RMPS
Christianity
Critiques and Challenges:
Science
Higher
5132
May 1999
HIGHER STILL
RMPS
Christianity
Critiques and Challenges:
Science
Support Materials
*+,-./
CONTENTS
1. Teacher’s guide
2. Student’s guide
3. The Medieval world view
The Challenges. The scientific challenges in relation to:
4. Scientific method and the assumptions of science
What do we mean by scientific method?
The assumptions of science
What different methods do scientists use?
5. The origin of the universe
The Big Bang theory
The challenge of the Big Bang theory
6. The evolution of humanity
Evolution by natural selection
The challenge of evolution
The Responses. The Christian responses in relation to:
7. Alternative perspectives on reality
Religious experience
Revelation
Belief in the spiritual nature of reality
Role of language
8. Personal meaning and value
Human search for meaning
A Christian response
9. Creation
Stories of creation
Doctrine of creation
10. Miracle
Hume’s critique
Christian responses
11. Bibliography
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
1
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
2
1. TEACHER’S GUIDE
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Christian belief encountered significant
opposition. Until then, for most people in Britain and throughout Europe, Christianity
had provided the basis of their beliefs and values. It told them everything they needed
to know about the meaning and purpose of life. The opposition was of two kinds.
First, scientific discovery and scientific methods began to undermine religious belief.
The universe as revealed by science appeared to be governed by natural laws and to
be subject to natural forces. Even human life seemed to be explicable in terms of a
random process of natural evolution. Second, and perhaps more seriously, belief
systems emerged which repudiated the supernatural in favour of critical reason. The
most powerful of these was undoubtedly Marxism which influenced countless
revolutions and, until recently, drove a political wedge between east and west.
The two phenomena which caused so many problems for religious belief in the
twentieth century are closely interlinked. Humanism, in particular, which lies at the
heart of Marxist theory, if not all of its practice, places great store on modern science
and the scientific method of inquiry as the basis for its view of the world and human
nature. Consequently, Christians often find themselves faced with critiques and
challenges which seem to consist of a mixture of scientific, humanist and marxist
argument.
These materials deal specifically with Science, introduce the challenges which it
raises for Christian belief and discusses some of the ways in which Christians have
responded. By way of setting the scene and providing background information,
section 3 sets out briefly aspects of the Medieval World View which held sway until
the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Sections 4-6 deal with the challenges
to Christian belief posed by scientific developments: scientific methods and
assumptions, the origins of the universe and the theory of evolution. Sections 7-10
take up the Christian responses in relation to: alternative perspectives on reality,
personal meaning and value, creation and miracle.
Students should be encouraged to identify and explain the central challenges to
Christian belief raised by scientific development as well as the relevant Christian
responses. Analysis of viewpoints relating to both challenges and responses involves
explaining them in some detail and citing relevant sources from both a scientific and
Christian standpoint. Challenges and responses should be evaluated in terms of their
contemporary relevance and on the basis of the strengths and weaknesses of the
arguments. Conclusions should be supported by appropriate evidence. Students are
required to:
• demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the essential features of a challenge
and relevant Christian response
• cite sources which are relevant to both challenges and responses
• analyse in some detail aspects or viewpoints of the challenges and responses
• evaluate the contemporary relevance of challenges and responses on the basis of
the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments
• present a logical conclusion supported by evidence.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
3
Teachers will have their own strategies and preferred ways of organising learning. A
recommendation to include variety, however, is an important one given that students
will inevitably have different learning styles. Students should be encouraged to make
use of their own life experiences when exploring and reflecting on issues, and to seek
views from a wide range of sources including books, video material, and from
recognised specialists in the areas being studied. Opportunities to talk through
particular challenges and responses in order to tease out their meaning and
significance will be important. Also important will be class and group discussion so
that through dialogue, students can learn from others and begin to formulate their own
opinions. Familiarity with key texts and passages will enable students to demonstrate
an appropriate level of understanding in relation to both challenges and responses, and
to support their own conclusions.
Learning strategies will therefore take a number of forms such as:
• Gathering information and viewpoints from books, video, CD-ROM
• Student presentation
• Teacher presentation
• Class and group discussion
• Role play
• Direct teaching.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
4
2. STUDENT’S GUIDE
These materials are intended to help you study the challenges to Christian belief
raised by scientific development, and to explore the responses offered by Christians.
You will be expected to explain these challenges and responses and to assess their
strengths and weaknesses. You will become familiar with some key texts, passages
and commentators within both Science and Christianity. These will help you to better
understand the challenges and responses and to support your own views and
conclusions.
The challenges to be studied relate to developments within Science:
• Scientific methods and assumptions
• The origins of the universe
• The evolution of humanity
The responses to be studied relate to Christian views on:
• Alternative perspectives on reality
• Personal meaning and value
• Creation
• Miracle
You should try to refer to sources as often as you can, especially where this helps to
show your understanding of a viewpoint or issue. You are encouraged to use direct
quotations if you can but there are other useful ways of referring to sources:
• By naming the title of the source and/or where appropriate, the author
• By paraphrasing the source so that you use your own words in order to give an
accurate account of what is said
• By a combination of these methods.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
5
3. THE MEDIEVAL WORLD VIEW
Until the late sixteenth century, the study of science concentrated mainly on the
transmission of classical scientific texts, experiments were undertaken only to
emphasise accepted truths, predominantly those of Aristotle and Ptolemy. These
prominent classical scientists gave an explanation of the nature of reality which
corresponded with common sense and which was adapted to Scholastic Theology by
prominent religious thinkers, like St. Thomas Aquinas.
The study of Science was based on, what was regarded as, three indisputable
authorities:
• Aristotelian Physics
• Observations of Ptolemy
• Scholastic Theology.
All agreed that the earth was solid, spherical and immovable, and positioned at the
centre of the universe. The earth was surrounded by the moon, the sun and the five
planets. They were supported by seven revolving spheres. The eighth sphere held the
fixed stars, the ninth was responsible for the motion of the rest and the tenth was
believed to be heaven. The universe was purposeful, deemed to be in a state of order
and perfection. It was represented as a hierarchical structure, created and sustained by
a rational, loving God, as was revealed in Genesis1.
The mediaeval view of the nature of reality can be pictured as a kingdom with a
sovereign Lord. This view of nature fitted in well with the Christian concept of God:
theism, whereby God was understood to be an omniscient (all knowing), omnipotent
(all powerful), and omnibenevolent (all good) Being who created and sustained the
marvellous workings of the universe.
Within this universe the behaviour of the planets as observed appeared irrational.
Their very name ‘planets’ - wanderers - had been conferred on them by that other
great philosopher, Plato. Attempts were made to reconcile their behaviour with the
accepted truths, but to no avail, until, that is, the late sixteenth and early seventeenth
century, when scientific progress led to a scientific revolution with regard to man’s
understanding of the nature of reality. The reasons why this period marked a
watershed in the history of science are varied but should perhaps be considered:
• the Reformation encouraged critical thinking among scholars
• the invention of printing allowed collaboration among contemporaries
• technological advances in the manufacture of precision instruments (e.g., telescope
and microscope) made possible the scientific revolution
• a new scientific method encouraged a questioning attitude towards the accepted
truths of the day.
For our purposes we will briefly look at the ‘stars’ from this era, people like, Bacon,
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton who all played vital roles in challenging the
accepted truths of their day.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
6
Francis Bacon: was one of the first advocates of the new scientific method, which he
referred to as experimental philosophy, and a severe critic of the sciences of his time
and the authorities they were based upon:
Copernicus: was inspired by a love of mathematical simplicity and attacked the
Ptolemic view of the universe as cumbersome, and purely as a hypothesis, suggested
that more could be explained if the sun was at the centre of the universe, instead of the
earth. The Copernican System, contradicted Aristotelian Physics, but excited the
interest of other scientists, such as, Kepler.
Kepler: like Copernicus before him, Kepler was fascinated by the harmony of shapes
and numbers. He searched for and eventually found a law to tie in with the
Copernican system that would explain the distances between the planets. Kepler’s
Law explained that the planets move in elliptical orbits and as they near the sun the
move faster as they move away their speed slows down.
Galileo: was instrumental in destroying the last remnants of the medieval view of the
nature of reality and deliberately provoked a conflict with the Church. Although, he
is rightly credited with perfecting the telescope and inventing the pendulum clock, his
main contribution from our perspective was that by his own observations and
experiments he convinced the majority of his contemporaries that the Copernican
System and Kepler’s Law were sound, scientific theories, based on mathematical
principles.
Newton: while Galileo was instrumental in destroying the last remnants of the
Medieval view of nature, put a mechanism in its place. The Newtonian view of the
nature of reality was of a mechanical universe, governed by complex mathematical
relationships, with each planet interrelated and dominated by the sun. Newton’s
theory of gravity was a deceptively straightforward explanation of motion in the solar
system, given in mathematical terms, without recourse to divine intervention. The
‘Newtonian World View’ inadvertently relegated God to the initial act of creation;
thereafter ‘scientific laws’ were all that was required to explain the nature of reality.
In this mechanistic framework ‘deism’ was a more accurate concept of God than the
‘classical theism’ of Christian thinking. Newton replaced the Medieval World View
of a Kingdom with that of a machine, and provided the ‘framework’ for scientific
development for almost three hundred years.
