Natural Science
Over the last hundred years or so, there has been an overarching understanding of the relationship between Christian faith and the natural sciences which presents them as warring factions who are incompatible at their very foundations. This has been fueled by the incredible popularity of Darwinian evolution. In spite of the fact that not all science is as biased against Christian faith as that particular view of biology (fields such as Physics are far more congenial), and in spite of the fact that both theology and science have made significant advancements over the twentieth century (other, less hostile forms of evolution have been argued for and theology, at least in some quarters, has become more rigorous), this view has dominated discussion to the point that some Christians do not think that science is a redeemable practice and some scientists think of faith as hopelessly antiquated.
And yet, such a view shortchanges both theology and natural science. Though there are still differences in how theology and science approach reality and these differences are significant, the two fields have much to contribute to each other and indeed are already interrelated in a profound way.
One of the things that is interesting about the pursuit of science is that it operates with certain presuppositions which it cannot do without and yet have to be taken without proof. One such issue has been alluded to in the discussion of the contingence of creation above. Science operates with an assumption that there is a single, overarching order to the universe that is equally applicable, regardless of what level of nature we are looking at (that is, from subatomic particles to the movements of the planets and stars). Where did this idea come from? Regardless of all the experiments that scientists have done and all the data that has been accumulated, this point cannot be proven from within the scientific enterprise. Support for it can be amassed (and has been amassed) so it is repeatedly shown to be an intelligent presupposition, but it is a presupposition nonetheless.
When we look back at our discussion of various views of creation, the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation out of nothing is the only understanding of the universe that lines up with the actual practice of natural scientists (especially physicists). Scientists are not looking for “first principles,” they are not expecting that their experiments will yield theological truths, they are certainly not treating nature as something that finally has no reality. They are so far from affirming that there are multiple, conflicting orders in the universe that they probe ever deeper into what seem to be contradictory phenomena to try to find out the general rule of which particular phenomena are specific cases.
This presupposition, to speak of no others, is already full of theological ideas. The universe has an order and it is a real order, but it is not a self-evident order. It must be examined; experiments must be conducted in order to understand them. This order did not cause itself, but was brought into being. (As a side note, in my early years as a Christian, I was consistently told that the Big Bang theory was a godless and terrible explanation for the universe that firmly placed it as an opponent to Christian faith. As it turns out, though the Big Bang theory is not the same thing as the Christian doctrine of creation, it is far closer to it than the previous accepted theory, Steady State theory. Whereas the latter affirmed that the universe has always existed and will always be the same, the former claims that the universe had a beginning, which places it only a hair’s breadth from saying “God caused the Big Bang.” It is not the Christian doctrine, but it is closer than science has ever been.)
Another idea that is latent in scientific work is that nature can indeed be explained, that it is as if it is crying out for explanation, even at the subatomic level. Further, there are human beings who are actually capable of understanding nature (to one level or another) and bringing it to coherent articulation. Why are these the case? Why should nature be comprehensible at all? Why should it be able to be clearly articulated? Science cannot answer these questions, not because of any weakness in science, but because the answers simply lie beyond science’s scope. Regardless, they must be the case for science to carry on its work.
Science as “a posteriori” Investigation
One of the most important things about science (and why we even bother to bring it up here) is that, unlike much of philosophy, it is an a posteriori discipline, which means that conclusions are not made at the beginning, but at the end of investigation. Most of philosophy has been about seeking to provide explanations that are not necessarily rooted in actual experimental observation, but on mental and logical proofs. However, natural science does not, and can not, conclude before an experiment has been performed what the experiment will disclose. There might be a well thought out hypothesis, but only the experimental investigation itself will disclose reality to us and, what is perhaps most important of all, it does not depend on our preconceived notions.
Science, especially post-Einstein science, has been radically dedicated to allowing its subject matter to shape its actual practice. An investigation of nature is not able to step away from the reality that is going to be studied and work out its methodology independently and then try to make reality fit into that method. Instead, the reality itself must force questions upon the scientist. Only when reality is forging the questions to be answered do we find any useful information. This information also, more often than not, raises more questions and as this cycle repeats, our knowledge becomes deeper and more nuanced, yet remains faithful to what we are studying because it has provided the questions, not us.
If this is the case, then we cannot define science in a purely general way, where everyone agrees to a particular “scientific method” and all have a fixed way of doing science, regardless of what is being studied. To do so would be to refuse to allow reality to shape our understanding of it. Instead, each particular science is defined and shaped by the reality itself. If there happens to be a similarity in the various methods, it is to be remembered that this is a judgment to be made after the fact, not a decision forced upon the various sciences, before hand and from an independent source.
If science is shaped by faithful probing into a reality and different sciences are distinguished by their different subject matter, then theology can be a science, provided there is access to real knowledge of God (which we do believe there is, through Christ and in the Spirit). Biology is the study of living things, physics is the study of nature at its most basic levels, and theology is the study of God. Our questions are shaped by the reality of God, when we formulate answers, those answers are judged to be accurate (as far as they go) or inaccurate by the reality of God, and we are bound by the God who actually exists to speak rightly of him. It is in this sense that we can call theology a science, and indeed it is good for us to do so, because it keeps us rigorously dedicated to God as revealed in Christ and not to a god of our own making.
No comments:
Post a Comment