New Age Science (Part Two)
November 15, 1998
What Is Truth?
Many who, like Pilate, ask, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), are nothing but cynical skeptics who really
think that "truth" is indiscernible. Although there surely must have been a time in Pilate's life when he
believed that truth was knowable, the general skepticism of his day had taken its toll in the life of a
man who could no longer recognize "the truth" even though it stood right in front of him (John 14:6).
Although there were things that seemed to fascinate Pilate about Jesus, and although he had enough
integrity to recognize that the charge made against Jesus was false, nevertheless, in order to protect his
immediate position, he permitted "the truth" to be crucified at the hands of brutish men. Ironically,
Pilate's position demanded that he be a judge, and being a judge demanded he do justice, and, in turn,
doing justice demanded he have a knowledge of the truth, the very concept he made light of, in the
same way one recognizes that many today, whose position it is to determine "what is truth," are
infected with the same disease that afflicted Pilate and, as a result, have been willing to crucify the
truth for self-serving reasons.
This brings us to the first point: Science, in order to be constructive, needs men and women who are
committed to the truths revealed in God's Word. A Bible believer should be the most passionate
scientist of all because he should be open to truth wherever it is found. Knowing that all truth is God's
truth, a Christian is not afraid that a new discovery of truth will destroy the truthfulness of his
foundation. To the contrary, the Christian believes that if his foundation for truth is really true, then all
other truth can only support it and enhance it. The cynical skepticism of our age cries for talented Godfearing scientists who see the scientific inquiry as a true vocation that ultimately glorifies God.
Such words may sound strange in light of the attacks many scientists have made upon the Bible. It
cannot be denied that Darwinism and its current clones have wreaked havoc on the faith of many in the
God who has revealed Himself both in nature and the Bible. But in doing so, the scientists who have
formulated and defended these theories have done a disservice to themselves in particular and to the
integrity of science in general.
Which brings me to my second point: Although I will be careful not to claim too much (e.g., that
science would have never been launched apart from Biblical presuppositions), it is generally held that
modern science owes its development to the implications of the doctrine of creation as taught in the
Bible. As John Dillenberger says in Protestant Thought and Natural Science, "the flowering of science
did occur in the context of Christian history."117 This was due, in large measure, to the acceptance of
matter as real, contingent, and dependable — the very characteristics guaranteed by the fact of
creation.118
By real, I mean that matter, the stuff of the universe, was created by God (i.e., "the worlds were
framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen [the material universe] were not made with
things which do appear," Hebrews 11:3) and has an existence (i.e. a reality) different from the Creator.
Contrary to Eastern and New Age thinking, which teach that all is mind and that matter is simply an
illusion, the Bible teaches that matter is quite real. Matter was created to glorify God (Psalm 19:1) and
to be the matrix of man's (not God's) existence. The difference between Creator and creature is not the
difference between real and unreal. Both are real, God and His creation!
By contingent, I mean that although matter is real, it is not absolute or ultimate. In other words, matter
is not divine or sacred. No immanent, pantheistic divinity animates the material universe. Because it is
created, the universe is finite or limited, i.e., it is contingent. Something that is contingent is not
necessary. If something existed necessarily, then it would be impossible for it not to exist. Only God
exists in this manner. God's existence, therefore, is contingent upon nothing. God, the uncreated,
unoriginated source of all that is, is identified in the Bible as having life in Himself (John 5:26).
Matter, therefore, owes its existence to God; it is completely dependent upon him.
Furthermore, matter depends on God not only for its origin, but for its continuing existence as well
(Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:3). How this supernatural power (God's Word) interacts with the
universe in upholding it is not known nor can it ever be fully understood by finite creatures.
Nevertheless, such a mystery must be factored into any correct understanding of physics. I like the way
the Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper said it:
There is on earth no life, energy, law, atom, or element but the Almighty and Omnipresent God [who]
quickens and supports that life from moment to moment, causes energy to work, and enforces that
law.119
By dependable, I mean that not only is matter dependent, it is also dependable in that one can depend
upon it to act according to fixed patterns. The universe is not irrational, capricious, unpredictable or
absurd, as if it were the plaything of some whimsical deity. Indeed, God does not play dice with the
universe, as Einstein was so fond of saying. The creation has been "given a rationality and reliability in
its orderliness which depend on and reflect God's own eternal rationality and reliability."120 Although
quantum theory speculates about the possible absence of cause and effect relationships in the
subatomic world, except for God, there can be no effect without a cause. And if scientists do not want
to commit professional suicide, then instead of concluding there are effects in the material world for
which there are no causes, they must change their tune to that of their religious brothers who are
content to sing: "Farther along we'll know all about it, Farther along we'll understand why: Cheer up,
my brother, live in the sunshine, We'll understand it all by and by."12l Such faith has not only been the
touchstone of religion, it has also been the foundation of modern science.