In summary, the scientific revolution of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
compelled men to reconsider what had been up until then the accepted truths. The
Church did not always approve of the new theories, and, at times regarded them with
hostility, as a challenge to its authority and acted accordingly, as in the case of
Galileo. For the most part, however, the scientists of the day did not regard their
work as in any way a challenge to religious belief. Most like Bacon, Galileo and
Newton regarded their scientific work as belonging to what they called the ‘Book of
Nature’ as opposed to the ‘Book of Scripture’. Both they saw as inspired by God and
invaluable in the quest to explore the ultimate questions about the nature of reality.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
7
Nevertheless, one classical concept of God, as the sustainer of the universe, began to
be reconsidered. Nature as a Kingdom with God as its sustainer seemed to be
replaced with the Newtonian Mechanistic view of nature as a machine. The concept
of Deism, as opposed to theism, began to be explored by philosophers.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
8
THE CHALLENGES – THE SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGES
IN RELATION TO:
4. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND THE ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE
What do we mean by the scientific method?
Over the centuries Christianity and science has had an uneasy relationship. In terms
of method and assumptions they have been seen as poles apart – detached observation
and demand for proof on the part of science, as against commitment and faith on the
part of religion. There is no doubt that science is one of the great success stories of
the twentieth century. Some would argue that this has been as a direct result of the
methods it uses. But is there such a thing as a specifically scientific method? And if
so what is it?
The essence of the scientific approach is sometimes summed up in the phrase, ‘only
hippos eat vultures’, that is, observation, hypothesis, experiment, verification. By
contrast Christian faith is seen to rest mainly on ‘revelation’ and therefore is unable to
be verified in scientific terms. Many of the criticisms levelled at Christianity by the
scientific community are related to this difference in approach. This experimental
method is generally thought to have been invented in the seventeenth century and
explained in the writings of Francis Bacon. He was himself an enthusiastic scientist
and sought to justify the new methods and assumptions so that science could progress
on to greater discoveries. His passion for experiment is said to have resulted in his
own death after he contracted a chill because he got out of his carriage in the depth of
winter to carry out an experiment with snow as a means of preserving meat.
This scientific method is essentially based on empirical evidence (in that it relies on
the evidence from the five senses for collecting facts) and inductive reasoning
(because it argues towards a theory based on a certain number of observations). You
made an observation or performed an operation and noted the consequences. If the
same observation or event is repeatedly followed by the same consequence, you can
draw the conclusion that this reflects the way the world is. For example, if you throw
a switch on the wall and a light comes on it could be due to accident or coincidence.
If you do the same a second time and the light comes on again, you may well suspect
that the two things are causally related. A third, a fourth and a fifth time and you may
be pretty sure you are right. This is the Baconian method of induction and for about
300 years after he formulated it, it was the way most scientists believed they worked.
Bacon urged scientists to put nature to the test; he believed that if the natural world
were examined systematically and continually, as outlined above, and, the results
correctly collated, the general laws of nature would gradually be revealed. In other
words, we would be in a position to answer all the important questions about the
universe. Like other major figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th Century,
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
9
Bacon saw no reason for animosity between Christianity and Science. With
hindsight, Bacon’s assumption that the scientific method would eventually reveal the
general laws of nature was over optimistic.
Furthermore the scientific as outlined by Bacon has a number of problems. Firstly,
since the method begins with observations the assumption is that scientists begin from
a neutral standpoint and that their knowledge and expectations do not affect their
observations. However, many believe that our existing knowledge, previous
experience and future expectations do affect how we see things. This suggests that
scientific bias can enter into our observations without us being fully aware of it. And,
trusting the evidence from our senses, (the empirical approach) does not allow for the
fact that our senses can be tricked. Consider, for example, how a road can seem wet
from a car window on a bright summer’s day. The evidence from our sense (the eyes)
has deceived us. For our part, despite the wonderful advances and progress witnessed
in almost every area of scientific endeavour, we must always remember that scientists
are human and are therefore a product of their own environment and affected by it. If
you consider, for example, your own scientific experiments in school. Did you ever
follow the instructions for a particular experiment very carefully, yet find your
experiment did not work out? How many of you recorded your findings? It seems,
often easier, ‘to go with the flow’.
Secondly, the method advocated by Bacon, inductive reasoning, can never establish
absolute certainty. No matter how often you throw the switch and the light comes on,
you cannot be absolutely certain the same thing will happen the next time you do it.
The fact that, as far as we know, every human being that has ever lived has eventually
died, makes it pretty certain that we will die too. But maybe we are wrong, one of us
may be an exception. This ‘problem of induction’ highlights the limitations of this
scientific method, and, has been illustrated in a comical fashion by Bertrand Russell
when he suggested that a chicken that awoke to be fed as it had every other day would
one day awake to have it’s neck wrung! The chicken, using inductive reasoning,
assumed that the future would resemble the past!
The assumptions of science
The key assumptions of the modern scientific world view had begun to emerge in the
work of Newton, Galileo and Bacon. The scientific world view was, like the
medieval worldview before it, not a stable entity, but a continually evolving way of
experiencing existence. The views of Newton, Galileo, Bacon and others were
essentially a combination of modern scientific and medieval: i.e. a compromise
between belief in a medieval Christian God and a modern mechanistic universe.
During the next two hundred years the modern scientific view continued to disengage
from its medieval roots. It was the writers and scholars of what came to be known as
the Enlightenment who popularised it and established it as a fundamental part of
western culture – among these were John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith,
Immanuel Kant, and the Frenchmen, Voltaire Montesquieu and Diderot. By the end
of the period human reason and the assumptions of the scientific world view had
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
10
displaced traditional sources of knowledge about the universe. Most importantly, the
limits of this scientific world view were set by the boundaries and methods used
within science itself. The following points reflect the modern scientific world view as
it developed during the course of the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.
• In contrast to the medieval universe which was created and continually watched
over by God, the scientific universe was impersonal, governed by regular natural
laws and understandable in exclusively physical and mathematical terms.
• Science replaced religion as the dominant intellectual authority, as the definer,
judge and guardian of the prevailing culture. Human reason and empirical
observation replaced theological doctrine and scriptural revelation as the principal
means for understanding the universe.
• The universe was now regarded, at least in principle, as completely
comprehensible by the human mind operating rationally and intelligently. Other
aspects of human nature such as the emotional, aesthetic, ethical, and imaginative
were generally regarded as irrelevant for an objective understanding of the world.
Knowledge of the universe was now primarily a matter for rational, impersonal,
scientific investigation.
• The independence and freedom of the individual with regard to intellectual,
psychological and spiritual matters was now strongly emphasised. As a result
religious beliefs and religious institutions, which inhibited people’s natural right
and potential for autonomy and individual self-expression, became much less
important.
What different methods do scientists use?
Far from there being one scientific method it might well be that scientists make
progress in their field in a variety of ways, some of which involves methodical means,
others which do not. For example, scientists rely on intuition, hunches, inspirational
guesses and leaps in the dark. They also rely on teamwork and accident such as in the
‘discovery’ of penicillin by Fleming. One famous scientist who did not believe he did
science using the Bacon’s method was Charles Darwin. As far as he was concerned
facts had no meaning in themselves until they were pulled together and presented for
or against some hypothesis.
It was the philosopher Karl Popper in the twentieth century who best set out this
alternative way of thinking about science. The problem of induction and the fact that
many scientific developments and discoveries had been arrived at by different means
interested Popper. He set out what he regarded as the means by which science
actually progresses. His theory was that falsification is the way science and scientists
actually progress on to better theories. His account of scientific method is sometimes
known as the ‘falsification theory’. Science, he said, proceeds not by induction but by
deduction. According to Popper scientists begin with a theory. He referred to these
as conjectures, well informed guesses that required to be experimentally tested, not to
prove them true but rather to prove them false. When all the scientist’s theories have
been shown to be false except one, then he or she can conclude, at least for the time
being, that the remaining theory is the correct one. But no theory is safe for all time.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
11
Every theory is ultimately only a hypothesis and therefore it is always possible to
refute them. Therefore science progresses by conjecture and refutation. Popper’s
view seems to fit in with the actual history of science e.g., the Ptolemic view of the
universe was falsified by Copernicus. And, similarly, in the 20th century, Newtonian
Physics was superseded by Einstein’s. Popper demonstrated that the hallmark of a
good scientific theory was, not that it could be verified, but that it could be falsified.
There are some objections to Popper’s account. First, it is not possible to test each
and every theory that scientists might come up with. There would be simply too
many of them. Second, Popper’s theory cannot really explain why exactly it is that
some theories are rejected as obviously false and not worth testing at all. In fact, we
probably rely on common sense to tell us which theories are too silly to bother with.
Third, it is difficult to see how some theories, such as the theory of evolution, could
be tested for falsifiability at all.
The huge status afforded the scientific method and the assumptions of science are
partly a result of the influence of the Logical Positivists. The Logical Positivists were
an influential group of philosophers who claimed that the only meaningful statements
were scientific statements, (that is, those that could be empirically verified by the
senses). Thus, all theological and metaphysical statements or, such as ‘I believe in
God’ or ‘Why are we here?’ were meaningless. The credibility of this stance did not
hold sway in philosophical circles for long, yet it has given rise to the popular view
that scientific discourse is the only legitimate way to talk about reality. This view is
sometimes echoed by famous philosophers and scientists. The credibility of this view
is well illustrated in the following quotations by a pre-eminent British philosopher and
a pre-eminent British scientist.
‘Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific means: and what
science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.’
(Bertrand Russell)
‘Truth means scientific truth.’
(Richard Dawkins)
The trouble with relying totally on science for knowledge and truth is that science
leaves many questions unanswered, as is illustrated below:
‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’
(Leibniz)
‘Why does the universe bother to exist? I don’t know the answer to this.’
