Science and Faith
Separate Disciplines
In “The Language of Science and Faith” Karl W Giberson and Francis S Collins write (page 83)
“The so-called independence model for relating science and religion received a major endorsement
a few years ago when the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen J Gould proposed it as a formula for
keeping the peace. Gould, for years one of the leading public voices for science in America, argues
that science and religion are so completely different that they should be viewed as separate bodies
of knowledge with no relationship to each other. Gould argued that science proves empirical,
factual knowledge of the world and its behaviour, and religion addresses question of value and
purpose. And there is simply no overlap between these two pursuits.”
Put another way, science addresses “how” questions whilst religion addresses “why” questions.
They are thus separate fields of human activity and can co-exist, provided they do not attempt to
encroach upon each other’s field of activity.
Question. Are you happy with the idea that science and religions are separate, non-overlapping
disciplines and, if not, what might be the areas of overlap?
Differences in method
Religious method
The religious approach is to accept revealed, unchanging truth in sacred texts. Religious belief is a
matter of taking things on trust, unquestioningly, as an act of faith.
Scientific method
The scientific method is to observe, form theories and test those theories. Nothing is sacred;
nothing is permanently true. All theories may be questioned, tested and revised in the light of
further evidence, or superseded. Science proceeds by making models, very often mathematical
models. Observations are made to see how well these models match observed behaviour. If the
model can be used to predict the existence of previously unobserved entities or future events, then it
is thought to be a good model, until it is superseded.
Question. Do you think it is appropriate for scientific methods to be applied to Biblical research?
The God of the gaps
The God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are
currently unexplained by scientific knowledge, or otherwise lack a plausible natural explanation.
As scientific knowledge has progressed and the gaps become smaller, the God of the gaps has
gradually been squeezed out. For some, God still remains as an influence on the weather, as this is
very hard to predict accurately. Others look for God in the indeterminacy within quantum
mechanics. For scientists, we live in a determinist world, where every event has its cause in
previous events or circumstances. A practical problem remains for scientists in that these causes are
sometimes very complex, as in the human brain, so that it is practically impossible to determine
what will happen next. However, scientists would still maintain that what goes on in the brain is a
matter of biology, chemistry and physics.
In their book, “The Grand Design” Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow write (page 43)
“It is Laplace who is usually credited with first clearly postulating scientific determinism: given the
state of the universe at one time a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past.
This would exclude the possibility of miracles or an active role for God. The scientific determinism
that Laplace formulated is the modern scientist’s answer to question 2 (Are there any exceptions to
the laws i.e. miracles?) It is, in fact, the basis of all modern science, and a principle that is
important throughout this book. A scientific law is not a scientific law if it holds only when some
supernatural being decided not to intervene. Recognizing this, Napoleon is said to have asked
Laplace how God fits into this picture. Laplace replied “Sire, I have not needed that hypothesis.””
Questions. Has science buried God?
Is it possible for a scientist to be religious?
Are you comfortable with scientific determinism, which appears to rule out free will?
Creation and Evolution
At one time various arguments were put forward to prove the existence of God from logical
principles. These were:the Ontological Argument (God is the greatest possible being which you can think of, and must
therefore exist)
the Cosmological, or Causal, Argument (God is the first cause, the unmoved mover)
the Teleological, or Design, argument (if there is design in the world there must be a designer)
the Contingency argument (God is a necessary being who contains within himself the reason for his
existence)
the argument from religious experience.
Various theologians and philosophers, from Plato onwards, through Aristotle, St Augustine, St
Thomas Aquinas to Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne in the present day, have put forward
these arguments, or variations on them.
Christians are very reluctant to give up on the idea of God as the originator or everything, the first
cause, the designer of the universe. They come into conflict with scientists whenever scientists
theorise that the universe may have come into existence without a cause, or order and complexity
can arise (evolve) without a designer.
Question. Do you think that God as Creator is an essential aspect of religious belief?
