Christianity and the Scientific Method

I don’t like being called a pseudo-scientist.But that is what I am, according to my philosophy lecturer, who asserts that my views are based solely on an outdated book and run contrary to all the available scientific evidence. I say ‘asserts’ because she certainly hasn’t argued it to her ‘Critical Thinking’ class.Mostly the course has been relatively objective, looking at how to derive the validity of simple arguments, and describing some common fallacies. These last couple of weeks, however, have been significantly different, with a new lecturer speaking on the subject of pseudoscience. It’s funny listening to the intonation of the lecturer’s voice change as she talks about psychics on the one hand, and science on the other. Science and scientists are lifted up to almost divine status, while any belief system purporting to the supernatural is belittled and mocked.A lot of the discussion has been centred on some of the more mystical beliefs people hold, such as astrology, homeopathy and parapsychology, and as such I agree with a lot of the criticisms made. The underlying assumption, however, seems to be that Science is the only avenue to truth, and it is this that I take issue with. The question of whether science has the capacity to answer everything hasn’t (yet) been touched on, instead we just hear time after time that if science says something is true it must be true.I must be perfectly clear, however, that I am not against science as such. I am against science being exulted and, in a sense, worshipped. I am deeply impressed by the scientific method, and believe reason is a great gift to be used to its utmost. It is based on this attitude to the sciences that I have been pondering the following comparison.As far as I am aware, most scientists (religious or not) admit that there are limits to science. Likewise, in theology, we willingly concede that there are limits to what we can know of God. The difference seems to be that we Christians claim to know where the mystery line is, and boldly declare that “that’s something we can’t know until we get to heaven,” or similar such statements. Scientists, by contrast, admit that they don’t know something, but keep working away to see if they can figure it out. To tell the truth I find the scientist’s approach more appealing.Now there is most definitely a place for recognising that God’s sovereign ways are beyond our capacity to understand. Indeed the Bible clearly warns us not to tell God what he should and shouldn’t do, something about clay and potters. My point is not that we will be able to discern everything about God through reason, that would lead to arrogance, I just find ‘the mystery card’ to be a convenient cop-out used by many Christians. Instead I like to think the mystery line isn’t so clearly defined, and that we have plenty of room to exercise our intellectual muscles.One of the things I find most attractive about Christianity is that it is so simple that a child can understand and believe it, while at the same time being intellectually stimulating enough that the greatest mind can ponder it for a lifetime. Moreover, at every step of the way, it is not dry theory but a living reality that satisfies every thirsty soul.

Richard Baxter on Nearly Dying

"All this forementioned time of my ministry was passed under my foredescribed weaknesses, which were so great as made me live and preach in some continual expectation of death, supposing still that I had not long to live. And this I found through all my life to be an unvaluable mercy to me, for...it made me study and preach things necessary, and a little stirred my sluggish heart to speak to sinners with some compassion as a dying man to dying men."(From The Autobiography of Richard Baxter)

