Introduction
Truth is an increasingly complex notion. Postmodern epistemology challenges the very possibility of even obtaining truth, with some philosophers going so far as to say that there is no such thing as truth to be obtained. Very few scientists, however, accept this pessimistic view. Their experience with the regularity of the laws of nature, and the remarkable predictability of natural phenomena on the basis of these laws, has instilled in them a deep intuition that the truth is out there. A truly postmodern scientist is very hard to find.
BioLogos affirms that truth is indeed something that can be discovered, but acknowledges that human desires and limitations must always be taken into consideration when evaluating particular truth claims. BioLogos also contends that many of the recent pessimistic views of truth are contrived and inconsistent with human experience. Most human beings have enough confidence in the scientific truth to fly in planes or have surgeries.
The development and advance of science have allowed us to discover more about the universe. Such discovery results in an increasing accumulation of scientific truth. For believers, these discoveries must ultimately be compatible with the truth that is revealed in the Bible, and it is the conviction of BioLogos that this compatibility is not only desirable but also possible. The limitation is that our access to all forms of truth, including scientific and religious, is at best partial.
Scientific Discoveries and the Bible
The Bible is not a scientific text and should not be read that way. Scientific literature is a relatively recent and highly specialized form of communication. Reading the Bible as a literal, scientific text leads to inconsistencies between the revealed word of God and the scientifically derived history of the world. However, when scripture is read in a proper context, these inconsistencies do not come up. One, therefore, can safely accept scripture as God’s revealed word, even though it does not address the specifics of many scientific questions and often refers to the natural world using the understandings of the time in which it was written.
See "What is the proper relationship between science and religion?" and "What factors should be considered in determining how to approach a passage of scripture?".
Science and Religion: Answering the How and Why Questions
Science and religion are often contrasted by noting that they answer different questions, or answer the same question in different ways. Borrowing an example from the Rev. John Polkinghorne, there is more than one answer to the question of why the water in a tea kettle boils.1 The scientific answer might be because the burning gas heats the water.2 Another acceptable, though nonscientific, answer could be that the water is boiling because I want to make a cup of tea.3 Both of these answers are true, and both accurately describe the boiling water from different perspectives. The kinds of answers found in the scriptures are generally nonscientific but are always true.
This is not to say the Bible lacks historical, objective or scientific truth. For example, the Bible reports the existence of the Christmas star, and science offers a possible explanation for the star’s origin.4 The resurrection of Jesus is another example where the Bible is not limited to giving an explanation of why something happened, but it also makes a clear statement about the historical truth of what happened. Polkinghorne sums up this relationship between science and religion:
"Neither [science nor religion] attains exhaustive knowledge — for the exploration of nature continually reveals new and unexpected insights, and the infinite reality of God will always exceed the grasp of finite human beings — but both believe that they achieve verisimilitude, the making of maps of aspects of reality that are adequate for some, but not every, purpose." 5
Science will never fully answer the why questions of religion. Moreover, a complete understanding of the mysteries of our existence will probably never be developed by the finite human mind.
Finally, one must recognize that it requires a certain level of faith to answer the scientific questions of how something happens. Answers to scientific questions assume that the laws of the universe are constant or, if recent speculations prove reliable, changing in only the most subtle of ways.6 This requires faith in the orderliness of nature. With or without belief in an ultimate creator, one must have faith that this universal order is real and reliable. Without such a belief, science could not give an explanation for anything.
Science: Intrinsic Error and Built-In Self Correction
Error is intrinsic to all human activity, including science; human technology is imperfect; and human comprehension is incomplete. All these factors contribute to a limited understanding of ultimate, absolute truth.
Nonetheless, science is self correcting. Scientific findings are constantly tested, updated and peer reviewed. Inaccuracies are corrected when new discoveries and experiments bring the truth to light more fully. This does not mean that the truth has changed. Rather the tools used to find the truth revealed their limitations due to flawed technology, inadequate understanding or misinterpretation of data. As these tools improve, science leads us closer and closer to the truth.
Building scientific theories resembles map making. A map gathers different kinds of data like longitude and latitude, elevations, waterways and climate to make a coherent representation of reality. The map is not reality itself but a model of reality. Scientific maps of reality, known as theories, need updating in response to new discoveries or improved understanding.
Selfish motivations and scientific error can also play a role in scientific discovery. Self-promoting individuals can push for outcomes that advance their reputation. A desire for particular results or an assumption about the ways things are can result in manipulation of data, whether consciously or unconsciously. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of examples of such contrived data in the history of science. One chronicle of how such distortions were perpetuated can be found in Steven Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man,7 which retells the tragic story of how 19th century science found alleged data to support prevailing prejudices about the relationship between race and intelligence.
While the scientific method standardizes and minimizes the bias and prejudice of an experimenter, random error is intrinsic to instruments of all measurements. No scientific experiment is exactly precise, and error must always be considered. The imperfections of humans and their methods means that scientific conclusions will never be perfect, but they will certainly improve with time as science advances continue to self correct. Although such critiques and qualifications of the veracity of science are important to consider, we must not let them blind us to the enormous successes of science in uncovering the patterns of nature.
Truth Revealed
For more, see Daniel Harrell's essay Reading Nature and Reading Scripture on how science and theology, though both interpretive and subject to error, together can lead us to truths about God.
Human limitations may prevent us from fully understanding any parts of our experience, including scripture and science. What we perceive as conflicts may actually be misunderstandings that simply require further consideration. Moreover, because God’s ways are so much higher than human ways, there may be pieces of the ultimate truth that always remain a mystery and apparent contradictions that never get resolved. Professor Robert Trigg of Warwick University reflects on the idea of limited understanding:
"Our reason is, like a candle, pale and flickering, compared with the light of God’s wisdom. Nevertheless, it was sufficient to enable us to gain some knowledge. There was plenty of room for error, and partial knowledge, but we were, it was thought, made in the image of God, and could obtain a glimmer of understanding through science, and other operations of the human mind." 8
This concept is also found in the slogan of the Cambridge Platonists, a school of theologians and philosophers who were influential at the time of the founding of the Royal Society: “Reason is the candle of the Lord.”9 To quote Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method of induction:
"To conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or the book of God's works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together." 10
Consulted Experts:
The BioLogos Foundation is grateful for the assistance of Denis Alexander in drafting this response.
Notes
- John Polkinghorne, “Is Science Enough?” Sewanee Theological Review 39, no. 1 (1995): 11-26.
- Ibid.
- Ibid. Please also note that this response assumes that the individual has free will.
- Colin Humphreys, “The Star of Bethlehem,” Science and Christian Belief 5 (1995): 83-101.
- John Polkinghorne, “The Science and Religion Debate: An Introduction,” Faraday Papers, no. 1 (2007), http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php.
- John D. Barrow, The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega—The Numbers that Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe (New York: Pantheon Books, 2002).
- Steven Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1996).
- Roger Trigg, "Does Science Need Religion?" Faraday Papers, no. 2 (2007), http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Papers.php.
- Ibid.
- Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning; Colours of Good and Evil; The Essays (London: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005).