Apologetics5

So often the image conveyed by scientists is that they are the masters of all knowledge and the more knowledge they have the more in control they will be. Let's check it out.

So often science seems so sure of itself and seeks to make other disciplines feel 'lowly cousins'. We're going to see here why that is not so.

From the point of view of apologetics we're going to see why Christians don't have anything to fear from science.

Part 1 : Should Science be so sure of itself?

1. What is Science?

Answer:

Science, generally speaking, is about acquiring knowledge using the scientific method.

The ‘scientific method' is about gathering measurable evidence, producing an hypothesis, testing that and then producing a theory.

Put in its simplest form, science is about finding out how the material world works, or 'knowledge obtained by careful observation'.

Applied science is the way knowledge of the material world is put to use.

2. Why is Science Uncertain?

Answer:

a) The Changes of Assumed Answers

Terry Pratchett has one of his characters speak on this:
'"Could have" isn't good enough. Nor is "might have"! "Did" is the trick.'

So often scientists use 'could' or 'might' speculative language as they propose 'theories', but theories are not fact.

Within pure science, knowledge is constantly changing and theories change. With advances in technology, methods of investigation and research become more and more complex and more and more data is obtained.

Often this complexity means that research questions are not certain and scientists may describe their results as “most likely”, “more likely than not”, or even “possibly”, and these are legitimate answers - for the time being!

With complexity, scientists will often use ‘models' to communicate what they believe they are finding, but sometimes data needs interpreting and models need adjusting as more and more data is compiled.

b) The Introduction of Ethics

Within applied science, the same is true but there is an added dimension.

What's the difference between pure and applied science?

• Pure science simply observes.

• Applied science does something with that knowledge.

In the ‘applying' we often find the questions of ethics cropping up – should we do this, should we do it this way?

c) The Uncertainty of Science

To continue what we started saying above, somebody has said,

“Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty - some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.”

Stephen Hawking said,

“The universe does not behave according to our pre-conceived ideas. It continues to surprise us."

Someone else said,

“all scientific ideas are open to revision in the light of new evidence”

Thus the scientist who decrees absolute is in fact expressing his arrogance.

Popular science writer, Carl Sagan, suggested one of three essential elements of scientific study is an openness to see the Universe as it really is.

It seems the more we observe the more we have to adjust our thinking.

Alister McGrath – The Twilight of Atheism – commenting on Richard Dawkins' assertion that faith is an evil not found in science:

“As Michael Polanyi (1891—1976), a chemist and noted philosopher of science, pointed out, natural scientists find themselves having to believe some things that they know will later be shown to be wrong —but not being sure which of their present beliefs will turn out to be erroneous. How can Dawkins be so sure that his current beliefs are true, when history shows a persistent pattern of the abandonment of scientific theories as better approaches emerge? What historian of science can fail to note that what was once regarded as secure knowledge was eroded through the passage of time? Conveniently enough, Dawkins turns a blind eye to history.”

d) The Answers that are beyond Science

Alister McGrath - The Dawkins Delusion - commenting on the extent of scientific knowledge possibilities:

"The fundamental issue confronting the sciences is how to make sense of a highly complex, multifaceted, multi layered reality. This fundamental question in human knowledge has been much discussed by philosophers of science, and often ignored by those who, for their own reasons, want to portray science as the only viable route to genuine knowledge. Above all, it pulls the rug out from under those who want to talk simplistically about scientific ‘proof' or ‘disproof' of such things as the meaning of life, or the existence of God.

The natural sciences depend on inductive inference, which is a matter of ‘weighing evidence and judging probability, not of proof'. Competing explanations are evident at every level of the human endeavour to represent the world — from the details of quantum mechanics, to what Karl Popper termed ‘ultimate questions' of meaning.

This means that the great questions of life (some of which are also scientific questions) cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. Any given set of observations can be explained by a number of theories … the great questions remain unanswered. There can be no question of scientific ‘proof' of ultimate questions. Either we cannot answer them, or we must answer them on grounds other than the sciences."

In other words, the really big issues of life - about meaning and purpose, are beyond simple observation that science brings to the table.