(Stephen Hawking)
These statements seem to recognise that questions relating to meaning and purpose
appear to lie outwith the scientific realm but it is these ‘why’ questions that humans
constantly reflect on, for example, why does the universe bother to exist? Some
scientists have responded negatively to such questions
‘Don’t assume that ‘Why?’ deserves an answer when posed about the universe’.
(Richard Dawkins in The Sunday Times 9/1/94)
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
12
For discussion
1. What was the basis of the scientific method as outlined by Francis bacon?
2. In your view, is Popper’s falsification theory a better explanation of how science
progresses?
3. Why do you think there are often misunderstandings between scientific method
and religion? Do you think these can be resolved?
4. To what extent are scientific and religious methods of studying reality different?
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
13
5. THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
The Big Bang theory
The philosophers and astronomers of the ancient world believed that heaven, unlike
earth, was perfect and unchangeable. For some, the universe was eternal, but for
others it was finite. As Christianity developed there was a preference for a finite
world because it fitted with the account of Creation in Genesis.
Until well into the 20th Century, the philosophers and astronomers still fell into one
of two opposing camps in relation to how they viewed the universe: one group
favoured the notion of steady state or static universe, while the other favoured the
notion that the universe had a beginning. Some scientists, like Fred Hoyle, who held
the former view, admitted that the steady state or static universe fitted their atheistic
position, but for all this time there seemed no way of producing evidence which
would prove one theory against the other. And the either/or debate continued.
In the media it was often portrayed as a battle between atheism and religion. For
many, philosophers and scientists, though, the static or steady state theory was the
most plausible. But, this theory implied that, rather than an eternal and infinite
creator, the universe itself, was infinite and eternal. This was in stark contrast to the
Creation message of Genesis.
A good way of understanding the Big Bang Theory is to think of the universe as
expanding outwards. Then imagine someone pressing a rewind button, over billions
of years, eventually, to a point where all matter was concentrated in a point of infinite
density, a space-time singularity that ultimately erupted in a huge explosion: a ‘BigBang’. Initially then everything was concentrated into a very, very dense spot (for
want of a better word) and this exploded. Out of that explosion came everything, all
space, all time, all matter, all energy. And since then it has been gradually expanding
and cooling. At first it was a great ball of energy, but with time it has turned into
matter. It all came from the Big Bang about 15-20 thousand million years ago.
Observations from the ‘Hubble Space Telescope’ take us far back in time to the very
near creation of our universe, between 15 to 20 billion years ago. The ‘Hubble Space
Telescope’ is named after Edwin Hubble, who in the 1920’s observed and measured
the ‘red shift’ between galaxies. This is what you get if a source of light is receding
from you (like the way the pitch of a police siren is lower the faster it moves away
from you) This means that the galaxies are still moving apart as a result of the Big
Bang. Hubble’s hypothesis, based on these observations and measurements, was that
the universe was expanding and the further away a galaxy was from us, the faster it
was moving. The implication was that in the beginning all the material started off
together. At first the only person who was convinced of this was a Belgian priest
called Lemaitre. He was so sure that he pursued both Hubble and Einstein and
eventually convinced them. Einstein actually regarded his belief about the universe
being in a steady state as his greatest blunder. Other scientists, notably Fred Hoyle,
found the whole notion of an expanding universe that had a beginning unbelievable
and actually coined the phrase, Big Bang as a derogatory term!
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
14
Scientists now generally agree that the universe is not infinitely old and that it had a
beginning and will have an end. In many ways this finding squares with the
traditional Christian understanding of creation out of nothing and the teaching that the
world has a definite beginning and an end.
Some scientists, however, have sought to prove that despite the Big Bang theory, the
universe is completely self-contained, had no beginning, and so does not need any
external creator. In other words the Big Bang theory may suggest that the universe
had a beginning but this does not prove there is a God who created it. Indeed, the Big
Bang shows that the universe took billions of years to evolve and it is therefore much
more likely that it all happened by accident through a process of natural selection.
This is a direct challenge to the traditional Christian view known as the cosmological
argument. This says that everything must have a cause and that working backwards,
we are bound to conclude that the original first cause of the universe must lie outside
itself and be God. Stephen Hawking writes:
‘So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if
the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would
have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?’
(A Brief History of Time, 1989, p141)
The Challenge of the Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang Theory poses other challenges for Christian belief. This challenge
focuses on such things as the age and vastness of the universe e.g.
• the timescale involved - millions of years as opposed to Creation in 6 days
• the vastness of the universe – raises question about the cosmic significance of
humanity
There is little doubt that the timescale of Scientific Cosmology and the vastness of the
universe in relation to human life do seem to challenge Creation but for many
Christians these challenges do not necessarily make scientific cosmology and creation
as expounded in Genesis incompatible. In fact the Big Bang theory was accepted by
most Christian Churches. This is because many Christians see similarities between it
and the Genesis account.
It is fair to say that most Christians regard the Big Bang theory as being compatible
with their beliefs because it states that the universe had a beginning, which fits well
with the Genesis narrative. Scientists do stress that there is what has been described
as an ‘observational veil’ hanging over the first few moments and a recognition that
we cannot go back to the beginning because:
‘The universe is a once only experiment ..... There is still that inexplicable,
unobservable moment - that minute fraction of a second - in which space unfolds itself
to release the light.’
(Tim Radford, Science Editor - Guardian )
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
15
Another point of agreement is that both scientists and theologians make the distinction
between questions focusing on ‘How’ the universe began (scientific) and those that
focus on ‘Why’ the universe began (religious). In this way scientific and religious
explanations of the ‘origins’ can be regarded as complimentary.
Areas where scientific cosmology and Christian cosmology appear incompatible are
in relation to a literal understanding of creation in six days, as in Genesis, and in the
cosmic significance of humanity. For many Christians creation occurred as is
explained in the Genesis Narrative.
The Big Bang theory strongly suggests that the size of the universe is far greater than
we previously imagined. According to astronomers our star, the sun, is one of about
100,000 million stars in our galaxy, which is called the Milky Way. And there are
reckoned to be 100,000 galaxies in the universe. The sun is about 100 million miles
away from us and the next nearest star is about two million million miles away from
us. Our galaxy is about 50,000 million million miles across. Some of the most
distant things that can be seen are thousands of millions of millions of millions of
miles away. Its so big you just can’t imagine it! Also, for about fifteen billion years
the universe existed, so far as we know, without any human beings to observe it. And
human life will probably come to an end at some point as the earth and similar planets
become uninhabitable through cold or heat. Is it reasonable to believe as Christians
do, that the entire history of the universe, with all its vastness and complexity, exists
for the purpose of producing us human beings? Is it not more likely that it was all an
accident, sheer chance as many scientists argue, that the conscious life of human
beings has formed for such a brief time?
Central to Christian understanding is the belief that humans are at the very pinnacle of
God’s Creation and essentially significant. As we mentioned above scientific findings
demonstrate that the size and age of the universe are much greater than we ever
imagined. According to many Christians, however, this need not point to human life
being less significant. From the very beginning the universe can be seen as having
been programmed for human life to evolve. For these Christians humanity has a great
deal of cosmic significance after all! The universe had to be as old and as vast as it is
if God was to bring about human beings by a process of evolution.
Many Christians are quite happy to accept that God brought living things into being
through a gradual process of evolution. There is no more difficulty in thinking this
than in thinking that creation happened all at once. In some ways, they would argue,
the evolutionary account is more impressive. The fact that complex beings who
possess consciousness and hold values have developed out of simple atomic particles,
strongly suggests that there is a purposeful Hand underlying the whole process. Some
Christians also take the view that the ‘randomness’ and ‘chance’ element in the
evolution of the universe is in fact an essential feature of God’s creative purpose. It
lets in some freedom, some openness, some creativity. It means that everything is not
preordained from the beginning. The new and the unexpected can occur. However,
this element of chance is not so large that it cancels out God’s ability to control where
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
16
the universe is going in a general way. In this way many Christians have been able to
adopt a faith which is more rational and scientifically compatible.
Other Christians have been unwilling to compromise in any way. The most
conservative of these are sometimes called fundamentalists. They still hold to the
idea that the Scriptures cannot be mistaken, even in areas of science. This view has
given rise to ‘creationism’ which completely rejects the theory of evolution and holds
that all species have been directly created by God in the way described in the opening
chapters of Genesis. Creationism is particularly strong in he United States where
polls suggest that a significant proportion of the adult population reject evolution on
religious grounds and where many schools present the Genesis story as an accurate
scientific account.
Most scientists do not attempt to disprove the existence of God. Rather, they set out
to explain the nature of reality and in doing so challenge traditional beliefs about life,
the universe and God. If we consider the amazing progress of scientific endeavour in
the 20th Century, it is not surprising that some Christians responded by introducing
what became known as ‘the God of the gaps’. This means that God fits where there is
some inexplicable phenomena that has, as yet, no rational scientific explanation. The
trouble with this approach is that as scientific knowledge steadily advances and
scientific explanations cover more and more areas of life, God retreats into a smaller
and smaller space. For most Christians this provides an inadequate concept of the
divine.