A dependable universe operates according to certain patterns known as natural laws. Pantheism, which
endowed nature with an aura of divinity, made the study of nature too awesome a task for man.
Platonism, which dominated Western thought for centuries, set forth the idea that nature is actually too
insignificant to merit close study. According to Platonic dualism, concrete individualities are but mere
reflections or shadows of the world of forms. To learn the true nature of physical objects one must
concentrate not on them, but on the intelligible forms. One does this not through science (physics), but
through philosophy (metaphysics). "Thus," writes Landon Gilkey, author of Maker of Heaven and
Earth, "science based on empirical description and analysis was impossible for Greek thought because
the data of sensation were essentially irrelevant to the aim of the inquiry, which was to know the
intelligible forms."122
In contrast to this idea, however, stands a cosmos endowed by its Creator with true reality and integrity
in its own right and worthy of direct investigation. It is this that has made science a legitimate
enterprise. Gilkey emphasized this point when he wrote:
Now the conception which effected this fundamental reinterpretation of the world's order, and so
provided those presuppositions of modern science, was the Christian idea of creation. It is no accident
that modern science has developed in a culture formed and dominated by this conception, for when
nature was thought of as possessing an order stemming from the Creator's will rather than from its own
inherent intelligible forms, then modern science became possible...123
Theology vs. Science and Vice Versa
There are several ways in which the term theology can be legitimately used. In its use here, I am using
it in its most precise meaning, i.e., the study of God Himself. Theology, then, can never be complete as
it is limited by our understanding of general (natural) revelation and special (supernatural) revelation.
And although only a fool would reject God's revelation of Himself in nature (cf. Romans 1:18-25), one
must never think that general revelation is in any way equal to special revelation. The revealed Word
of God is always superior to natural revelation. Without special revelation, we could know that God
exists and could even know something about His divine power, glory, and faithfulness, but we could
not know Him personally. Without special revelation, we could not know of His holiness, His love,
and His willingness to save us from our sins through His Son, Jesus Christ. In other words, without
special revelation, man would be a worshipper, for such is his nature, but his altars would be inscribed,
like the one in Athens, "To an unknown god."
Therefore, both science (finite knowledge of the natural world) and theology (finite knowledge about
God) will always be inferior to the Word of God. Unfortunately, innumerable theologians and
scientists have pleaded their ignorance of this fact by their various machinations aimed at exalting one
profession at the expense of the other. In fact, every man ought to be both a theologian and a scientist;
and at the beginning of modern science such was indeed the case. Sir Isaac Newton is an excellent
example of one who had a healthy attitude toward knowledge of nature (science) and knowledge about
God (theology). In identifying the harmony between science and theology exhibited in Newton, it has
been said:
He did not live in fear of contradicting his faith through the study of the world. He said that the activity
of the scientist is to think God's thoughts after him. Newton's was a humble, as well as a careful
approach. He understood that all truth meets at the top.124
What is needed today is Newton's humble and careful approach both in science and theology. A
judicious man will be careful to examine the knowledge that comes from nature as well as the
knowledge that comes from God's Word, lest in a misguided zeal he establishes false conflicts between
the two. By necessity, a Bible believer must believe that there can be no real conflict between science
and God's Word. But, on the other hand, it is quite possible for science to correct one's understanding
of the Bible (i.e., theology). It must be remembered, though, that correcting the word of the theologian
is not the same as correcting the Word of God.
Many, today, who have made science their god, never seem to tire of bringing up the infamous Galileo
affair. To hear these people tell the story, the debate was between the Bible and Galileo; and the Bible
lost. Such could not be further from the truth. The real debate was not between the Bible and Galileo et
al. Neither was it between a corrupt, apostate church, which had improperly usurped the position
rightly belonging to the state, and Galileo. In truth, the debate was between the Ptolemaic astronomers
and the Copernican astronomers. To its eventual discredit, the Roman Catholic Church had
erroneously placed its nihil obstat on Ptolemaic astronomy. In doing so, it had incorrectly interpreted
the Bible to teach that the earth is the center of the universe. Galileo's telescope allowed him to verify
the Copernican theory. In essence, Galileo said, "I can prove that the earth is not the center of the solar
system by means of my telescope. What we have been unable to examine with our eyes, we can now
see. Look through this telescope and see if I am not right." To this the princes of the Roman Catholic
Church said, "We do not care what your telescope says. You must be wrong because the Bible says
that the earth is the center." Of course, the Bible had not unequivocally stated that the earth is the
center of the cosmos. The Catholic princes had interpreted the Bible in light of the predominant
scientific theory of their day. The advance of science has clearly proven them wrong. Today, if we are
not very careful, we can — and in some cases have been — guilty of the same thing.
