I could, for convenience, weaken science or Biblical creation only partially. Where they disagree, one would be declared winner. Yet once I have taken that step, how could I disagree with an alternative theory that draws that line in a different place? What makes me so special that I could feel comfortable knowing I was right? For me, this was a direct path to relativism, because to adopt a weakened source of truth is to adopt them all. The only way to be rational is to throw out one or the other, and I was not about to give up on science.
At the time, I played tuba at a church on Sunday mornings. I enjoyed myself and found the sermons interesting, although I seldom agreed with them. One particular morning, the pastor talked about his understanding of science and religion. Below is an email I wrote shortly after his sermon. It is still very interesting to me now, because it encapsulates my thinking at the time so well. And I would struggle deeply to find the error in my thinking.
I was at church this past Sunday, and I found your sermon to be very thought provoking. The questions which arise when trying to reconcile religion and science are very important to me, and as you pointed out, are taboo to some people. I am very grateful that you, purely as a religious person, are willing to take on such questions.
If I may summarize your sermon, you argued that religion and science answer questions which are fundamentally different. The most fundamental part of science is that it begins with the statement, "I don't know". You then went on to say that such a standpoint in religion would be refreshing. We should not take the Bible as a source to tell us everything, but as a source of faith. Science is the exploration of the world, and religion is the exploration of love and faith.
But I am not so sure science and religion are separable that way. You mentioned that some of the stories in the Bible should not be taken literally (specifically the fall of man). But why shouldn't they be literal? Is it because the story of man, Adam and Eve, is figurative? Therefore all stories which mention them directly are equally figurative? I think you would find it hard to find someone in your congregation who takes the Adam and Eve story literally.
That begs the question, however, why don't people take Adam and Eve literally? There are many reasons, I am sure, but what possibly convinces most people is science. Carbon dating has allowed us to see that humans have been around much longer than the 6000 years the Bible predicts. To believe the Adam and Eve story literally requires us to disbelieve that carbon dating works. And to disbelieve carbon dating, you must call into question an entire body of research. It just seems easier to make Adam and Eve figurative figures, designed to teach us we are all sinners. And we all are sinners, so it has served its purpose.
The ancient Jews knew nothing about carbon dating however. I don't know for sure, but it seems reasonable to believe they took the Adam and Eve story to be literal. They believed the world was created in 7 days. They believed the world was made by the separation of heaven and earth. They believed these things literally. Otherwise, they would have been more careful to let us know which stories are literal and which are figurative. Each story is written in a similar way.
So if the ancient writers of the stories in the Bible took them literally, then why don't we now? To me the answer is science. A study of the figurative nature of the Bible would be a study in the popularization of scientific reasoning. The general trend is to find more of the Bible figurative. As we understand our world better, more passages of the Bible perhaps seem unreasonable.
This is where faith comes in. Faith is an expression of how literal we would like the Bible to be. Faith is the statement, "I believe this to be true" without evidence either way. Science and faith are then a balance between what you know and what you are willing to assume. This balance is at equilibrium in all of us. The scientist in us forces our world to be more rational and material, the theist forces the world to be more supernatural and in God's control. How we choose to be scientific and theistic defines our own faith.
So are we free to choose where we draw the line. Is it up to us to choose what we believe is literal and figurative in the Bible? If it is our choice, then it leads to interesting consequences.
One area that science has been unable to comment is the existence of God. It is impossible to understand God, almost by definition. Science cannot push so far as to deny the existence of God. But I have been surprised to find that science can comment on the methods of God. If you ask a religious scientist about his faith, it is a common answer to hear that the scientist loves to understand how God works. Thinking about how God works is an interesting concept though, because it suggests that if God does control the universe, He tends to do it in a regular way.
The regularity is the surprising thing. It is so regular that we can now predict seemingly unpredictable behavior from models and simulations. The trouble arises when these models start to predict behavior the Bible is explicit about. For instance, the big bang theory has been corroborated in simulations from astrophysics. Scientists can form reasonable conclusions about the state of the universe fractions of a second after the beginning of the universe. From these data they can reason how matter formed, how the solar system formed, and how life formed. This simulation sounds a lot like the beginning of Genesis.
The balance of faith and science can react in several ways to this information. It can disbelieve the science, and in so doing second guess the conclusions of many intelligent astrophysicists, it can believe it is true, invoking the figurative nature of the beginning of Genesis, or it can disregard and ignore it. The last I hope will not happen, but the first two of course is the great contention of evolution and intelligent design.
But it goes further. If we analyze the implications of such a theory and realize that God works consistently in the same way, then it puts a constraint on God himself. It seems the only place for God is at that very moment in the beginning when the universe exploded. That leads back to faith. In order to be religious, you must have faith that God is intervening beyond the initial step, breaking His laws of physics occasionally, and that requires you find the balance between faith and science that satisfies you.
It seems to me that the scientific reasoning is gaining at all times. Every day there is a new discovery of God's universe. In faith, we only have the Bible, which seems to be becoming more figurative. In other words, in the balance, science is gaining more force. So what is keeping us, as rational people, from simply letting science gain the force it inevitably will? Why not just make the whole Bible figurative? What if God Himself is figurative? What if He is a manifestation of the love, compassion, morality and order which has arisen from our evolution as intelligent beings?
These are questions I have been pondering. I thank you for reading all of this, and I would appreciate any comments you may have.
In case you are curious, I never heard back from the pastor.February 11, 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment