We live in a scientific age. I think the hymn cited above wonderfully expresses the sort of relationship we Christians should have with science. We can accept science and Christianity without conflict. If we compare our era to the biblical era, we can be rightfully proud and amazed at the difference. We see the creation through scientific eyes: eyes of logic, reason, and analysis. We expect that there is a logical reason for anything. We are a knowing people: seeking knowledge and finding it. Biblical people were pre-scientific. They took creation as it was unquestioningly. Issues of when life began and when death occurs were not critical to them. They did not have the means to explore the life of the unborn or to prolong life medically. Issues of protecting the environment and conserving resources on a worldwide scale were beyond their perception. Again they did not have the means to modify the environment on any, but a local scale.
Science, thus, has shaped us radically different from our biblical forebears. We no longer rely on magic and potions and signs in the heavens to heal a person or to predict the future. We now rely on scientific means of medical examination, diagnosis, and prescription to heal, and on statistics and probability to predict the future. And indeed, these are not just modern day magical formulas. We are far, far away more successful than the ancients on healing, predicting the future, and improving the human condition. Science is far more efficacious than anything previously known to humans.
But as religious people, we must ask where, then, is faith? Where, then, is God? Where, then, is spirituality? Is there any need for these in a scientific age? If we can heal and improved our condition scientifically, do we need God? Are faith, God, and spirituality completely separate from the real, scientifically describable world? Or are they in some way related and intertwined? Let me pose this dilemma as a question to you. If you had to choose between a religious means or scientific means to cure a life-threatening disease which would you choose? You can't choose both. Think which one and only one would you choose? I suspect that a lot of us in this particular congregation would, if pressed to make a single choice, would choose the scientific or medical means. But why must we make such a choice?
Science has been associated with materialism, that sees the cosmos as a vast machine. In this view there is no heaven, no God, no soul, no spirit. There is only material that can be known through our five senses and reason. The spiritual is an illusion. This has been the predominant Western view of reality for the past centuries. It the reality practiced in our secular institutions. In this view religion and science are in conflict. Only science discloses reality. Science is objective, open- minded, universal, cumulative, and progressive; whereas, religion is subjective, closed-minded, parochial, uncritical, and rigid. This can become an idolatry of science and technology that raises science to godhead and reduces nature to instrumentality.
Christian theologians reacted to this materialistic worldview, by conceding the earthly reality to modern science. They argued that religion and science are independent of each other. God acts in history and people's lives, but not in science (even though in the bible God acts in nature, such as in the Exodus). We see this in a typical parish: a scientist who discovers in the laboratory and prays in the sanctuary lives in two separate realities. Religion has no credibility when it comes to scientific and technological issues and science and technology have no credibility in religious issues.
Let me illustrate with a parable of two believers.
A Parable of Two Believers
One of our believers is Prof. Smith. He is a noted scientist. Not only is he a great researcher, but he has shaped his world around the gifts and promises of science. He believes, that eventually any problem facing humans, can be solved by science. Problems of resources will be solved by the discovering of new sources of energy. Social ills will pass as science brings in greater abundance. Ignorance will be dispelled by the free dissemination of information over the world wide web. And on and on. Science is the road and guide to all knowledge and all power. Science will endow humans with god-like powers; while, at the same time, describing and analyzing humans with scientific theories and mechanisms. Prof. Smith can point at the many wonders of science to justify his belief. Yes, there are problems from some technologies, but we will invent better technologies. There are setbacks, but the overall trend is towards a better life for humans. Science can save us from anything, even from ourselves and even from science itself.
Our other believer is Mr. Jones. He is a fundamentalist. He believes that if an idea or theory conflicts with a literal interpretation of the bible, then it must be wrong. Mr. Jones, though, is not a rabble rouser or a confrontational Christian. He believes in the literalness of the bible, because that is what supports his faith. He believes that he must do what God wants him to do and the only way to know what God wants is by going to the bible. The bible is the Word of God, containing everything he needs to know in order to do God's will. If he is faithful, then he will be saved.
These two admittedly stereotypical people are broad examples of the dichotomy between science and religion. Prof. Smith puts no faith whatsoever in what he cannot observe or measure or reason. He does not believe there is a place for religion in a scientific world, other than what comfort it might give (weak minded) people. Mr. Jones, on the other hand, is suspicious of science. He knows it is helpful, but he believes that scientists are unfaithful and conspire to undermine his faith and the will of God. Which person is right?
I claim neither.
The Miracle of Renner's Pond
Laurie and I watched an rerun of an old 21 Jump Street episode. It was called The Miracle of Renner's Pond. It is a story of the perennial evolution-creationism controversy. It opens with the burning of biology texts espousing evolution. This launches a police investigation. The cop who is sent in as an undercover investigator discovers that one of the biology teachers is a creationist. He is very adamant about his position. To him you are either for God and the bible and therefore a creationist, or you are against God and the bible, i.e, an evolutionist. He believes that evolutionists are atheists in need of a bible. But there is also another biology teacher in the school who is comfortable teaching evolution. She confronts her colleague at one point and declares that a believe in the validity of evolution can co-exit with a believe in God; that scientists can believe in God just as passionately as a fundamentalist - there need be no conflict. I happily sided with her.
In the Preface to the Physics of Immortality, Frank J. Tipler, a physicist, explains his own journey:
When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true ... I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.
The Holy Spirit has been moving through our society. It is unnatural and unnecessary
for science and religion to be alienated. She has began gathering scientists and
theologian back together again. Tipler is just one of many scientists and theologians
learning how to understand the union of science and religion. Indeed, you can go to
any fair sized book store and look in either the religion section or the science section
and find books on religion by scientists, such as Tipler, Capra, Davies, and Peacocke.
For Science and For Religion
If we look closely at the Genesis story and other passages in scripture, we can see
much support for the scientific endeavor in the bible. Genesis is not a cosmological
essay; it is not scientific. Indeed, trying to read it as a scientific statement is to miss
the whole point of the what the bible is saying; it is to miss the beauty and the
grace of God's relationship with creation.
The fundamental and ongoing relationship between the Creator and the whole cosmos is the main message, not a lesson in cosmology (1)God creates the creation out of love. Creation is good - God pronounces this over and over again. God created order out of chaos. Before God began to create, the earth, i.e., reality was a formless void - chaos. The order that lets us discover the world through science and logic and understanding originates in the creative act of God. God laid the foundations for science and wisdom. Further creation is on-going. The Hebrew words used in the very first verse of Genesis are translated in the NRSV as "In the beginning when God created ...", but the same Hebrew words can mean "When God began to create ..." This is the interpretation used by the Jewish Publication Society's translation. Paul will also speak to us of the new creation that God wroughts in the newly baptized. Creation continues, just as suggested by such scientific endeavors as cosmology and evolution.
If we continue into chapter two, we see that God creates humans from the dust of the earth, announcing that we are part of nature - just as the theory of evolution would have us believe. And as we are in the image of God, we are endowed with God's creativity. Our pursuit of science is an act of adoration and worship of God. In studying nature, we study the reflection and handiwork of God. God is distinct from creation, God is uncreated and prior to the creation. But God made the creation in the divine image and through it reveals the divine self. On Mt. Sinai and at the Transfiguration, God is revealed in a cloud. God is revealed in a fiery bush. God is revealed in a gentle breeze after the storm. God is revealed in a rainbow. All of these are biblical revelations that alert us to God's continuing revelation in nature.
Science is a perfectly valid means to seek after God. Indeed, if you ever study the wonders of the Solar System, the many moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, the red deserts of Mars, or the invisible world of subatomic particles, of muons and gluons, or the weird effects around a black hole, or ...
... the conception, gestation, and birth of a baby - this probably the greatest miracle of all - how can you not see God?
But what about faith? Do we need the bible at all? Or is science sufficient? No, never will science be sufficient. Our congregational tradition believes that God has given us two revelations of equal importance: the bible and nature. They go hand in hand. Indeed, modern science points to the divine - to the Unknowable Designer who sustains all of this wonder.
If we look closely at modern science, we will see much support for faith. We know now that time and space had a beginning. Science cannot describe what came before (actually "before" has no meaning). What came before? Only God knows. We also know that the universe is finely tuned for humans. There are certain mathematical values that govern how the universe operates. If anyone of these were just microscopically changed, we humans could not exist. Why is the universe like this? Scientists have argued over this. But one of the principles of the scientific method is to choose the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that God did it. We also know that science cannot determine everything. Indeed, both Heisenberg and Goedel, one a physicist and one a mathematician, proved this. Science itself showed that there was always something beyond any scientific theory. And the universe is beautifully and miraculous complex. The human eye is a fantastic instrument, that no random chance could have created. By all the aerodynamics that we know, bees should not be able to fly. But they fly. A flower blooms in the spring and stars are born in the Eagle Nebula. All of this is the design of the Divine love and grace.