Many Christians stress that scientific endeavour actively reinforces their belief in
God. In this view science has reawakened their awareness of the divine, as the
wonders of nature and the natural world become ever more apparent. This is because
science and scientists can, once again, help us focus on what some regard as evidence
for God in nature and the natural world. One prime example of this is the Anthropic
Principle. Astrophysicists studying the big bang have been struck by how easily it
could have developed in a multitude of different ways that would have prevented life
from actually emerging. For example, had the universe exploded with somewhat
greater energy, it would have thinned out too fast for the formation of galaxies and
stars. If the energy had been a little less, gravity would have quickly got the upper
hand and would have pulled the universe back together again. In some ways the
anthropic principle can be seen as bolstering the old design argument for the existence
of God, or at least for some creative purpose behind the universe. Everything seems
to be very carefully and precisely set for the eventual emergence of life and human
life in particular.
Some scientists counter the anthropic principle by arguing that there are in fact many
worlds that could possibly evolve with slightly different conditions. Ours just
happens to be the one where the conditions produced life. Its pure chance. The
anthropic principle can also be seen as simply saying that the universe must be the
way it is because we are here, it doesn’t point to a designer God at all. If the universe
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
17
had turned out differently we would not be here to think about it and observe it – and
that’s all there is to it.
In the scientific community, like any other community, there is a ‘broad base’, in the
sense that scientists are of many persuasions; they can be believers, agnostics or
atheists regarding the existence of God. Some of the greatest scientific minds of the
20th Century have spoken about their sense of awe and wonder at the majesty of the
universe we inhabit.
‘When I see the glories of the cosmos, I can’t help but believe there is a divine hand
behind it all.’
(Albert Einstein)
‘I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an
accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is
too intimate.’
(Paul Davies)
‘The universe is so designed that life on earth was inevitable. I mean it was meant to
be.’
(Professor Anthony Hewish)
For discussion
1. Describe the modern scientific theories concerning the origins of the universe.
2. How seriously, in your view, do these theories weaken traditional Christian
belief?
3. In what ways do scientific theories about the origin of the universe support
Christian belief?
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
18
6. THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANITY
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection
Charles Darwin’s best known work on evolution, The Origin of Species, was
published in 1859, twenty years after his return from his famous voyage on HMS
Beagle. He was 50 years old. Darwin was not the first person to think about
evolution, the idea that living things evolved from each other and were not simply
created in the form in which we now see them. From as early as the fifth century BC
there were people who tried to describe the origins of life in evolutionary terms.
Darwin was the first to present a coherent theory which has stood the test of time. A
leading historian has noted:
‘Much in it (he) owed without acknowledgement to others.’ (Roberts 1976 P. 817)
His theory of evolution by natural selection has two main elements, competition and
variation. Firstly, said Darwin, all living things were bound to produce more
offspring than their environment could support. So, inevitably, all creatures were
bound to be thrown into competition with their fellows. Secondly, individuals of the
same species vary. One antelope is very much like another but they are not identical;
some run faster than others. As a result the ones that are best adapted to their
circumstances, for example, most successful in escaping from predators such as
cheetahs, are the ones that survive and produce offspring. And this argument holds
for all living creatures - explaining why they have good eyesight, or why they have
hands that can grasp in the case of monkeys. In other words, some hereditary
characteristics are good for survival and reproduction and some are not.
Main Influences on Darwin
• The Geology of Sir Charles Lyell whose scientific work, Principles of Geology
(pub.1830’s) strongly suggested that the earth’s form and structure was the result
of a process of change over millions of years. The geology of Lyell did much to
challenge the miracle of creation occurring in six days, at least among the
scientifically literate.
• William Paley’s version of the Teleological Argument which emphasised that the
natural world displayed so much evidence of design and purpose it had to be the
work of God.
• Thomas Malthus, the 18th Century parson’s ‘Essay on Population’ which offered a
‘..vision of the murderous competition of mankind for food.’
• His own observations on his voyage aboard the HMS Beagle of the variation
within each species.
• Artificial Selection, that is, the growing trend in agriculture whereby breeders
selected the best animals to ensure the best possible offspring.
It is this latter influence which inspired the most original element of Darwin’s theory;
the mechanism or process of ‘natural selection’. Like many of his contemporaries he
believed we evolved from earlier species, the question remained how did this come
about? His theory centred on the possibility that what breeders attempted using
artificial means occurred naturally, so that, the strongest and those best adapted to
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
19
their environment of each species survived and passed on their favourable
characteristics to the next generation. The result of which was the wide scale
variation of species we observe today. Controversially, Darwin believed and stressed
(in The Descent of Man 1871) that the variation between all animals, including
humans, was in degree rather than in kind.
The Challenge of Evolution
The traditional Christian picture of the creation of the world based on the two opening
chapters of Genesis has been strongly challenged by those who proposed and
supported the theory of evolution by natural selection. Until the publication of
Darwin’s work, Christians had relied on the so-called ‘design’ argument to argue for
the existence of God and to support the Genesis picture of a whole series of ‘special’
creations by a purposeful and benevolent God. The design argument appealed to the
variety and intricacy of the natural world. When we look around the world we find so
much that is beautiful and ordered that we feel bound to say that it must have been
created or designed. In nature the various parts of the body of humans and other
living creatures are so well suited to fulfil their respective functions, it seems only
logical to conclude that ‘Someone’ must have designed them for those purposes. The
argument from design takes the order and apparent purpose in the world, and moves
from that order and purpose to suggest a designer, God, who is responsible for it.
• It was a challenge to Biblical Literalism. A very gradual process of evolution was
not compatible with the six days of creation and the fixity of species implied in
Genesis 1, or indeed with Eve being created from Adam’s rib in Genesis 2 all of
which had been considered the literal and inerrant truth of God’s revelation.
• It was a challenge to the dignity of humankind. Christian faith focused on the idea
of human dignity in God’s creation, i.e. human beings created ‘in the image of
God’. This idea was reinforced by the Christian belief in a separate human soul’.
Darwin’s theory raised the question of what stage in the evolutionary process this
human soul emerged.
• It was a challenge to the ‘design’ argument. Darwin’s theory of evolution by
natural selection presented an alternative explanation of how life on earth came
about. It also suggested that the variety, order and beauty of the world was not the
result of a Creator God but the result of a purely natural process. With natural
selection, accidental chance mutations rather than the purposeful work of an
intelligent being lay behind the existence of the world.
• It was a challenge to the Christian view that life had meaning and purpose. The
theory of natural selection appeared to replace God’s creative activity with a
wholly impersonal process. It became difficult to argue that human beings had a
special place in the scheme of things, that they were part of an overall divine plan
which gave meaning and purpose to life and the universe.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
20
The controversy surrounding the publications relating to Darwin’s theory of evolution
by natural selection (in 1859 and again in 1871) resulted in a media circus, similar to
what often occurs today in the popular press, regarding every supposed clash between
scientists and theologians. Typical headlines were:
‘Darwin makes a monkey out of man.’ and ‘ Man is but a worm.’
There was no clear cut division between scientists and theologians. Many scientists
rejected evolution, while many theologians had much sympathy with Darwin’s theory
and, simply regarded evolution as God’s mechanism for creation. But for others it
was a challenge to all that was sacred. Certainly, Darwin’s theory of natural selection
appeared to leave no place for God after the initial act of creation. This was in line
with the ‘Newtonian World View’ that relegated God to the background after the
initial act of creation and placed ‘scientific laws’ in His place.
Some people were more concerned about the implications of Darwin’s theory if
applied to economics and society, e.g., ‘Social Darwinists’ like Herbert Spencer who
coined the ‘survival of the fittest’ phrase, sought to use it to justify competitiveness
and the status quo with regard to the social order. This encouraged blatantly racist
views among some of his followers and itself constituted an attack on human dignity.
Since Darwin many scientists have continued to see Christianity as incompatible with
evolution and are particularly critical of creationism. The current champion of this
position is the Oxford zoologist, Richard Dawkins. His book, ‘The Blind
Watchmaker’, has the subtitle ‘why the existence of evolution reveals a universe
without design’. Dawkins sees no need at all to bring in the idea of a creator God.
The theory of evolution is on its own sufficient to explain life. He argues that if there
was a God, he would never have created the universe by evolution. He would have
surely done it directly. By choosing evolution as his method of creation he has
completely covered his tracks and made it impossible for human beings to appreciate
him. On the other hand, if he did create the universe this way, it makes him out to be
totally indifferent to human suffering because the consequence of natural selection is
suffering on an enormous scale all over the world. Its not that nature is cruel, its just
that it is totally indifferent and is only concerned to maximise the survival of the
genes. He writes,
‘So what I see in the Universe is nothing but pitiless indifference. And what looks to
me like no God. If God is there, then he is neither bad nor good; he’s indifferent.’
(Quoted in Stannard, p41)
For discussion
1. Explain Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
2. Why is Darwin’s theory still unacceptable to some Christians?
3. To what extent does the theory of evolution support belief in God?
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
21
THE RESPONSES – THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSES IN RELATION TO:
7. ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON REALITY
If we now examine the Christian approach to life and the universe we find a very
different perspective from that of science. In any examination of alternative
perspectives, we are essentially concerned with those which arise from a
consideration of:
• religious experience
• revelation
• belief in the spiritual nature of reality
• the role of language.
Religious experience
Research shows that many people still have religious experiences. Sir Alistair Hardy
and several of his colleagues collected and analysed over three thousand cases of
reported religious experiences. He concluded that a large number of people have a
deep awareness of some spiritual reality beyond themselves. Those people who have
had such a specific, deeply held experience of a spiritual power do not necessarily
refer to it as a religious experience, nor do they necessarily belong to an institutional
religion. It often, he found, happens to children and to atheists and agnostics and it
usually induces in the person concerned a conviction that the everyday world is not
the whole of reality, that there is another dimension to life. More recently, similar
work has been carried out by David Hay at the Oxford Centre for Religious
Experience. He conducted many interviews throughout the country and found that a
high proportion of people claim to have had experiences of a power or presence
beyond themselves.