3. Why is Science about the Past, a Leap of Faith?

Answer:

Science that is about the past involves making lots of assumptions

Example 1: Carbon Dating

Carbon Dating may well be highly accurate and has become more so in recent decades, but is actually based on the assumption of uniformity of cosmic rays and other physical and not so physical phenomena.

Dates have already been adjusted in recent decades as information about the Sun became more available. Is it possible we will redate again and again and other information appears?

Whenever we specify dates, we do so with a certainty that may well be undermined in the future.

Example 2: Big Bang Theory

A quick search of the Internet will soon reveal to the student the uncertainty when looking backwards to ‘the beginning' and to ‘the end', that produces a number of scientific theories for both ‘ends'.

What is intriguing is the reporting of such theories. Rarely do the media pick up on a scientist saying, “Well, I think it is this…” or “My latest best guess is this…”

Perhaps it is that such non-dogmatic comments are not newsworthy and do little to advance the prestige that comes with a new possibly valid theory.

The number of theories and the number of adjustments that have been made in the past hundred years only go to point up the uncertainty of these areas.

Our point here is not to deride science or scientists, but merely to point out that often, if not almost always, theories about the past in science, are just that - theories, which may need adjusting as further knowledge becomes available.

4. Is Science Constantly Improving the World?

Answer:

A sub-heading of this section could be, ‘Has science made man the master of the Universe?'

The existence of postmodernism, that we referred to on page 1, suggests otherwise.

The world of the 19th and early 20th centuries was incredibly optimistic.

The truth is that pure science is entirely neutral.

Applied science in the hands of men, has the potential for both good and evil.

Yes, our day-to-day living standards have dramatically improved in a variety of ways, but over shadowing that positive comment is the recognition that without science in the past century:

we could not have fought two world wars and a multitude of lesser wars,

we could not have raped the world's resources never to be used again,

we could not have created a variety of environmental crises from the misuse of those resources,

we could not have released the horror of nuclear holocaust,

we could not have brought the spectre of global warming upon ourselves,

we could not have produced the terrible fear that terrorists might steal and use hundreds of deadly viruses and bacteria.

The latter four mentioned above could yet terminate our tenure on earth. That is the effect of applied science in the hands of sinful, egotistical men.

If mankind had been different in this period of time we might had fed the world, healed the world and created an environmentally friendly world society – but it didn't!

Part 2 : Scientific Misconceptions about Faith

5. Is God only the God of the Gaps?

Answer:

a) God of the Gaps

When I was a young Christian there was much debate about the ' God of the gaps'. It is something some scientists still put forward.

The supposition was that God was only God of those areas that we didn't understand.

Thus as science revealed more and more ‘how things work' it doesn't need, the argument goes, the presence of God as an answer.

The assumption was that one day God would be completely squeezed out and be seen to be not needed to explain creation.

b) God of everything

If we now look at it from the way the Bible describes things, we'll see it differently.

God designed and created the world to work in the way it does. He designed it so that when water boils it evaporates. He also designed every other scientific fact you can think of.

It's not a case of ‘we don't need Him now' – He's there! We need Him as much as any small child needs its parents.

As we'll see in later pages, God does intervene for His own purposes in the present creation.

There is also a Biblical suggestion (see Heb 1) that He also upholds this world and could thus stop it and end it at any moment - but that is a matter of belief and won't be proved until you see Him face to face!

c) God of the Bible

A further point worth picking up here, is that when discussing scientific interpretations and interpretations of the Bible, we would do well in both cases to ensure that we realise when we are playing with 'interpretations.'

Scholar Ravi Zacharias in The Real Face of Atheism makes a variation of this point well as he says:

Any student of history or science is quite familiar with the tragic display of power and ignorance when the mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Galileo was forced by the Inquisition in 1633 to recant his support of the Copernican theory of the solar system. But many of these students do not know that this censorious autocracy, which the church arrogated to itself, was not based on any biblical pronouncement, but rather, on a fallacious assumption from the teachings of the second-century Greek astronomer and mathematician, Ptolemy. He postulated that the earth lay at the center of the universe with the sun, moon, and other planets revolving around it. The ecclesiastical hierarchy of the day espoused this Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology, with its erroneous conclusion, as being the worldview of the Bible. The Bible, in fact, states nothing of the kind. Critics have never allowed the church to forget the Galileo blunder, and have consistently expelled it from the halls of academic credibility.

In other words the rash church leaders of the day followed a philosopher's theory to refute a scientist's theory, but this was not a Biblical interpretation that they were using!

We would do well, therefore, when setting up apparently opposite views, to ensure the validity of both, and for those of us who are Christians, we would do well to ensure that the Bible does actually say something and we are not relying purely upon our interpretation.

Similarly scientists would do well not to attack Biblical interpretations but only consider factual statements of the Bible.

6. Can't Religious Experience be Explained by Scientific Explanations?

Answer:

a) An Example of Scientific reporting

Example: The Question of the Brain

An example of this difficulty was seen in the reporting of neurotheology - the role that the brain plays in religious experience - in early 2003.

Here are some extracts from a slightly unwise reporting in the Times on April 17, 2003 by Anjana Ahua:

God on the brain: is religion just a step away from mental illness?

(Referring to discoveries about neurotheology) "They imply that the brain created God, not the other way round; that religious leaders throughout history were touched not by supreme beings but by mental illness; that moments of serenity common to ardent believers of all faiths are simply hiccups in brain chemistry. The findings suggest that our attitudes to religion are underpinned by biology."

Put in its simplest form, scientists were reported as having identified certain brain patterns or behaviours with known religious experience.

[Remember, science, we have said, is the 'knowledge acquired by careful observation'.]

Watch this carefully: what they were suggesting (quite possibly correctly - we don't know how careful and accurate their investigations were - but let's assume they were right!) was that:

• certain religious behaviour or experience produces certain brain patterns, OR (to reverse it)

• certain brain patterns produce religious experiences.

Now the two things are quite different. They are:

1. Experiencing God creates certain brain patterns.

2. Certain brain patterns create an experience that might be akin to

that expected by some form of spiritual or religious encounter.

b) An Example of Scientific Interpretation

But have you realised what we are doing?

We are arguing about the interpretation of the observable facts.

How we interpret them will NOT depend on science, but will depend on the presuppositions we have about life and experience already.

If we are a scientist who already does not believe in the existence of God, then possibility no.1 above, HAS to be ruled out.

Yes, they may be able to stimulate the brain in a variety of ways to create similar emotions or psychological experiences to that experienced by a genuine encounter with God, but then we know that any genuine human experience can be duplicated or falsified.

If our scientist was a believer in God, he might say, "Oh this is interesting. We've simply found another human experience that occurs when there is an encounter with God, just another one among the many physical / mental / emotional things that can take place in such an encounter."

Science can only provide the observable information in such cases. What then follows is personal interpretation which is NOT made on the basis of that information, but upon a whole range of other factors, as we'll see below.

Lesson: When you read of such 'scientific discoveries' learn to distinguish between the observable phenomena and the assumptions about what cause those phenomena or the meaning behind them.

7. Is there a War between Science and Religion?

Answer:

Under Question 5 above, we cited Ravi Zacharias' comments in respect of Galileo. The folly of the past revealed there is that past church leaders went to war on a wrong foundation - a philosophical one, not a theological one.

If you listen to atheists like Richard Dawkins, yes there is a war, but if you listen to many other scientists, the answer is no. Perhaps Dawkins does exactly the opposite and yet does the same thing - uses a wrong foundation of belief, but in this case it is one that does not understand theology.

Within this section, Chapter 2 of Alister McGrath's book, The Dawkins Delusion (which we have already quoted above) is particularly useful, from which we quote below, and thoroughly recommend you get if you want to think these things through more fully.

McGrath quotes atheist scientist Stephen Jay Gould who, in his his book, Rock of Ages, speaking about the fact that many scientists are believers in God, says,

"Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs - and equally compatible with atheism."

In this McGrath was simply repeating what he had said in the Introduction of his book where he wrote:

"Though an atheist, Gould was absolutely clear that the natural sciences - including evolutionary theory - were consistent with both atheism and conventional religious belief. Unless half his scientific colleagues were total fools - a presumption that Gould rightly dismissed as nonsense, whichever half it applied to - there could be no other responsible way of making sense of the varied responses to reality on the part of the intelligent, informed people that he knew."

McGrath also refers to the fact that in 1916, active scientists were asked if they believed in a God who communicates. The results were 40% who did believe in this kind of God, 40% who didn't, and 20% who were unsure. This survey was repeated in 1997 with exactly the same question and now 40% believed, 45% didn't believe and 15% were unsure.

From this it is very obvious that, even in this age when people such as Richard Dawkins would have us believe faith in God is on the way out, the facts show that is far from the truth.

McGrath makes two further points. First that the question was very specific about a God who communicates and so that ruled out a lot who believed in a deity but beyond our contact, so the 40% and later 45% who said no, would actually include others who did believe in God but not to this degree.

His second point was that,

"Most unbelieving scientists of my acquaintance are atheists on grounds other than science; they bring those assumptions to their science rather than basing them on their science."

8. So how can the Natural World be Interpreted?

Answer:

If many scientists are NOT atheists, it suggests that they must be able to view the world in different ways

Alister McGrath - The Dawkins Delusion :

"Some 'read' or 'interpret' nature in an atheistic way. Others 'read' it in a deistic way, seeing it as pointing to a creator divinity, who is no longer involved in its affairs. God winds up the clock and then leaves it to work on its own. Others take a more specific Christian view, believing in a God who both creates and sustains. Others take a more spiritualized view, speaking more vaguely of some 'life force'."

He continues:

"The point is simple: nature is open to many legitimate interpretations. It can be interpreted in atheist, deist, theist and many other ways - but it does not demand to be interpreted in any of these. One can be a 'real' scientist without being committed to any specific religious, spiritual or anti-religious view of the world"

In other words, as we have said previously, it is the presuppositions with which we come to science, that determine our outlook, not the science.

9. Do Scientists Jump to Conclusions?

Answer:

Example: See the Question of Genetics

The early part of the 21st century has seen incredible leaps forward in the whole area of genetics.

It seems a month rarely goes by without headlines proclaiming that a certain behaviour is now found to have a genetic cause.

If you have THIS particular gene then you will be disposed (forced) to behave in this particular way, is what is being said.

Now note again exactly what is being said here:

"In people with this particular gene, we observe this particular behaviour".

Again, that is the "knowledge acquired by careful observation" part of the equation. This particular one is more difficult and science will no doubt get more and more refined in this area.

Think some more about this:

To quote the Telegraph newspaper back in April 1999,

"The enormity of the task is hard to grasp. Wading through the genetic code distributed in the 46 chromosomes that lie in every cell, scientists must read every letter of the code, known as a base, and understand the 100,000 or so genes which combine to produce the mammoth encyclopedia that constitutes a human."

A hundred thousand or so genes and we are attributing behaviour to one? Perhaps not!

Then the language changes sometimes to:

"people with this gene are disposed to act in this manner".

Now this comes down to language that the psychologist or the pastor understand. We are all disposed to be self-centred, we are all disposed to get angry when we are thwarted. The Bible is full of 'negative behaviours' that we are disposed towards, but that doesn't mean to say that we HAVE to be like that.

We actually know that with the exception of fairly rare cases, the vast majority of us have choices at every turn in life. Whether to smile at someone or scowl.

Whether to tell the truth or a lie. We know by our experience that we can genuinely make these choices. (the Determinist who says we are predetermined to act in a particular way flies against every sense that we have, and also cannot ever prove his assertion)

So, 'scientific language' that says people HAVE to act in certain ways because of having a certain gene, is actually unscientific. It is an interpretation of the facts.

10. Don't Scientists Need Ethical Standards that only the Faith Community can Provide?

Answer:

This is the problem of deciding what to do with the information or "knowledge acquired by careful observation."

We have found out much about how life 'works' and indeed, how to change things, but then comes the question, SHOULD we do this or that? This is the area of ethics.

