesis. But the other side of the issue is whether or not Genesis is to be interpreted literally, but please don't get into a debate about that, because this isn't an evolution vs. creationism post. My point was just to explain that some parts of scripture may sound confusing or be hard to understand because of science, but just because we have doubts and questions doesn't mean the Bible isn't true. First and foremost, the Bible is the story of God's plan for salvation, and that's what should be our main focus.
@pnrj@xanga - really great points! You seem to well understand post-Enlightenment modernistic (and perhaps post-modern) dogma, which I'm can imagine has been really helpful for you living your life so far (I haven't checked out your blog and don't know you, but you speak confidently so I'm guessing all is well with you, meaning you're navigating life effectively, happily even perhaps).
When all is well and a learned perspective 'feels' TRUE than there is little reason or motivation to consider something that has the potential to shake or even shatter that view point ... and that's fair. And you'd likely say I'm willing, but here's the specific criteria that I need to see in order to consider a change in my 'world view' (in fact you've done just that here in another comment.)
What if TRUTH is not 'objective?' What if TRUTH is relational? I know that sounds crazy...how can it be, right? Modernistic perspective says something must be measurable and objective to be TRUE. That works really well for knowledge, but not so well for experience. Take pizza for example. We can measure its size, determine its ingredients, define its recipe...in an objective reproducible fashion. But one can not do that for the human experience of eating it. How do I measure, quantify, hypothesize that my experience of eating is good or perhaps upsets my stomach sometimes and not others, or...you get my point, right? Experience is not measurable or reproducible or 'objective.' In my mind that's what has led to post-modern relativism theory. The 'sense' that objective TRUTH is not satisfying...meaning doesn't offer a complete perspective on the human experience.
So perhaps the definition / understanding of TRUTH is worth more study. If you get a chance check out the movie 'What the [Bleep] do we know.' In the movie it talks about the study of sub-atomic physics, which has advanced since my study as an undergrad physics major. It raises some interesting points about measurable / objective TRUTH...and the rising awareness of importance of relationship (between an observer and an object) in defining TRUTH.
The universe is a mysterious place...thank GOD!!
Ultimately science and religious faith will support one another. They already do to a great degree.
From The Times, March 4, 2008: "The Vatican's repentance over its treatment of Galileo began in 1979, when John Paul II invited the Church to rethink the trial of Galileo."
Galileo was tried for herecy by the Catholic Church for supporting the view that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Also from that article: "Nicola Cabibbo, head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a nuclear physicist, said: “The Church wants to close the Galileo affair and reach a definitive understanding not only of his great legacy but also of the relationship between science and faith.”
Science does not know everything nor do people of religious faith although there are many in both groups who believe they do. A scientist accredited with inventing the vacuum tube was also accredited with saying it will never be possible to put a man on the moon. Never say never.
I can't believe I'm going to write all of this but here goes....
There was a time when science looked at trees and broke them down into rudimentary parts, each part having a function in the life of the tree. Scientists at the time thought they'd broken the tree down to it's fundamental building blocks but eventually, with the advent of the microscope, scientists discovered that each of the parts they had believed were the basis of a tree's life, bark, leaves, roots, were made up of smaller building blocks they called "cells". Now they thought they'd discovered the basic building blocks of life...until years later microscopes were developed to be able to see smaller objects. Now science discovered the building blocks of life were not cells but things they called molecules which were the components of cells. Molecules were considered to be the building blocks of life until some numbskull ruined it all once again by building a better microscope. We know how long the molecule theory lasted. Atoms came next followed by what atoms are made of, a nucleus, neutrons and protons.
Every step of the way science thought it had discovered the physical basis of life, the solid foundation upon which all animate and inanimate objects are built. Then quantum particle physics came along and blew everything out of the water. Nothing in this universe is actually solid. We view things and touch things and they seem solid to our perception but in fact they are constantly regenerating themselves, disappearing and reappearing every nanosecond. Subatomic particles are in constant flux, disappearing and reappearing in everything around us, including ourselves. However, don't hit your significant other over the head with a rock (as much as you might want to at times) with the intent to prove that nothing is really solid. There is something that holds together the integrity of everything around us, a glue that binds us all together as an interacting existance.