The Anthropic Principle
The anthropic principle notes that the development of life on earth is a highly improbable event. So
many factors need to be just right to allow the development of living organisms. In “The Grand
Design” Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow note that (page203) “A change of as little as
0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either
nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it.” They
then go on to note that most of the fundamental constants in scientific theories appear fine-tuned –
small changes would make life unsustainable. They go on to cite the weak nuclear force and the
cosmological constant, having earlier considered the number of suns and the number of dimensions
in our solar system. Some Christians would argue that the fine-tuning of so many different things is
evidence of design, and hence a designer.
Question. Do you think that there is good evidence for a designer God?
Miracles - What is a Miracle?
The first problem to be addressed when considering miracles is to say what is meant by the word.
The word is sometimes used in a vague way, as in “It’s a miracle she survived the accident, when
everyone else was killed”. Here ‘miracle’ is simply taken to mean ‘unlikely event’. Such miracles
are, of course, possible, and do not signify anything particular about the nature or existence of God.
Note, however, that we would not say “It’s a miracle she died, when everyone else survived the
accident.” Why would we not say this?
What is meant by miracle in a religious sense is the divine interruption of the natural flow of events
– a divine breaking of natural laws. Such miracles will never be accountable in science. Natural
laws are generalisations about the process of cause and effect. They state that for a given set of
circumstances a certain outcome will inevitably result. We depend upon this regular and reliable
behaviour of heat, light, the laws of motion and countless others for our existence. A miracle is
something which occurs ‘out of the blue’ and breaks the laws of nature.
Some Characteristics of Miracles.
Unpredictability.
Miracles are unpredictable. You cannot say when and where they are going to happen. If you
could, then scientists would be able to formulate theories about them, and they would no longer be
miracles.
Irregularity.
Miracles are irregular. You can in no way guarantee that in a particular set of circumstances a
miracle will inevitably ensue. If you could guarantee it, then the set of circumstances would
constitute something like a cause for the miracle, and once again this would be fertile ground for
scientific theories to develop.
Beyond Scientific Formulation.
This represents a real difficulty for saying what might be a miracle. The difficulty is that, as well as
including current theories, any future theories must be included as well. For example, if you were
able to travel back in time and show a telephone or television to someone from the middle ages,
they would think such things miraculous, because they would know nothing of electromagnetic
waves. In the same way, something which we might regard as miraculous might at some time in the
future be explained as a natural event – it’s just that presently we do not understand or know of the
mechanisms involved. One conceivable area is faith healing, where our present understanding of
the relationship between mind and body is limited. However, it is difficult to predict new theories
in their absence. We just don’t know what the future holds. The difficulty remains. If we appear to
be confronted by a miracle, how can we be sure that, at some time in the future, it will not be
explained as part of the way nature operates?
The traditional Christian view of miracles.
For the Christian, miracles are signs that the power of God is breaking through into human affairs.
Jesus announced the Kingdom of Heaven as a present reality. Miracles are a sign that the reign of
God has begun. Luke 1120 R.E.B “But if it is by the finger of God that I drive out the demons, then
be sure the kingdom of God has already come upon you.”
It may be asked “If then, why not now?” C.S. Lewis in “Miracles” notes that miracles are not
everyday occurrences, but occur at what he terms the great ganglions of history. One such ganglion
was the life of Jesus. Miracles are special events that characterise momentous times.
Another answer to this question is that faith is a pre-requisite of miracles. In the New Testament,
there are very few instances of healing miracles (e.g. Luke 711 raising of the son of the widow of
Nain) where there is no mention of faith. Elsewhere “your faith has made you whole” is a common
phrase. Thus in a faithless and disbelieving age, miracles do not occur.
For anyone who believes in God as the author and creator of all that is, there is no difficulty in
believing in the possibility of miracles. If God can bring this universe into being, in all its
complexity and subtlety, then making small adjustments to the working model must be trivially
easy. The question becomes not “Does God have the power to work miracles?” but “Is it consistent
with God’s nature for him to perform miracles?” Herein lies a greater difficulty. We must all know
of situations of great pain, illness and suffering which could be greatly relieved by a healing miracle
from a benevolent, powerful source. Certainly, if we had the power to heal illness or prevent
disaster, then we would not hesitate. Why does God hold back? There are two traditional answers
to this question. One is to say that the question is excessively anthropomorphic – that it is viewing
God as a sort of superhuman with superhuman characteristics. The other answer is that God has
given us free will – we are more than puppets dancing on a stage whilst he pulls the strings. If God
is going to intervene every time things get a bit difficult like a parent picking up a child after it has
fallen down, then all maturity and responsibility and freedom of action is taken from us. The
human spirit grows in adversity and we do not want simply to be spoilt children.