Indeed, faith in God is needed to accept the order and knowability of creation.
Parable (Reprise)
Well, what of Prof. Smith and Mr. Jones. All the faith and all the science in the universe cannot guarantee us a life free of danger and tragedy. Prof. Smith's and Mr. Jones' daughters were good friends. One night they were in a terrible car accident. Both were severely hurt. The emergency doctors rushed them both into operating rooms. After many hours the doctor operating on Prof. Smith daughter comes out. He reports that he has done all that he can. And it does not look good. She had terrible trauma to her head. Her chances to live are very slim. The professor asks what can he do, as any parent will want to do something for their child. You know where this is heading ... the doctor looks him square in the face and says, "pray".
The doctor operating on Mr. Jones' daughter emerges later and announces that he has also done all that he can. His daughter has been stabilized. His prayers have been answered up to a point. But there was much damage to her internal organs and her kidneys were destroyed. She will need a kidney transplant. Prayers are not going to repair or replace her kidney's.
Prof. Smith and Mr. Jones sit together in the waiting room: one an atheist needing
prayers, one a strong believer needing science. Together they were seeing the world
differently ...
The Two Faces of Creation
Many of you may heard about the seminar sponsored by the Harvard Medical School called, "Spirituality and Healing in Medicine" held this past December in Boston. Some 800 scholars, doctors, clinicians, chaplains, and nurses from all over the United States attended it. Central to the seminar was the notion that prayer and a patient's mental attitude can help in healing, and that the medical community should consider more than a patient's physical symptoms in treating disease. Here, under the auspices of a famous and well-respected medical institution, science and religion came together for a very practical need: to heal. Interestingly, one of the needs that religion meets is healing. Before modern medicine, one went to one's priest for healing. And one of the driving forces behind science is of course healing. Religion and science seek this common goal. This seminar's basis is that they both do it better when they do it together, than when they do it separately.
Religion and science both reveal God. Both look at the same reality, but from different angles. Religion looks at why and science looks at how. But both examine what God has done. God is indeed in the laboratory. Einstein is indeed in our houses of worship. We have tried to separate the two. It doesn't work. They are united and together they give us a richer, fuller view of what God has done for us.
Where does that leave us? I think it bears at least two consequences.
We read in the papers about the various public ferment in Christianity today. We read about heresy trials and the Conservative Christian family agenda. But there is another ferment that doesn't make the papers, every bit as vigorous and important. This is the dialogue that is now going on between science and religion. It is long in coming and way over due. Thank God we are talking together. The prayer at the end of our hymn, I think is a fitting conclusion to our reflections:
As two currents in a river fight each other's undertow till converging they deliver one coherent steady flow, Blend, O God, our faith and learning till they carve a single course, till they join as one, returning praise and thanks to you, their Source.
Amen.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it. (NRSV)
Praise the Source of faith and learning that has sparked and stoked the mind with a passion for discerning how the world has been designed. Let the sense of wonder flowing from the wonders we survey keep our faith forever growing and renew our need to pray: God of wisdom, we acknowledge that our science and our art and the breadth of human knowledge only partial truth impart. Far beyond our calculation lies a depth we cannot sound where your purpose for creation and the pulse of life are found. May our faith redeem the blunder of believing that our thought has displaced the grounds for wonder which the ancient prophets taught. May our learning curb the error which unthinking faith can breed lest we justify some terror with an antiquated creed. As two currents in a river fight each other's undertow till converging they deliver one coherent steady flow, Blend, O God, our faith and learning till they carve a single course, till they join as one, returning praise and thanks to you, their Source. - Thomas H. Troeger (C)1987, Oxford University Press, Inc. New Century Hymnal (#411)
1(Jerry D. Korsmeyer; review of Made From Stardust: Exploring the Place of Human Beings Within Creation; by Denis Edwards; CTNS Bulletin 14.2/Spring 1994).
NRSV New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright (c) 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America.