Bill Powers 2008-06-04
From Summa Bergania
Date: Wed Jun 4, 2008 4:14 pm
From: Bill Powers
To: Science and Religion Class
Subject: Christianity and Conflict
Is it possible for Christianity and natural science to not be in conflict?
Christianity, as any religion, makes certain claims about the nature of the world, and of man himself. Certain of these claims are metaphysical (e.g., there is a rational, personal god, we live in a moral universe), others relate to the nature of the world (e.g., it was created by God, it had a beginning and will have an end), still others are historical(Jesus lived in Jerusalem, was crucified by the Romans, and rose again).
Science also attests to certain metaphysical claims (the world is ordered, contingent, and can be understood in some sense by man) and claims about the nature of the world (there are electrons, matter obeys certain physical laws).
It is not just any claim of science or Christianity that can and does come into conflict. What is the nature of those regimes and beliefs in which the possibility of conflict arises? It is not just in the matter of disbutes over facts. There is no reason why Christianity and science could not come into conflict over certain metaphysical matters. It is surely possible to imagine a Christianity (e.g. Ockhamism) that claims God cannot be bound by any law, and therefore physical law does not exist. Such a conviction might very well have no functional influence upon the practice of science. For even if we maintain that what we call physical law is merely contingent and subject to the whim and control of God, that such a characteristic behavior exists will likely be sufficient for science to be done and sought.
There is, of course, no reason to believe that the world is intrinsically ordered, as many ancients denied. Such a belief might represent a more inhospitable environment for science.
It is no coincidence that modern science and Christianity see many things eye-to-eye. After all, science arose in the midst of and motivated by a Christian worldview. But this need not necessarily be the case. A science might arise that is less hospitable to Christianity. In this case, presuming that such a science is possible, conflict over various metaphysical issues is certainly possible.
At present most of the conflict between science and Christianity appears focussed on disputes over the various theoretical derivations of science, including the origin of man, the history of the cosmos, the nature of mankind.
However, the possibility of conflict with science arises intrinsically in Christianity because it makes various historical claims that are essential to the faith, including that Jesus was crucified and rose again. Inasmuch as this, and other temporal interactions between God and man in history are claimed, then they can be potentially verified and falsified.
Any rational support for Christian claims are likewise open to falsification. Such rational support does not entail that faith is caused by that support.
Still I have not directly addressed my original question: is it possible for natural science and Christianity to not be in conflict. One might an externalist reply (a la Plantinga) that we can trust the derivations of our reason where they are functioning properly and in the way for which they were designed (by God). I'm not sure how much this helps. Since we can never be certain exactly what that intended design and purpose was. It seems to me at least possible that our minds were not designed to be trusted in matters of the development of cosmological theories, or the profound nature of the elements of matter. Were one, instead, to suppose that a science could be developed that was entirely true (something no scientist believes) then we might a priori expect it to be in full agreement with God's revelation.
However, I have no reason to suppose that such a situation can arise. Not only do I not believe that any science can ever be possibly developed that is in a correspondence sense true, I don't believe that reason can ever fully support Christian faith. Regarding the former, I don't believe the mind can hold what exists. Does that entail, however, that nothing true can be said of what exists? Probably not. Still I maintain that the world cannot be mapped and modeled by human concepts.
Moreover, if reason and evidence could ever be sufficient for belief, why would we need faith?
When we say that science and Christianity might be in conflict, what exactly is it that conflicts? It seems that it is ideas, and differing ideas about what is true. Is it, then, that the conflict is carried in propositions, propositions that matter to humans? Or is it more?
Is it science in principal that is in conflict? This seems to make as much sense as asking whether baking and Christianity are in principal in conflict. Does the conflict arise, then, because of disputes over the practice of science? Are scientists acting immorally, or not within their vocation as construed by Christians? If so, in what way is this occurring? Is methodological naturalism immoral and outside the vocation of science, wherein only naturalistic explanations are acceptable? Naturalism being possibly construed here to mean that human psychology can be fully explained on the basis of chemical and material processes, and that volition is an illusion, a product of a naive folk psychology?
What would such a naturalistic science make of faith? Are Christians and belief merely a sociological creation embedded in a certain cultural environment. Or is it merely the consequence of some peculiar biochemistry, and therefore potentially created in a laboratory, as some neuroscientists believe?
Well, so many questions, so little time.
Nuff said,
bill powers