There are insects whose lifespan is only 24 hours. I assume that to them it seems like a rich and full lifetime. To us that's barely enoug time to open our eyes. On the other end of the spectrum stars live for billions of years, producing unimaginable amounts of energy every moment throughout their lifespans. We on the other hand produce barely enough energy in our entire lifetimes to cook a hotdog. Of course I'm comparing apples to oranges but to a star our lifespan appears shorter than the lives of those 24 hour bugs appear to us.
An interesting discovery was made several decades ago. Imagine a river flowing south and at the end of the river is a wall with only a small opening through which the river's water can pass. If this opening is 4 feet wide, the river will push as much water as is possible through the opening each moment depending on the force of the river. On the other side of the opening the water does not simply continue along a straight path but expands it's path, some droplets pathing to the right and left as the water exits the other side of the wall in much the same way water expands its path as it's poured into a glass from a Brita canister.
The same scenario was set up in an experiment where, instead of our river of water, a river of subatomic particles were flowed through an opening in a wall. They behaved in the same way, expanding or branching out to become again wider after making it through the wall. However something strange happened. When they were sent through the wall collectively the expansion took place but the same thing happened when single particles were shot through the opening. Some would go straight through and continue on a straight path but, and here's the mystery, the paths of some bent outwards after passing through the wall as if they had passed through with all of the other particles. It's as if you send one drop of water through the opening and it suddenly changes it's course as it would if it was pouring through the opening with the rest of the river. It would seem the particles knew what they were supposed to do, much like a singer in a choir practicing his part by himself. Even though the rest of the choir isn't there he still sings his part.
I'm sure that much has been discovered since I studied the wild world of particle physics. Even so I find that science continues to objectively wrestle with, support and even reveal the very mysteries that religion and philosophy subjectively wrestle with and reveal. Of course being human, scientists also experience life subjectively and often follow their instincts, allowed by their beliefs. In truth objectivity and subjectivity will work hand in hand.
@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - @pnrj@xanga - "Worship" (weorðscipe) originally meant "to consider worthy." In essence, to hold something in reverence or regard. The old marriage vows included the phrase "With this ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship," in the idea that a husband or wife "worships" (reveres) their spouse. "Worship" doesn't exclusively mean in a religious or deity-related sense. (It wasn't even ever used in that sense until around 1300.)
With that understanding, then yes, one can worship a field of inquiry or a body of knowledge, and yes, just about everyone worships something. Whatever takes priority in your life--whatever you consider "worthy" of your time, possessions, talents, etc.--is what you worship, whether that worship takes the "traditional" form of prayers and chants and bumper stickers or not.
@ChrisRusso@xanga - 'Worth-ship' is exactly right.
@pnrj@xanga - The scientific method as you describe it is an excellent way to analyze nature. However, not everything produced by it is 'truth'. It is theory, to a greater or lesser extent supported by analysis and experimentation. A hypothesis that has been supported is not necessarily true; it is an explanation that seems to work, given the variables being considered. There may be other hypotheses that provide a better explanation. When various theories or hypotheses all seem to explain the data, scientists argue and apply Occam's Razor and continue their research. Science provides an approximation to truth, good working explanations about the questions for which it can provide answers. Some things seem to be pretty well hammered out, but for many phenomena, better or at least different explanations are provided every generation.
To commit oneself to science as the primary or only source of truth, and to expect it to answer the deepest questions of existence, is to make a step of faith. Whether this constitutes 'worship', I don't know.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - @pnrj@xanga - the point of "worship" (and i know this is a long thread but i am respond to the idea that worship then has no meaning if scientists do in fact worship.