For example, science can provide the basic information of 'how' but it cannot tell you:

• if carrying out an abortion is wrong

• if using stem-cell cloning for spare parts is wrong

• if separating Siamese twins so one of them dies is wrong

These are questions outside of the "careful observation producing knowledge" process.

The science of nuclear technology is neutral. It can be used for good (producing power) or for harm (producing nuclear weapons).

The United States produced the weapons that killed millions in Japan on the basis of one evil to prevent a bigger evil.

That's all we're left with in a Fallen World sometimes, but the decision to proceed with that research was an ethical one.

Increasingly cries are made for greater controls on scientists at the forefront of new developments.

Is their work energised by the profit motive? Is it being done partly to gain personal fame?

And because, in the human equation, those less than perfect motivations are frequently present, should decisions as to what is done with the information they are producing, be left to them.

These are the dilemmas of modern science, and answers will often NOT come from the scientific information, but from the world-view that the individual holds.

In a society where moral restraints are being removed, because THE one sure secure base (a belief in and submission to God) is being removed, the future is worrying.

As will be argued elsewhere, remove God from the equation and anything goes ethically – as history has clearly shown.

11. Conclusions

On this page we have observed:

Part 1: Is Science so Sure of Itself?

Just what science is.
The fact that it isn't always quite as sure as it makes out.
This is especially true when we deal with the distant past.
Science, in the hands of sinful men, has caused great harm.

Part 2: Scientific Misconceptions about Theology

God is God of everything, not just the gaps in our understanding.
Explaining religious experience by science requires faith.
Many real scientists are believers in God.
It is possible to interpret the natural world in a variety of ways.
It is easy to jump to scientific conclusions – wrongly!
Science needs help in formulating ethical standards.

12. Questions

The purpose of these questions is to help you go back over the material and take it in. We suggest you highlight, copy and paste these questions and put them into your own word processing package and then alternate between them and the text and put your answers in your word processed page under each question.

QUESTIONS:

Part 1 : Should Science be so sure of itself?

1. What is Science?

1.1 What, very simply, is science?

2. Why is science uncertain

2.1 Describe the difference between what we mean by ‘pure' and ‘applied'

science.

2.2 In the age in which we live, what is happening in pure science?

2.3 What is the result of that?

2.4 How does the use of ‘models' add to that problem?

2.5 Why, do you think, the question of ethics crops up when we consider

applied science?

2.6 How, therefore, (and all that follows in this section confirms this) is

science not so certain as some scientists would like us to believe?

3. Leaps of Faith about the Past

3.1 What assumption has to be made with such things as carbon dating?

3.2 Under the ‘Big Bang Theory' what danger is pointed out in respect of

reporting of scientists' ‘findings'?

4. Has science Improved the World?

4.1 List five ways that confirm the assertion that “our day-to-day living

standards have dramatically improved” found in this section.

4.2 Choose three of the negative effects of modern science that stand out

in this section to you.

Part 2: Scientific Misconceptions about Faith

5. God of the Gaps

5.1 What does the phrase ‘God of the Gaps' refer to?

5.2 Why is that concept a poor one to use?

6. Scientific Explanations

6.1 What does neurotheology refer to?

6.2 What were scientists suggesting they had found?

6.3 What two ways of viewing brain patterns in religious experience, were

suggested, which challenge scientists jumping to conclusions?

6.4 How do the presuppositions of scientists possibly predetermine the

outcome of their ‘findings'?

7. War between Science and Religion?

7.1 What was atheist scientist, Stephen Jay Gould, honest enough to

suggest?

7.2 What did the results of the 1916 and 1997 surveys show?

7.3 What was Alistair McGrath's final conclusion?

8. Interpreting the Natural World

8.1 What, are the three ways of interpreting nature that McGrath suggests

in his quote?

8.2 And so what does he conclude?

9. Jumping to Conclusions

9.1 In genetic science research what can scientists observe?

9.2 How does the language sometimes get changed with profound results?

9.3 What suggestion is made in this section to counter a ‘fixed' way of

viewing genetic makeup?

10. Needed Ethical Standards

10.1 How does ethics impose itself on modern science?

10.2 Give two examples to illustrate this.

10.3 What is the final concern expressed in this section?

Return to Top