In his classic study of the idea of the holy, Rudolf Otto coined the phrase ‘numinous’
to describe the sense of mystery which people come to feel in certain circumstances.
For example, people are frequently struck with a sense of awe as they gaze at the stars
and contemplate the vastness of the universe. Or they may be overcome with a sense
of the beauty and wonder of nature. On the other hand, they can feel a helplessness as
they struggle to deal with some event which changes or devastates their lives. Or they
may have a feeling of being in the presence of something eerie or uncanny which is
powerful and awe-inspiring. Otto regarded the disposition to have such feelings as an
original, innate and distinctive capacity of the human mind. It was, he says, the:
‘the feeling of ‘something uncanny’, ‘eerie’, or ‘weird’. It is this feeling which in the
mind of primeval man, forms the starting point for the entire religious development in
history.’
(The Idea of the Holy, 1926 p6)
It has been said that without these ‘religious experiences’ there would be no grounds
for a belief in a God. Certainly, the feeling that there is something beyond the
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
22
physical world of the senses has persisted from earliest time through history to the
present day. The ultimate questions about life and the universe have remained
constant from time immemorial. Who among us has not pondered over the question
of ‘Why are we here?’ during a quiet period of reflection? In doing so we may too,
have had a sense of ‘religious awareness’.
We need to be aware that literal language is inadequate to describe the phenomenon
of this experience of the ‘holy’. We must also bear in mind the power of religious
experience in the recipients, e.g., the disciples after the crucifixion and resurrection,
St Paul on the road to Damascus, or more recently Martin Luther King and Nicky
Cruz and many others. All claimed to have had a religious experience, a sense of the
‘holy’, which was of life changing significance.
Revelation
Christianity claims that God sometimes reveals himself to particular men and women.
In the Old Testament God revealed himself to Moses on Mount Sinai giving him the
Ten Commandments. In the New Testament they believe that God revealed a new
law for humankind through Jesus Christ. From time to time too ordinary believers
have claimed to have personal revelations of God’s existence, sometimes in the form
of dreams, visions or inner voices, or sometimes in the form of extraordinary and
miraculous experiences.
Non-believers, however, argue that personal experiences that seem to point to the
existence of God might have other explanations. We can dream, have visions about
all sorts of things which we know to be false e.g., we might dream about elves or
unicorns but that does not prove they exist. Dreams and visions are not reliable
witnesses and can’t by themselves be counted as satisfactory proofs of the existence
of God, even if they are very convincing for the person who has them.
Christians claim that God has revealed himself in two ways; generally through his
creation, but also to particular people at particular points in time. The former is
general revelation and the latter is special revelation. Special revelation is effectively
an extension of religious experience. Examples of general revelation from the Bible
are the following:
‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without
form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God
moved on the face of the waters. And god said, Let there be light...’
(Genesis 1)
‘And when Jesus was baptised, he went up immediately from the water, and behold,
the heavens were opened and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and
alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, with
whom I am well pleased.’
(Matthew 3)
Christians regard the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice.
Some understand this to mean that the scriptures provide us with the truth in all
matters including history and science. Others believe that the authority of scriptures
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
23
does not extend this far but can be trusted to give the truth about the meaning of life
and about God.
Belief in the spiritual nature of reality?
One of the most important influences in scientific thinking in the twentieth century
has come from discoveries in the field of quantum physics which studies the
behaviour of sub-atomic particles and investigates the basis of all physical matter.
For example, atoms had always been thought of as solid and destructible, the building
blocks of nature. They have now been discovered to be largely empty. Furthermore,
the particles that made up the atom are difficult to pin down. A particle such as an
electron does not seem to follow a well-defined path. One moment it can be found
here, the next moment there. Sometimes they behaved like particles but on other
occasions they behaved more like waves.
As a result the basic material of nature no longer seems to be describable as hard
matter which opens the way to a more spiritual interpretation of reality. The closed,
mechanistic and determinist world of the old physic where everything was governed
by laws which told us exactly the way the world was has given way to a much more
open-ended and unpredictable world. The discovery of this open-ended world, say
Christians, provides more room for God, seen not as the grand designer or lawmaker
but more as the provider of new possibilities and potentialities.
Quantum physics has also had an important impact on scientific methodology. It has
cast doubt on the idea that scientists can ever be absolutely objective and impartial
when making observations and constructing theories. Quantum physics has shown
that the observer is never totally detached but is always part of the process being
studied and can affect its outcome. Science is in fact much less objective and
‘scientific’ than it once appeared to be.
It is a popular view that over the last two hundred years science has become the
dominant influence on how people in the West see the world and their place in it.
Science is often seen as being on the way to explaining everything, to solving all the
world’s problems and to making the world a better and happier place to be. Along
with this has been the idea that if something cannot be known scientifically, it is not
worth knowing. Such a view, sometimes called ‘scientism’, has been increasingly
criticised recently for its narrow and blinkered approach to life. Scientism is often
blamed for the overly materialist nature of society which has ignored the spiritual and
emotional aspects of life.
Not only that but it is now clear that far from making the world a better place, science
has contributed to some of the worst aspects of modern life. It produced the atomic
bomb, for example, and the pollution of the natural environment by toxic chemicals.
Increasingly therefore, western societies are looking to the values of non-western
societies who have tended to adopt a more spiritual approach to life and relied less on
scientific remedies and inventions. There is today a growing emphasis on alternative
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
24
medicines as opposed to scientifically produced drug based therapies. Universities
are introducing degree course in areas such as aromatherapy and reflexology.
The role of language
Central to any examination of alternative perspectives is an understanding of the role
of imagery and metaphor. It must be stressed here that the terms ‘myth,’
‘mythological,’ etc., are not used to mean that the content is in any way false.
The religious language of the Biblical writers in the Genesis narratives, for example,
is rich in myth and metaphor. This reflected a deep sense of awe and wonder, fear
and fascination, which they felt compelled to convey in a language that was inspired
by their experience and which provided insight and understanding to others. The
myths and metaphors that we find in Genesis emphasise that the early Hebrews
regarded their history as a meaningful story, ordained by the design and purpose of an
all powerful God for His Chosen People.
Similarly, one of the most striking aspects of modern scientific writing is the way in
which scientists are making more and more use of the kind of language found in
poetry and religion, particularly imagery and metaphor. Unable to explain what they
are discovering in traditional scientific language, ‘they are turning to religious and
poetic metaphors to describe what they are finding at the extremities of space and at
the base of matter.’
(Esler,1998p53)
We have already noted the view of scientism that if something cannot be known
scientifically it is not worth knowing. This view first emerged within a group of
philosophers called the logical positivists. One of its most famous members in this
country was A. J. Ayer who said that statements about God or life after death were
simply meaningless because there was no evidence or tests you could apply to show
whether they were true or false. Ayer and his supporters believed that the only way to
find out the truth about the world was by making use of the scientific methods of
observation and experience. The only things that were important and worth talking
about, they thought, were things which could be supported by evidence.
In contrast to all this, the philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein said that, as far as he was
concerned, the things that were really important in life couldn’t be supported by
evidence. In fact, they couldn’t even be stated very clearly! They could only be
indicated and alluded to. As a result, Wittgenstein did not have a very high opinion of
science. Scientific language and methods were only useful for finding out about and
describing matters of fact and logic. For anything else they could be misleading and
do more harm than good. All the issues that matter most to us and have the greatest
significance for us lie outside the scope of science. He said that even when all
possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life will still remain
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
25
completely untouched. He also said that the way we understand language and
evidence depends on the context. For example, the formal language used in writing
official letters is different from the language we use in ordinary conversation, and
scientific language is different from religious language. What counts as evidence in a
court of law is quite different in a physics laboratory, and different again in the case
of an historical researcher. For an historian hearsay counts as evidence, whereas for a
judge it would be inadmissible, and for the physicist the question does not even arise.
Most Christians would agree with Wittgenstein there are different kinds of statements
and different kinds of language. There is the language of poetry, for example, which
is not concerned with facts in the same way as science is. This does not imply that
poetry is without meaning. Similarly in the field of religious language, the truth or
falsity of ultimate beliefs and explanations cannot be established by scientific or any
kind of empirical evidence. Religion and science have different purposes and
different ways of working. Science cannot explain everything. What it does, in fact,
is to explain things using terms that are themselves left unexplained. In physics, for
example, explanations tend to be in terms of scientific laws and concepts such as
mass, energy, light, gravity, time. If we ask for an explanation of any one of these we
are like to be given either a definition or an explanation in terms of the others. And
that’s as far as physics can go. But if what we are after is an explanation of all these
things taken together, namely the world as such, then science cannot provide it. In
other words science cannot provide us with an explanation of why the world and
human life came about, and it cannot provide us with a meaning and purpose for life.
The belief that it can is not a scientific belief but a belief in science, a philosophical
belief, an act of faith.
For discussion
1. How adequate is the view that science alone offers the truth about reality?
2. What misunderstandings exist between the scientific and religious approaches to
reality and how might these be resolved?
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
26
8. PERSONAL MEANING AND VALUE
Human search for meaning
Christians agree that human beings possess a general tendency to look for and find
meaning and value in life. People do try to explain their lives by setting them within a
framework of beliefs and values, by giving them a goal and a way to achieving it.
