Speaking Back to the University Part 2: Is Christianity “Anti-Science”?

Part 1 is here

The prevailing dismissal of Christianity in the university world includes the accusation that faith is “anti-science” in its rejection of evolution and its acceptance of miracles and Intelligent Design (I.D.).

Yet, there are several ways to think about the relation of science and faith. Ian Barbour, science and religion professor at Carleton College from 1955-86, famously offered four models:

1. Conflict (warfare). Beginning with Darwin, science was secularized and disentangled from religion. This led to the “conflict thesis” promoted in the 19th c. by Andrew Dixon White, T.H. Huxley, and others. Conservative Christians fought back . . . hence, the war between science and faith, which continues to this day through the likes of Richard Dawkins.
   
2. Independence. In this model, science and faith exist in separate realms. Science answers the “how” (function) questions, religion the “why” (meaning) questions. Barbour notes of the Independence model, “There are two jurisdictions and each party must keep off the other’s turf.” One prominent name associated with this model was the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.
   
3. Dialogue. Barbour himself seems to favor the dialogue model, along with Pope John Paul II. Faith needs science to refine its methods and protect it from superstition. Science needs the faith community to speak into questions of ethics, human dignity, and the ultimate purpose (and origin) of nature. Thus, there is mutual benefit to be gained in both camps.
   
4. Integration. Here, science and religion integrate around a unified field of truth. The strict division between science and religion is artificial. As a practical example, some thinkers see evolution as God’s way of creating and developing the world. In other cases, theologians see the beauty and order of nature as evidence of God.*

The response to the charge of being anti-science that I suggest to Christians on campus is that science is a gift from God. It’s a superb tool for discovering God’s world and giving him praise. Many scientists in the academy are Christians, and their operating assumption is that the universe is orderly and worthy of study because God himself is a being of order and beauty. This was the view of Isaac Newton.

The limitations of science can be recognized when it claims too much for itself, such as that science is the only source of true knowledge. That claim, of course, is not scientific at all but represents a philosophical preference.

The advice to Christians on campus just mentioned fits with Barbour’s Dialogue and Integration models outlined above.

Practically speaking, I encourage students and professors in the sciences to conduct themselves according to the highest standards of scholarship and integrity in their work. This is a testimony to their colleagues and a proper act of worship of their creator.

Science was launched in the West by Christians (and other theists, such as Muslims) who sought to understand God’s creation. Science is thus a tool for Christians as much or more as for anyone else. May we use it to the glory of God.

Part 3 in this series, “Starting Points,” is here

*********************

* For more on the Integration model, see the writings of the late British theologians Charles Raven and Templeton Award winner Arthur Peacock.

Suggested reading

Alister E. McGrath, Science and Religion: A New Introduction, 3rd ed.

George Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism , ch 5.

Ian Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science (Gifford Lectures 1989-1991 Vol 1), ch 1.

Image by Alexander Antropov from Pixabay