Question. Do miracles occur?
Virgin birth
Each human being has 46 chromosomes, 23 of which have been inherited from their male parent
and 23 from their female parent.
Question. In your view, where did Jesus get his chromosomes from?
The James Gregory website of St Andrews University
For a professional analysis of these and other issues you are referred to the St Andrews University
website www.jamesgregory.org A series of 13 lectures was given at St. Andrews University over 4
years from 2007 to 2011 addressing issues in Science and religion. The lectures are listed below
and the full text of each lecture may be found on the website.
Prof. Katherine Blundell
Prof. David Myers
Prof. Colin Humphreys
Prof. Pauline Rudd
Dr Bill Newsome
Revd. Dr David Wilkinson
Prof. Keith Ward
Prof. Ken Miller
Sir John Houghton
Revd Dr John Polkinghorne
Dr Bruno Guiderdoni
Dr Denis Alexander
Bishop Tom Wright
"Are we alone in the Universe?"
"Psychology and Religion"
"Can a Scientist Believe in Miracles?"
"Is there more to life than genes?"
"The Mind - Brain or Spirit?"
"God and the Big Bang"
"God, Science and the New Atheism"
"Life - Creation or Evolution?"
"Global Warming - is it real and what should we do?"
"Does God Interact with his Suffering World?"
"Islam and Science
"Has science made Religion Redundant?"
"Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?"
RESURRECTION
What follows is a personal view and a bit of self-indulgence.
In our local church, some time ago the minister preaching on the subject of resurrection. He, I
think, said that Christianity was, primarily, a resurrection faith. If you took away the cross and the
resurrection (of Jesus) then, to quote Paul “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in
vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor 1514) and “If Christ has not been raised, then your faith is
futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor 1517).
So belief in the resurrection may be a necessary condition of being a Christian.
My main point about life after death is based on Occam’s razor. William of Occam, or Ockham,
(1285 – 1347 C.E.) was a Franciscan theologian and philosopher who lived in Ockham in Surrey.
He was a vigorous and independent thinker who contributed to the development of formal logic.
He came into conflict with the Pope because of his views. He made use of a principle of economy
which has come to be known as Occam’s razor. In his argument against universals, Occam asked
why we should posit more entities if the same facts can be explained with fewer ones. To quote
Bertrand Russell in his “History of Western Philosophy” (pp 462,463)
“Occam is best known for a maxim which is not to be found in his works, but has acquired the
name of ‘Occam’s razor’. This maxim says; ‘Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity’.
Although he did not say this, he said something which has much the same effect, namely: ‘It is vain
to do with more what can be done with fewer.’ That is to say, if everything in some science can be
interpreted without assuming this or that hypothetical entity, there is no ground for assuming it. I
have myself found this a most fruitful principle in logical analysis.”
His razor is an important test which is a basic principle in the world of science. It underlies the
development of all scientific and other theories. It may be summarised as “Simplest is best.” It is a
principle of economy. Its application arises when two or more competing explanations are being
compared. The simpler explanation, or the one with the greatest application, is to be preferred. The
best theories are the ones which require the least assumptions to be made and which have the
greatest explanatory power or widest application. For example, the scientific search for a unified
field theory, or a ‘theory of everything’, is an example of the application of Occam’s razor. The
structure, order and simplicity of mathematical theories make mathematics beautiful in the eyes of
some. They acknowledge the power of Occam’s razor.
Applying this principle to a consideration of life after death, if the facts of our existence here on
earth can be understood without the necessity of positing a life beyond this one, then there are no
grounds for assuming such an after-life. It is an unnecessary complication. If, in order to explain
our life on earth, we have to propose that there is another, unseen and mysterious realm, then that is
an inelegant complication.