Human life, it would seem, is much the same everywhere. People have a limited
lifespan, they are vulnerable to injury and disease, they need protection in infancy and
old age, and they need to be part of social networks and organisations if they are to
obtain the necessities of life and take advantage of educational and heath facilities.
According to the Christian writer, Keith Ward, if we construct a list of questions
arising out of a consideration of some of the main problems which people face in their
lives, the connection with religious belief is immediately apparent. For example:
• The birth of a baby raises questions about what his or her future holds and about
what accounts for his or her character or personality.
• The fact of death leads us to ask whether it really is the end, whether we can accept
it, and what we will have achieved.
• Growing up and becoming an adult raises questions about our role in life, the goals
we should pursue and the sort of person we will become.
• With regard to personal and social relationships we want to know with whom we
should be friendly and what kind of relationships will bring us happiness.
• The constant threat of illness or failure raises questions about how we can best
cope with responsibility, taking decisions, personal stress and about the point of
suffering in life.
(Ward, 1977, p71)
Related to this point is the observation that human beings in general tend to display a
more or less positive approach to life despite the evidence that might lead them to be
more negative. Life throws up good times as well as bad times, sadness as well as
joy. On the whole though human beings tend to be positive and to have faith in the
possibilities and opportunities that life has to offer. Even people who find it
impossible to believe in God, say Christians, may nevertheless have a basic faith in
certain values or in the worthwhileness of life. In other words there is much more to
life and reality than scientific facts and theories. We see this not only in the way
people commit themselves to others in trusting relationships but also in the way they
work for causes and organisations which are dedicated to bring hope to the lives of
those in need. We can see it also in the way people look for and find reasons to be
hopeful, even in the face of death and disaster. There is a depth to the human
personality that science cannot explain.
A Christian response
For Christians, meaning and value in life is related to the existence of a God who
created the universe and made human life possible. As we saw in the section on
evolution Darwin’s theory of natural selection presents a serious challenge to the
Christian view that life has meaning and purpose. The theory of natural selection
appears to replace God’s creative activity with a wholly impersonal and natural
process. As a result it becomes difficult to argue that human beings have a special
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
27
place in the scheme of things, that they are part of an overall divine plan which gives
meaning and purpose to life and the universe. As we noted in section 5, however,
many Christians are quite happy to accept that God brought living things into being
through a gradual process of evolution. In fact they see this as even more evidence of
God’s creative activity. Evolution, they argue, has an in-built capacity for moving
form simple forms of life with little or no consciousness to more complex forms with
consciousness. Finally human beings evolved with self-consciousness and the ability
to search for meaning and understand God’s purpose. All this suggest a purposeful
Hand guiding the whole process.
It might be argued that there are many people in the world who apparently get along
very well, leading happy, balanced interesting and useful lives, without ever raising
questions about the meaning and purpose of their life, let alone the universe. Some of
them might even argue that they are too busy with the challenges and enjoyments of
life to spend time speculating on such matters. In response, it can be said that even if
they never make their beliefs explicit to themselves, there are some such beliefs at the
back of their minds relating to what they regard as being of ultimate value. These will
be expressed in the values they pursue and the priorities they set up for themselves.
It would certainly seem to be the case that having goals and purposes is important for
human living. Most of us do in fact develop and set our own life goals and purposes
which we change and adjust as we go through life. Psychologists consider that goals
are crucial for our personal development. Goals give us a sense of direction and
purpose to our lives and activities. They keep us focused and help us to mobilise and
target our energies. They dispose us to being more persistent and resourceful.
Psychologists point out that we are more likely to get what we want from life if we set
clear goals. It is even said that having goals can help us to live longer.
It may be that determining our own goals and values in life, at least for some people
some of the time, is sufficient to enable human beings to achieve some degree of
fulfilment. Despite this, there is still for Christians a residual question about the
meaning or purpose of everything. As Keith Ward has written:
‘The plain fact is that consciousness and purpose do exist, at least in the higher
animals. It is therefore not absurd to ask whether purpose is not rooted in the
physical structure of being itself.’
(Ward, 1996,p138)
For Ward, if there is any point or purpose to the universe it must lie in the existence of
something which is intrinsically worthwhile and valuable. For something to be
intrinsically or objectively worthwhile and valuable, it must relate to the existence of
consciousness. For nothing can be truly valuable unless it can be valued by some
conscious being. The goals or purposes we create for ourselves relate to things which
we believe life can realise or make possible for us, things to which we attach value
and importance. In the same way, the purpose of the universe as a whole must lie in
the realisation of agreed values which can be shared and enjoyed by human beings values such as love, beauty, freedom, and justice.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
28
For discussion
1. How far do scientific theories about the origin of life and the universe challenge
the view that life has meaning?
2. How far does the theory of evolution by natural selection represent a challenge to
the Christian belief in the dignity and uniqueness of humanity?
3. ‘Science cannot create meaning, value and purpose.’ How far do you agree with
this statement?
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
29
9. CREATION
Stories of creation
Christians believe that ultimate explanations with regard to the meaning and purpose
of life are to be found not within the sciences but within the teachings and stories
contained in the Bible. Especially important are the creation stories in Genesis. It
was on the basis of these stories that many Christians, both scientists and nonscientists, objected to the ideas of Charles Darwin. It was not so much the general
idea of evolution which they objected to. After all it was possible to suppose that, in
the beginning, each type or species had been created separately by God and then was
gradually changed by evolution. What really offended them was Darwin’s view that
one species could change into another, and that present-day living things may all have
evolved from just one first ancestor. This appeared to flatly contradict the Genesis
story in the Bible and to disprove its description of how life began.
Many Christians today, however, take the view that the scientific theory of evolution
by natural selection does not conflict with their religious beliefs. In particular, they
argue that those who rejected Darwin’s theory because they thought it conflicted with
the account of creation in the Bible have been proved wrong. Augustine, who lived in
the second half of the fourth century, was one of the first to realise that the creation
stories were not to be taken as literal descriptions of physical facts. Today, Christians
point out that in the biblical stories of creation the language and imagery belongs
much more to the world of story and imagination than to the world of the laboratory
and scientific research.
The first creation story describes how God created the world over six days and ends
with God blessing the seventh day an setting it apart as a special day because by that
day he had completed his creation and stopped working. The second creation story,
written perhaps 400 years earlier, begins at chapter 2, verse 4 with, ‘When the Lord
God made the universe, there were no plants on the earth and no seeds had sprouted,
because he had not sent any rain, and there was no one to cultivate the land.’
The second story goes on to describe humankind’s first home in the Garden of Eden,
which the first story did not mention. In the first story male and female human beings
were created together; both formed part of ‘adam’, that is, ‘humanity’. In the second
story, however, Eve was created after Adam. Whereas the first story presents the
world as a very ordered and well regulated place, the second story describes the world
as much more complex and mysterious. In particular, there were two magical trees in
the garden, the ‘tree of life’ and the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’. God
forbade Adam to eat from the tree of knowledge but gave no reason. Finally, in the
first story God says that the whole of creation is good, but in the second story a
talking serpent is introduced into the Garden which persuades Adam and Eve to eat
from the forbidden tree and rebel against their creator. All attempts, it must be said,
to place the garden of Eden on the map of the world on the basis of information
contained in Genesis 2: 10-14 have failed.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
30
Since the stories appear to present us with different versions of the creation many
Christians would take the view that it is likely that neither is intended to be
historically accurate. The stories are more concerned to place before us what they
believe to be ultimate explanations relating to God, ourselves and the world in which
we live. Using stories to provide ultimate explanations to questions such as ‘Why are
we here?, ‘Why do we suffer?, ‘Why do we die?, What’s our relationship to the Gods
- if there are any? was common amongst ancient civilisations. It wasn’t just the
Israelites who used this kind of communication. There are creation stories from
Babylon and from Egypt. In the Hebrew stories there is no attempt by later editors to
smooth out the contradictions. In a recent book, Karen Armstrong maintains that by
presenting two obviously conflicting creation stories, the Bible editors were making
an important religious point namely, that no one human account can ever comprise the
whole truth about human life. The authors could see, for example, that there was
order in the universe, but they were also aware that the world was a mysterious and
dangerous place. They lived in a society where women were the social inferiors of
men, but in portraying the simultaneous creation of men and women in the first
creation story, they also sensed that there was more to be said.
‘By allowing these contrasting views of creation to coexist side by side, the Bible
makes it clear from the very beginning that it will not give neat, tidy answers to
questions that simply do not admit of a simple solution.’ (Armstrong, 1996, p19)
As we saw, however, in the section on the origins of the universe, Christian
fundamentalists still hold to the idea that the Scriptures cannot be mistaken, even in
areas of science. They would hold to the inerrancy of scripture and assert that the
world and human life came about in the way described in the Genesis stories.
Doctrine of creation
We saw in section 6 how Christians have traditionally supported the message of
Genesis with the argument from design. The most famous form of the design
argument was set out by William Paley in the eighteenth century. Suppose you are
walking across a heath, says Paley, and you knock your foot against a stone. You
might think, if you were to think about it at all, that the stone had always been there.
This would, in the circumstances, be a very logical answer. But if you were to come
across a watch, then you would naturally ask where the watch had come from; you
would not in this case naturally conclude that it had always been there. You would
wonder who had made the watch and for what purpose. Paley uses this story as an
analogy for the universe. Like the watch, the universe requires a creator or designer
to explain its existence, because it is just as complex a mechanism, perhaps even more
so. For Paley then, the universe resembles a watch in its organisation and complexity,
although on a much greater scale. Its existence can only be explained by reference to
some external intelligence. Surely, therefore, there must be a cosmic designer who
has made and arranged the world in the way it is for a purpose.