Science, which started with the belief that faith and reason were complementary, eventually began to
reflect the agnosticism that has become so prevalent in Western culture. Subsequently, having lost its
faith, the scientific enterprise became truncated, limiting itself to only that which can be empirically
verified. And what, pray tell, is empirical verification? Empirical verification (also known as
induction) means something that has been verified by the senses, i.e. we must be able to see it, hear it,
touch it, taste it, and smell it. If one were to add to this the process of rational deduction (i.e., the
application of formal laws of logic and coherency), one would have what has come to be known as the
modern scientific method. As such, scientific knowledge, according to the Logical Empiricists, is
superior to all other kinds of knowledge because it is empirically verifiable. Such thinking is arrogance
gone to seed.
The scientific process, as defined by the philosophers of science, can tell us nothing about subjects that
are of great interest to the human race (e.g., emotions such as love, etc.). Neither can it tell us anything
about the influence of God's providence on the physical world. In view of the apparent perplexities of
the subatomic world, such knowledge may be the only thing that will give the scientific enterprise
continued validity.
In conclusion
In many ways modern science has boxed itself in. Its methodology has become too narrow. It has
become too restrictive. It can neither verify nor falsify the existence of things which have become quite
important to us. Eliminating from its process any consideration of the implications the doctrine of
creation may have on the physical world has sounded the death knell for modern science. This does not
mean that science cannot be resurrected. But if true science is to be really resurrected and not just
reincarnated, then scientists must return to that scientific construct that factored God in rather than out
of the process. New Age thinking, with its nonsensical view of the physical world (viz., all that is is
mind, therefore, the physical world is an illusion) will eventually transform Western science into
nothing less than Eastern mysticism.
The mechanistic (Newtonian) model is still appropriate in certain spheres (our everyday visible world,
for example), but not all (the invisible subatomic world, for example). If thought of as being absolute,
it suffers from an obvious conceptual squint that is blind to the larger picture. In other words: If we try
to carry the language and imagery that have grown out of our everyday visible world to the subatomic
world, we are in trouble. We peer down into the subatomic world and see little dots on photosensitive
plates. Our use of language compels us to think of these electrons as tiny little billiard balls. But they
are not. They do not act like billiard balls at all. If we apply the logic of billiard ball concepts, we can
expect paradoxical results in the subatomic world. But reason itself is not under attack. What we need
are new ideas and new images.125
Far from throwing us into the eager arms of the "One is All" of the New Agers, the enigmas of modern
science should fill us with awe and wonder as we tremble before the creative immensities of God. As
finite creatures, we can understand and explore His creation, but we cannot completely comprehend it.
The truths taught in the Bible concerning creation are not offended by modern speculation on the unity
and interconnection of creation. In fact, such unity and interconnection could be used to make a very
strong argument for creation. And although we must view such scientific theories with caution, the
Bible pictures a God who sustains and unifies creation without violating the integrity of distinct
entities. (God created and sustains each according to its kind, Genesis 1:11-25.) According to Douglas
Groothuis:
Rather than a monistic [All is One and One is All] cosmology, the biblical view of creation harmonizes
the one (unity of creation) with the many (distinct creations). The biblical view, then, is holistic
without being monistic. Pascal, the... philosopher and scientist, realized this long ago when he said that
"all is held together by a natural though imperceptible chain which binds together things most distant
and different; [therefore) I hold it equally impossible to know the parts without knowing the whole and
to know the whole without knowing the parts in detail.126
It just may be that some of the new theories being touted by the New Age movement, once extracted
from their pantheistic and monistic elements, may be serviceable for providing us with a model for
how the processes of providence work. But unfortunately, New Age science, instead of worshipping
the Creator of the universe, ends up bowing to the mysteries of that universe. Instead of viewing the
creation's interconnected web of existence as pointing to God, the New Ager sees that interconnected
web of existence as a god. Instead of worshipping the personal Creator and Lord of all, the New Ager
mistakenly genuflects to an impersonal force.
In the next chapter, we'll examine the New Age cult of Self-Love.
Notes
117
John Dillenberger, Protestant Thought and Natural Science, 1960, page 16. It is Dillenberger who
cautions us not to overstate the case for a necessary connection between Christian thought and science,
pages 16-17.
118
For an excellent discussion of this point see Jack Cottrell, What the Bible Says About God the
Creator, 1983, pages 143-150.
119
Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit, 1900, reprinted 1975, page 44.
120
Thomas F. Torrance, Divine and Contingent Order, 1981, page viii.
121
The chorus to "Farther Along," in Sacred Selections for the Church, 1960, page 473.
122
Langdon Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth, 1965, pages 129-130.
123
Ibid.
124
R. C. Sproul, Lifeviews: Understanding the Ideas that Shape Society Today, 1986, page 167.
125
Emerson, op. cit., page 24
126
Groothuis, op. cit., page 107. The quote from Pascal is cited as Pensees 2.72.
<>Allan Turner