It is an interesting diversion to consider why Occam’s razor should be so. I might introduce into the
argument the elegance of mathematics and suggest that if our universe is structured and ordered by
underlying principles which are satisfyingly elegant, then does that imply an intelligent creator?
This is a minor variation on the argument from design, which generally has not proved conclusive.
Applying Occam’s razor, I reflect upon the fact that there was a time before I was born when I was
not. I had no consciousness, no self-awareness and no existence. I have no memory of any
existence before birth. If I did exist before I was conceived/born in some reincarnational way, then
there is no connection, no continuity, no link between my former existence and my present one so
there is no point suggesting such an existence. Every night I go to sleep and lose consciousness.
Sometimes, it is true, I dream, but I only remember a dream when I awaken immediately after it.
So what could be simpler than to propose, just as I had no existence before birth, then so shall I
have no existence after death? It will be as easy as going to sleep and just not waking up.
Avoiding death is a basic instinct. Apart from that, that part of me which fears non-existence is my
self-awareness, my self-consciouness. I cannot imagine my own non-existence. There is no
viewpoint from which I can perceive it! It is part of my theory of the self that what dies at death is
the self, so that if you are nothing but self and lead a totally self-centered life, then nothing survives
death. My one concession to an after-life is to suggest that, whatever survives death, it is not-self.
In this way the religious life, which is a life of turning way from self towards other - of replacing a
self-centered existence with an other-centered existence – is the precursor of eternity, a bit of
heaven as a present reality. We are distinguished from most of the animal kingdom, not by the
possession of a mysterious soul (the ghost in the machine) but by our self-awareness. The religious
life is distinguished from the secular life by self-transcendence.
Were there to be some life after this one, then it is difficult to conceive what the continuity between
this life and the future life might be. I discount the idea of a soul as an alien invading thing which
lurks somewhere in your brain, not physical and yet somehow having an impact upon the physical.
Can you have sight without eyes, or hearing without ears? More importantly, can you have memory
without a brain? And without memory, what identity is there? What is it that could have survived
death? There must be some continuity for the notion to have any significance, but what that
continuity might be is difficult to conceive. Some time ago there was a report in the news about
how dementia is likely to increase (double) in the next so many years because of the ageing
population. The news was illustrated with a particularly difficult case of a man caring for his
demented wife. He said ( I hope I’m not mis-quoting or mis-remembering) that the most difficult
thing was the loss of the person that he had loved for
so many years – she just wasn’t there any more - all that was left was the shell, the body that
needed constant care and attention. In cases of dementia, what is it that goes on to eternal life? Is it
some spirit or essence of the person before they became demented, so that the dementia years don’t
count? If so, this is a scary thought. Perhaps what will go on to eternal life is me at age fourteen,
say, and all the subsequent years don’t count! To get over the problem of dementia, you could
propose that what would go on to eternity is the sum of one’s existence in an timeless sort of way,
the integral from year zero to year last, but it becomes even more difficult to conceive just what this
timeless summation would be.
In summary, it’s all just too complicated. What is the necessity of having an after life? Can’t we
make sense of this life from within it, not needing another life to explain this one? Why is it that
the cross and resurrection are central to the Christian faith?
It must be noted that, in relation to Occam’s Razor, modern science is susceptible to the criticism of
being over-complicated. Quantum theory poses various paradoxes and I believe string theory
proposes eleven dimensions when all that is apparent to us are three space and one time. Another
development from these theories in the idea of multiple universes – the multiverse. Fancy needing
a myriad of universe to explain the existence of this one! Science nowadays expects us swallow
more incredible ideas than religion did!
Some books, which I will bring to the meeting
Ian G Barbour
Issues in Science and Religion
Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow The Grand Design
Karl W. Giberson & Francis S. Collins The Language of Science and Faith
Paul Davies
God and the New Physics; The Mind of God;
Other Worlds
John Polkinghorne One World; Science and Creation;
Science and Providence;
Reason and Reality The Way the World Is; Science and Christian Belief