Critics of the design argument have first of all questioned the validity of the analogy
between a watch and the universe. Is it an appropriate analogy? In some ways the
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
31
universe is better described as a living organism with all living things depending for
their survival on each other. If the world is like a machine then the claim that there is
a designer would make some sense. But if the universe is more like a vegetable, as
the philosopher David Hume suggested in the eighteenth century, then the idea of a
designer seems inappropriate. In any case, aren’t there just as many examples of
ugliness as beauty within Nature and as many examples of disorder as order? And
even where there is a kind of order, as in the way plants and animals adapt to their
environment, isn’t that explained by Darwin’s theory of natural selection?
More recently, in his book The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne presents a
slightly different version of the design argument. He believes that the order we see
around us is a remarkable fact and points to the fact that the world runs according to
regular laws. Swinburne argues that some explanation is required for the striking
orderliness of the universe. It is not enough to say that this is because of the existence
of scientific laws. After all it is these very scientific laws that we should be trying to
explain. He contends that God is the only explanation for the orderliness of the
universe.
In relation to creation some Christian theologians in the 20th Century have adopted an
evolutionary perspective. For example, a French Priest and Scientist, Teilhard de
Chardin, responded radically to the challenge of evolution, by seeing Creation as part
of the evolutionary process. As in the traditional view of Creation, Teilhard believed
God had formed humans capable of moral relationships and responses. He saw
evolution as a continuous process and Christ as the fulfilment of evolution, identified
as the Omega point ( omega = last letter in Greek alphabet , means final
development), sent to bring humanity to union with God. He has been criticised by
some for arriving at religious conclusions from scientific premises, i.e., using
religious and scientific language in the wrong contexts, but for others his writing has
been helpful in encouraging dialogue between science and religion.
Another influential development has been process theology. Process theology is most
often associated with Alfred Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. It sees God not as a
divine watchmaker in the sky observing the world that he set in motion, but rather as a
continuously creative force interacting and to some extent affected by us. In process
theology the emphasis is switched from classical theism (God is omnipotent,
omniscient and omnibenevolent i.e., all powerful, all knowing and all good), to
panentheism (the world is in God, and, God is involved in the process). For
Hartshorne classical theism was an outdated concept of God. God is eternal in
character and purpose but changes in the content of experience. God is involved in
His Creation but they have effective power as free moral agents. The emphasis on
panentheism means that ‘divine immanence’ is given prominence over ‘divine
transcendence’. The latter concept was more closely tied up with the notion of deism
(God setting the laws of nature in motion but not intervening) this had developed from
the scientific developments of the 17th and 18th Century, particularly, Newton’s
mechanistic universe, and had been reinforced by theories of evolution. Though not
without its critics, process theology, is thought provoking, combining the reality of a
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
32
dynamic universe with a novel concept of God as a creative participant in the process,
though not limited by it.
For discussion
1. How can Christians reconcile the Genesis creation stories with the scientific
explanation of the origins of the universe?
2. To what extent have Christians been successful in defending the doctrine of
creation against the challenges presented by scientific theories?
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
33
10. MIRACLE
Hume’s critique
The term ‘Christian’ covers a variety of positions within the universal Church but one
belief above all others ultimately binds Christians together. This belief is
fundamental to all Christians and enshrined within the Christian concept of
Incarnation: the Word of God became man in Jesus. This demonstrates that God as
the Creator and sustainer of the universe can and does enter and work miraculously
within our world. For further evidence Christians often point to the testimony of
witnesses to Jesus’ healing miracles in the Gospel stories or they may consider how
people can appear to turn from despair because they had somehow experienced God
in their lives. Science has often ridiculed these events and experiences because they
cannot be verified by ‘scientific means’.
A major stumbling block to an acceptance of Christianity on the part of scientists has
been the strong emphasis on miracles in both the Old and New Testaments. The idea
of miracles came under serious attack in the eighteenth century when science began to
reveal a universe which followed fixed laws. This left little room for the supernatural
or for events which supposedly transcended or even contradicted the laws of nature.
Many prominent thinkers, undoubtedly impressed by advances in science, regarded
scientific means; specifically empirical evidence (relying on evidence from the five
senses) as the only valid source of knowledge and truth and applicable to any
meaningful endeavour.
One such thinker was the popular Scottish philosopher, David Hume (1711-76).
Hume set out to attack superstition and the unquestioned authority of established
religion. In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding he made what is still
considered the most damning critique against belief in miracles. He argued that they
were impossible and had no place in a rational scientific world. Laws of nature such
as those established by Newton were regarded as fixed and unchanging. For Hume a
miracle amounted to a violation of these laws and therefore cannot logically occur.
He argued that there will always be reasons that point against the occurrence of a
miracle. The evidence for a miracle will always be weaker that the evidence for some
other explanation. This is because there is a lot of evidence in support of the laws of
nature – the law of gravity for example – and much less evidence for the miracle that
is supposed to have violated that law. What is more, says Hume, it is well known that
people tell lies and make mistakes. It is always more likely that someone has lied or
made a mistake than that the laws of nature have been overturned.
Christian responses
While many people were impressed by the eloquence of Hume’s critique, for most
Christians the concept of miracles remained plausible and real. If and when an
intellectual response to Hume was required, theologians often referred back to Saint
Augustine (died 430 AD) who lived hundreds of years before the modern scientific
era. Augustine looked on miracles, not as incidents that were violations of the ‘laws
of nature’ but violations of what was at present known about the natural world.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
34
Today scientists seldom presume that our knowledge of the ‘laws of nature’ is
infallible or complete. With the focus on quantum physics we are aware that aspects
of the nature of reality are not as certain as we once supposed! It is also the case that
even if miracles as violations of ‘natural laws’ were impossible or illogical as Hume
suggests, we are still left with the fact that since time immemorial people have had
what appears to be a very real sense of God, that many have described in terms of the
‘miraculous’. Experiencing a sense of God in their lives has variously been described
as empowering, healing. There is usually no logical reason to account for such an
experience but that does not involve a denial that such events cannot evoke a vivid
awareness of God or indeed that miracles, in the religious sense of the term, do not
occur.
Hume has provided us with an extremely useful check on all kinds of superstition
which is valid today. His principles of reasoning are worth applying whenever we are
faced with stories of miraculous events. It would seem better to be sceptical here than
gullible. It also raises considerable difficulties for the acceptance of the gospel
narratives. The miracles found in the Bible are not well supported and many
Christians would agree that the weight of evidence can never be wholly in favour of
their actual historical occurrence. On the other hand, many Christians would argue
that Hume is claiming too much here. Miracles may be improbable but this does not
make them impossible. Miracles may be very unusual events, but this does not prove
that no miracle has ever occurred. Similarly, it may be true that most reports of
miracles can be put down to ignorance and credulity, but Hume is too quick to dismiss
all miracles on these grounds.
One response of Christians to the rationalist and sceptic has been to meet them half
way by playing down the miracle stories in the gospels and in the Old Testament.
Christian writers, especially the great early twentieth century German biblical scholar,
Rudolf Bultmann, have attempted to demythologise Christianity, by taking out all
those elements which seem to clash with modern science. As a result many Christians
now regard the miracle stories as poetic and metaphorical. And the Genesis stories
are seen not as historical /scientific documents but as ‘myth’, which nevertheless
contain important truths about the origins and destiny of human life.
Other Christians have argued that what counts as a miracle has little to do with its
relation to the laws of nature. It has more to do with the impression it makes on a
person i.e. whether it leads them to change the direction of their life. The great
theologian, Paul Tillich, for example, defines miracles as ‘sign-events’. He say that
we cannot separate the occurrence of a miracle from its religious context. This is why
Jesus refused to perform miracles when asked for a demonstration of his power. For
Tillich, a miracle is firstly an event which is unusual or astonishing but does not
necessarily contradict natural laws. Secondly, it points to the existence of God and is
received by people as a sign of God’s continuing action in the world.
Christians also make the following points. First, despite Hume, seemingly
inexplicable events do happen. Second, we can never be sure that science will
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
35
eventually explain all such inexplicable events. Third, although the existence of
unanswered question does not prove there is a God it may show that miracles are
possible. For example, seemingly inexplicable events appear to help particular
individuals at crucial moments in their lives. If it is the case that some of the strange
events that occasionally happen actually help people, this represent an important
aspect of the argument in favour of miracles.
For discussion
1. To what extent is belief in miracles acceptable in a scientific age?
2. How important are miracles for Christian belief?
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
36
APPENDIX
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENCE
The widespread belief that science has somehow ‘disproved religion’ is often said to
be based on psychological effect rather than logical analysis. The notion that ‘science
has disproved religion’ is based on a 19th Century scientific view which regarded
Newton’s mechanistic universe and Darwin’s theory of evolution as the framework
for understanding about life and the universe. In the 20th Century the Newton’s
deterministic universe has been superseded by Einstein’s theory of relativity and more
recently by quantum theory and so our understanding of the universe and our place
within it has undergone yet another revolution. Today many scientists in the late 20th
Century are once more sympathetic to the insights from religion.
The independence of science and religion, though, was advocated by some
theologians, for example, Karl Barth and the Neo-Orthodox Christians emphasised
that religious faith is dependent on divine initiative and not on discoveries of the kind
occurring in science. God’s action is in history, rather than in nature. Therefore
scientists should be free to carry out their endeavours without theologians interfering
and the same applies to theologians in their field of endeavour because their methods,
approaches and subject matter are totally different. For Neo-Orthodox Christians the
division between the two fields is obvious: science is based on observation and
reason, while theology is based on divine revelation.
The independence of the two spheres is taken a stage further by Fundamentalists who
disregard modern science and replace it with their own ‘creation science’ that fits with
biblical literalism. Similarly, scientism, (influenced by logical positivism) assumes
that science is the only route to knowledge and totally disregards religious
explanations.
It is often recognised that one important contribution to philosophy in general has
been made by the philosophy of religion which recognises the inadequacy of a literal
understanding of language to cover all areas of enquiry. As we saw earlier religious
language is rich in myth and metaphors. Metaphors have been developed into
‘models’ to aid our understanding of abstract concepts. e.g.., in the Gospels, the
‘model’ of God as Father, was used by Jesus to show the special love of God, and was
based on the strong relationship between a Jewish boy and his father. Similarly, the
‘model’ of God as the Great Designer, owes much to the Teleological Argument and
the dynamic view of the universe, from Newton’s Theory of Gravity. It must be
admitted that some religious ‘models’ are overused and the use of ‘models’ of God
can be problematic, if they are understood literally, instead of, constructively, to give
insight.
Science, too, makes use of what could be considered mythological and metaphorical
terms to aid understanding of extremely abstract concepts, for example, ‘The Big
Bang’ provides an ‘image’ of, and ‘insight’ into, the possible beginnings of the
universe (but was originally a derogatory term coined by Fred Hoyle to discredit the
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
37
idea of an expanding universe). Similarly, ‘models’ of the atom as a solid ball and
later, as a mini solar system were used again to give a better understanding, but later
discarded.
Existential philosophers like Wittgenstein emphasised that different types of language
serve different functions. Each ‘language game’ is clearly distinguished by the
context in which it has been employed. It follows that as science and religion are
different fields of endeavour they should not be judged by the same standards. Thus
Genesis should not be judged an ‘inadequate scientific explanation’ for the beginning
of the universe and the Big - Bang should not be used to judged as a theological as an
appendix to the Creation story.
While the independence and hostility between science and religion often prevent
‘constructive dialogue and mutual enlightenment’, the arguments for independence
and open hostility between the two spheres are not conclusive or necessary. There is
some common ground between science and religion, especially in relation to the
ultimate questions about life and the universe.
Though the philosophy of the logical positivists was soon discredited by philosophers,
like Popper and (the later writings of) Wittgenstein; the influence of positivism
flourished in the popular imagination. This has done much to encourage some the
assumptions of science and this camouflages the common ground between science
and religion. This becomes apparent when we look more closely at how language is
used by scientists and consider the views of leading scientists on life, the universe and
everything.
The main distinction is that scientific myths and models are perhaps, though not
entirely, easier to discard than religious ones. Difficulties do emerge when the
language of Christianity and Science are used in response to the same question, for
example - the beginning of the universe. Christians would answer by talking of the
essential truth of Genesis: God created, whereas scientists would use the language of
physics in their answer. Clearly their answers are not on the same level of discourse,
scientists address themselves to answering ‘how’ the universe began and Christians
focus on ‘why’ the universe began. The questions are not mutually as exclusive as
some scientists and theologians would have us believe. Also, the assumption that
science will eventually discover all the answers is now disputed by scientists
themselves.
In the late twentieth century there appears to be a resonance between science and
religion, similar to that expressed by great thinkers and scientists from the past. For
example, as we saw earlier, science owes much to people like Francis Bacon and Sir
Isaac Newton. Francis Bacon urged those who would understand science to look at
the world around them (nature) and to study its design, and to read God’s word
(Bible) as His revelation to mankind. Isaac Newton did just that and saw no
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
38
contradiction between his Christian beliefs and his scientific research and remained an
avowed Christian for all his life.
In the late twentieth century there appears to be a resonance between science and
religion, similar to that expressed by great thinkers and scientists from the past. For
example, as we saw earlier, science owes much to people like Francis Bacon and Sir
Isaac Newton. Francis Bacon urged those who would understand science to look at
the world around them (nature) and to study its design, and to read God’s word
(Bible) as His revelation to mankind. Isaac Newton did just that and saw no
contradiction between his Christian beliefs and his scientific research and remained an
avowed Christian for all his life.
Increasingly in the 20th Century many scientists are becoming less hostile to the
religious approach. Ironically, this is as a result of scientific endeavour, especially in
the field of astro-physics. The 20th Century witnessed a revolution in thought as
scientists began to move away from Newton’s deterministic world towards accepting
Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum theory, both of which show the
world to be less deterministic than was previously thought, with nothing being 100%
certain. Everything in the universe now appears to be interdependent and it appears
unrealistic to isolate one thing from everything else.
In the 20th Century we now seem to accept that the world of relativity and quantum
theory demonstrates the intimate involvement the observer has with his environment.
As the mystically minded scientist, Sir James Jeans said:
‘We cannot solve the problem of the universe. This is because we are part of the
universe and therefore part of the problem we are trying to solve.’
Similarly Paul Davies, the noted astro-physicist has focused on our ‘intimate’
relationship with the universe. He suggests that our existence in this universe is no
‘accident’ because our involvement is too intimate to be a mere quirk of fate. He
suggests this means we are meant to be here. Einstein spoke of the need for scientists
to have ‘that profound faith’ that belongs to the religious sphere to understand that the
laws governing the world of existence are rational and comprehensible to reason.
These remarks by scientists are made as a response to things such as ‘anthropic
balances’ that are constantly being discovered by scientists. Like theologians from
the past, scientists who have no interest in religion are struck by a sense of ‘awe’ and
‘wonder’ at a universe that shows so much evidence of order, design and purpose. As
Paul Davis has remarked even scientists who are militant atheists are deeply awed,
inspired and motivated by the processes of nature. These anthropic balances suggest
our universe is ‘finely tuned’ for the evolution of humanity. Similarly, the noted
theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson added that the more he examined the universe,
the more evidence he found to suggest that the universe must have known we were
coming. Humanity’s special place in nature seems to be reasserted by science!
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
39
The fact that scientists in the late 20th Century are using words with a religious tone
to express the results of their scientific endeavour has not gone unmarked by the
scientist, Robert Jarrow:
‘At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on
the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of
reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance;
he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is
greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.’
Theologians stress that a universe devoid of ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ is somehow
lacking. Scientists in the late 20th Century seem to be saying something similar,
raising the possibility of more scope for dialogue and debate between Christianity and
Science. The theoretical physicist and theologian, John Polkinghorne, emphasises
that the insights of both Christianity and Science are needed to address the ultimate
questions that face humanity. He himself is convinced of the unity of knowledge in
the world of human experience and human understanding and regards science and
religion as complementary.
Scientists in the 20th century and very many theologians, are aware that the ultimate
questions relating to life, the universe and everything are not so much problems to be
solved as mysteries to be explored by both science and theology. Perhaps we should
end with the best known scientist of the century and two of the best known quotations
of the century regarding the nature of reality and the relationship between religion and
science:
‘When I see the glories of the cosmos, I can’t help but believe there is a divine hand
behind it all.’, and, ‘Science without religion is blind, religion without science is
lame.’
(Einstein)
For discussion
‘The scope for constructive dialogue and debate between Christianity and science is
greater now than at any time in the history of modern science.’ Discuss.
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
40
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
David Maland, Europe in the Seventeenth Century
(Macmillan, 1975. ISBN 33302341 2)
Stuart Hampshire, The Age of Reason: 17th Century Philosophers
(New American Library - The Mentor Philosophers)
Ian G. Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science
The Gifford Lectures 1989 - 1991
(SCM, ISBN 0-334-02298-3)
William Raeper and Linda Smith, A Beginner’s Guide to Ideas
(Lion, 1991 ISBN 780745 921365)
Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Basics
(Routledge, 1992 ISBN 0415 12496-4)
John Young, Teach Yourself Christianity
(Hodder & Stoughton, 1996 ISBN 0 340 62121 4)
Michael Poole, Science and Religion
(ACT, 1984 ISBN 09505501 5 9)
David Wilkinson, God, The Big Bang and Stephen Hawking,
(Monarch Publications, ISBN 1 85424 342 X)
J.M. Roberts, The Pelican History of the World
(Penguin Books, 1976 ISBN 01402101 8)
Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind,
(Fount, 1977 ISBN 000642584 4)
Mel Thompson, Philosophy: An Introduction,
(Hodder & Stoughton 1995 ISBN 0340 643 943)
John Polkinghorne, Serious Talk: Science and Religion’
(SCM Press, 1995 ISBN 0 334 02647 4)
David Wilkinson and Rob Frost, Thinking Clearly about God & Science,
(SCM Press, 1996 ISBN 1 85424 333 0)
John Allan, The Human Difference,
(Lion, 1989 ISBN 0 7459 1284 2)
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
41
Philip Esler ed. Christianity for the Twentieth –First century,.
(T&T Clark, 1998 ISBN 0 567 08601 1)
Russell Stannard, Science and Wonders, Conversations about Science and Belief
(Faber & Faber, 1996 ISBN 0 571 17694 1)
Karen Armstrong, In The Beginning
(Fount, 1996 ISBN 0 00 628015 3)
Keith Ward, The Concept of God,
(Fount, 1977 ISBN 0 00 6248160)
Keith Ward, God, Chance & Necessity,
(Oneworld Publications, 1996 ISBN 1 85168 116 7)
RMPS Support Materials: Christianity Critiques and Challenges: Science
42