let me make this clear so that my response doesn't confuse you. the term worship, by what you called "christians" refers to the idea of consciously or unconsciously placing something as the first priority in you life. easy examples are a significant other, career, yourself, or a dream. those things, if first in your life, create the center of your life. whether purposefully or not, they directly and indirectly travel towards the center of your life. imagine a circular sink where water is rushing from all of its angles towards the drain. it is the center and in fact, the goal of the water to go there, whether it understands it or not. this, is a loose (and yes, fairly weak metaphor -- but it was the first to pop into my mind! lol) idea of what worship is. it is whatever your life travels towards, and what your being finds to be the center of your beliefs, and what causes you guage your priorities in the way that you do. if it is logic that you value first, inevitably, you begin to direct all your paths toward logic, until it is a first priority in your life. and if we call secular logic athism and spiritual logic faith, then they can be fairly paralleled as two opposite things -- both that can be worshiped. And, i think what the person you were questioning was trying to communciate was that worship isnt really a word about rituals or ceremony, or even of an emotional journey, but its a priotitization of something above all. most Christians, sad to say abuse the term and know it only in its shallow sense. but really, worship is a lifestyle and deeply internal way of running your life. in its purest sense, worship is equal to the passion between two people in love, but is also earnest and committed.
im not the greatest writer, but i hope i made some points clearly.
I am what most secular terms call a "Christian," but really i just try to see myself as a person with values that i try to keep consistent and in line with the Bible. NO DOUBT that i sin; a hypocrite would be just one of the things in the surface. but what i believe really causes me to believe in Jesus Christ and in a thing called redemption is that at the toughest trials of my life, i have been closest to peace. that, is the one thing that logical, unbelieving people can't deny because it is of my own experience. I've never see a miracle that looks like a magic trick, or proven through statistics that prayer physically and menatlity stablizes someone. But i am a spritual person; and most logicians are rational. if they ask for rationality, they will find little. But i do believe that the greater a person questions a thing - like a religion or a concept - the greater potential they have of finding the truth. so, ask on. hopefully someone like me can explain even just a BIT of what you dont understand. and its your decision, i claim it fully; it is your decision whether to inquire about Jesus Christ and a God, or to ignore the supposed naive fools who believe in something old fashioned.
"To commit oneself to science as
the primary or only source of truth, and to expect it to answer the
deepest questions of existence, is to make a step of faith. Whether
this constitutes 'worship', I don't know."
when i read this, it sounds as devoted, passionate, and trusting as a faith in a divine being. I would say it is worship, according to what i wrote above. I dont think its wrong to worship a thing, but if you are someone who believes in God, then naturally he should be the thing you find most appealing. I'm a real person and I can admit, God seems bland and far away sometimes. Maybe your passion for science even outweighs my passion for God sometimes, but regardless, ultimate aim is to bring to God what he deserves. Not at all claiming that I'm perfect. My confidence is that what i worship ineffably binds a purpose in this world, a purpose within us, a purpose outside of us, and a purpose greater than the emperical experiences of all the joys, pains, sorrows, and every memory of this world. I think that's a fact, i find securing. Because, with that perspective in mind, I don't exist to satisfy just any purpose i chose; it (the purpose i have) exists outside of myself. And life no longer exists to bring ME joys, sorrows, or experiences, but my joys sorrows and experiences in fact radiate outwardly from me, to bring a greater justice than anyone has known. And ultimately, throughout the span of this universe, even throughout worlds greater and farther from than the mind can understand, a justice -greater than the greatest balance achieved- will claim itself.
that is a the difference between the faith in science and the faith in Something That Created Science.
@TheSutraDude@xanga - i liked reading what you wrote! interesting!
@cookee_cutout@xanga - I'm glad you liked it. I find quantum physics and it's sister astrophysics to be incredibly fascinating. i also find it spiritually encouraging. Newtonian Physics has it's function but always felt to me to be too restrictive, not showing the whole picture.
Well thanks for reading my post. I know it was awfully long.
@cookee_cutout@xanga -
"let me make this clear so that my response
doesn't confuse you. the term worship, by what you called "christians"
refers to the idea of consciously or unconsciously placing something as
the first priority in you life."
this is where your reasoning falls flat.
it seems that you, and many Christians, think that since non-believers use scientific fact as evidence against a divine being, scientific fact is being elevated to a priority level equal to where a believer would place God. you couldn't be further from the truth.
i'm agnostic and will accept anything proven empirically over theology any day. but it's not the center of my life... the center of my life is myself, my friends, boyfriend, family, job, education, hobbies, etc. if it makes you feel better to say that i "worship" them, go ahead. if i worship anything at all, it is my own experience.