Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
Zack Eswine Preaching to a Post-Everything World: Crafting Biblical Sermons That Connect with Our Culture
The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership Powered Company
Mark Driscoll On Church Leadership (Book You'll Actually Read)
« Film: Jesus of Montreal | Home | Tuesday Links »
Science and Christianity
By admin | March 5, 2007
So the next topic I’m tackling is on the relationship between science and Christianity.
I have to tell you, I’m really struggling through which direction to head on this (I have several ideas). Not because I haven’t spent time reading, thinking, and researching these issues over the years. Because I have. Not as much as some of you maybe have, but I’ve given quite a bit of time and energy.
But the difficulty in my mind is how to hit on the topic at a soul level with this topic (if that makes sense). I think that we need to strive for transformation not just information. Info dump alone is pointless in my mind. I don’t want to have some science lecture that’s sterile and fails to engage people.
The other thing I don’t want is to have the creation evolution debate. Don’t get me wrong, that’s an important conversation. But is that all that matters on this topic? I’d argue the real issue is over naturalism. Is that which we experience through the senses all that exists? This is what rules out God out of the picture a priori.
The issues over age of the earth and all the sundry details that go along with this debate seem to be on the periph. So I really don’t want to go there for 45 minutes. I know we’ll hit on that issue some, but that is not going to be the centerpiece, at least not as I foresee it now.
So you’re in my shoes for a few moments. How would you go about addressing this issue - “Doesn’t science disprove the existence of God” (stated something like that anyway)? In your mind what are the important issues to consider?
Who is the man in the picture? If you can give me the answer to that question you win a prize. I haven’t figured out what the prize is yet but probably a free book. I’ve left a hint in the picture for you.
If you liked that post, check these...
Mobile Church by admin on February 13th, 2007
The 500 Project by admin on April 10th, 2007
Members or Partners? by admin on January 31st, 2007
Communication: Our Future by admin on April 5th, 2007
LifeConnection Mailer Heading to the Printer by jason on January 9th, 2008
Topics: Communication, Science |
March 6th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Sounds like a really broad topic, but yes, an important one. Some of the current provacative subquestions I think sitting out there are:
- How do we tell when science is telling us the truth?
- What underlying assumptions are made in the process of science?; How can they shape the process?
- What good reasons do we have to be humble and not too quickly reject theories of science?
- How does theoretical research (what most people object to it seems) tie into practical use of science?
- How does God’s command to care for the animals and earth in Genesis tie in with science?
Here’s your man, Thomas Kuhn, in what appears to be the same picture:
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0691057109.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_V40213462_.jpg
March 6th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Here is another question, but I don’t know how high it would rank on the list of importance with making the science discussion more than an info-dump. Anyway, I read McManus’ Soul Cravings awhile back and he was talking a lot about the desires and hopes that all humans have, etc.
I asked a friend of mine how science really addresses those longings. Like “how did evolution by natural selection bring about a being that wants to live a meaningful life?” Or questions of that nature. I don’t know just a thought.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:15 am
In the UK, the guy to go to is David Wilkinson
http://www.dur.ac.uk/theology.religion/staff/?id=2006
But then, I’m biased, as he was our minister when we lived in Liverpool.
In “God, the big bang, and Stephen Hawking” 1993, he says “This… is the supreme integrating point in combining science and religion. The pointers from the impersonal universe raised by science, find their full interpretation in the personal Word of God, Jesus Christ. The author of the universe not only speaks to our world, he becomes part of it.” Surely this is where the soul meets the science.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
On this subject it helps me to know what claims have been made…which ones have held up thus far and which were debunked and why.
What is the difference between relative truth and universal truth. How do we go about determining how our findings fit in these categories?
This seems important because not all true things are proven…meaning some things we agree to be true simply because the world at large has the same opinion/belief/findings. So how does this fit into science? Does it fit at all into creation and intelligent design?
March 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Hey Jason-
This month I am reading The Case for Faith (Strobel) and the pages I read this morning really address what you are talking about. Beyond disproving Darwin and accepting miracles, we have a God that engages with us when we approach him. God isn’t theory because we can know him experiencially. I would look at chapters 2 and 3 if I was going to try to address that topic in a non-data dump sort of way.
Tell Carrie hi for me!
March 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
I’ve found it helpful to illustrate the inadequacies (sp. ?) of science. So many people think of science and the scientific theory as the ultimate “truth determiner”, yet don’t realize how fallible and limited it is. Perhaps, you can pinpoint a few oddities that science has been unable to explain or account for. Or some points of scientific “truth” that were accepted for centuries only to be found completely of base later on. Or the fact that there are realities that we all accept that can’t be duplicated or “proven” in a lab somewhere. The point is not to discredit all science, but to demonstrate that it isn’t perfect and can’t always be accepted as the ultimate answer or explanation. As you’ve said before, data and facts are not the only ways of knowing things.
I also find it fascinating that men like Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Boyle, and Faraday were all great scientists who were also Christians. Rather than set out to devalue religion in the name of science, these men’s discoveries changed scientific opinion for all of subsequent history, all in the name of Christ. These men were driven to pursue scientific discovery not in spite of their faith in God but as a result of their high veiw of God and His amazing creation.
This may seem more info. than transfo. but you probably need some of the former in order to get the latter.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Nice work Parke. I guess I should have found a bit more obscure photo… =) I thought it would be a bit more difficult than that. Parke send me your address to jason[at]centralbsu[dot]org and I’ll mail you the book.
Thanks for the feedback. Those are all great things to consider. I will take those into account and definitely check out some of the books you all have suggested, etc (thanks Jennifer, and I’ll tell Carrie).
And you’re right Todd we do need info to see transformation…the dilemma is I have more than enough info. So I wasn’t trying to discount the need for info, I just have about 30 books on my selves related to this question in some way (maybe more). Now I have to translate that info into a way that will hit life in the real world.
Great thoughts Carson, I do think that fits somehow. Fiona, that is a great quote and I will check out Wilkinson as I am not as familiar with him as I am with McGrath (have your seen McGrath’s Scientific Theology trilogy?).
Keep it coming if you have more ideas. This is very helpful.