Dawkins' God by Alister McGrath

I almost feel guilty for reading another book about Dawkins specifically, and atheism in general. I honestly thought I was finished with him when I put down The Dawkins Delusion! When my brother lent me this book, however, it was an offer too good to refuse.McGrath makes the direction of the book abundantly clear in the early pages: “this book is not a critique of Dawkins’ evolutionary biology. I do not propose to engage with Dawkins’ specific views on the theory of evolution, but the broader conclusions that he draws from these, particularly concerning religion and intellectual history…my concern…is supremely the critical and immensely problematic transition from biology to theology.” Elsewhere he states “the real issue for me is how Dawkins’ proceeds from a Darwinian theory of evolution to a confident atheistic worldview.” Because of this, readers seeking a purely scientific rebuttal of Dawkins’ ideas should turn elsewhere, as this book deals in the most part with the philosophy and history of science, and in particular it’s relation to religion.That said, McGrath devotes a large portion of the first two chapters to providing his readers with a broad overview of the concepts of biological evolution and the history of their introduction. He effectively summarises the influences leading up to Darwinism, and the responses of mainstream theological thought after its conception. In particular I appreciated the section relating to ‘The Religious Views of Charles Darwin.’ In this McGrath offers a fascinating insight into Darwin’s response to his own theory, highlighting its impact in leading him to theism apart from orthodox Christianity. Throughout this early part of the book, McGrath’s purpose is clearly to demonstrate that Darwinism does not, by necessity, lead to atheism as Dawkins proposes, instead:“There is a substantial logical gap between Darwinism and atheism, which Dawkins seems to prefer to bridge by rhetoric, rather than evidence. If firm conclusions are to be reached, they must be reached on other grounds.”McGrath then proceeds to enter into a discussion on the place of evidence in science and religion. This chapter stresses that the Christian definition of faith is one that places a high value on evidence, and consequently demonstrates how Dawkins’ analogies between theism and a belief in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus etc. fall short of reality. McGrath expresses disdain at Dawkins’ personal definition of faith as “blind trust.” Referring to a quote by Dawkins decrying a philosopher’s misunderstanding of his terms, McGrath says:“…is this the same Richard Dawkins who, knowing nothing about Christian theology, rushes headlong into the field, and tells theologians what they really mean when they use their own language? Or that they really mean “blind trust” when they speak of “faith”? There is a total failure on Dawkins’ part to even begin to understand what Christian theology means by its language.”Apart from defending how Christian notions of faith are reasonable, this chapter takes the offensive in investigating whether a Darwinian worldview self-evidently follows from evolution. In this McGrath warns of the dangers of basing a worldview purely on a scientific theory in light of ‘radical theory change in science.’ “If theories are thus subject to erosion, what of worldviews that are based upon them?”The chapter critiquing Dawkins’ concept of ‘memes,’ used to describe cultural evolution, is perhaps the most ‘scientific’ of the book. After giving a very helpful overview of the idea’s development, McGrath proceeds to give plenty of good reasons why it is a redundant concept that appears to have little grounding in empirical evidence and fails to effectively explain cultural trends. This is probably the most conclusive section of the book, however that makes sense given that the meme has always struggled to gain credibility in scientific circles.Finally, McGrath turns again to the relationship between science and religion, discussing the concept of awe and mystery. He well addresses Dawkins’ claims that a theistic view of the universe is truncated and devoid of wonder, arguing that the opposite is the case. Furthermore, he suggests that the unison of science and Christianity leads to a greater sense of awe, operating on a deeper level than that of the purely scientific.In this book, McGrath often takes time to describe the current intellectual climate on these issues. I found this helpful, and a refreshing contrast to Dawkins’ over-simplified generalisations about ‘all scientists being atheists.’ In doing so, however, McGrath risks over correcting and basing his arguments too much on contemporary thought. That is, his arguments sometimes tend towards being along the lines of ‘most modern historians/scientists/theologians etc believe this, so it must be true.’ This criticism is clearly an overstatement, and in reality the vast majority of the book is based on more substantial reasoning, however it is something readers should be aware of.On reflection, what I most appreciated about this book were the various short biographical sketches interspersed throughout. I especially enjoyed reading McGrath’s personal account of his journey from atheism to Christianity, and finding out more about Dawkins’ background. McGrath’s frequent references to momentous scientific works through history gave me more of an insight into the story of science leading to where we are at the start of the 21st century. As such I valued this as much for it’s historical content as for its arguments refuting Dawkins.Dawkins’ God is a well researched, easy to understand book that I’m sure will prove to be helpful to most readers. It is clear that McGrath has striven to be objective in his analysis, and seemed to me to be very fair to Dawkins. At the very least, he comes across as willing to have a constructive debate about the issues brought up. This is not an exhaustive rebuttal of Dawkins, as the conclusion makes plain, however it is intended as a platform for debate, with the goal of “moving the discussion on”. In this role I believe the book is immensely successful, and will be of value to anyone (theist or not) willing to consider its ideas. I liked the almost poetic last words“Some minds on both sides of the argument may be closed; the evidence and the debate, however, are not. Scientists and theologians have so much to learn from each other. Listening to each other, we might hear the galaxies sing. Or even the heavens declaring the glory of the Lord.”

"Sex God" by Rob Bell

If you have seen any of the Nooma series of films, you will know something of Rob Bell’s quirky, understandable and very insightful style of teaching. This book oozes that same tone, and often while reading it I could almost hear his voice speaking the words. As I was expecting, Sex God proved to be a very entertaining and relatively light read.The book is written about the connections between sexuality and spirituality, however I found the definition of sexuality to be somewhat dubious:“Our sexuality, then, has two dimensions. First, our sexuality is our awareness of how profoundly we’re severed and cut off and disconnected. Second, our sexuality is all of the ways we go about trying to reconnect.”Nothing about males and females and nothing related to what is commonly thought of as sex. This definition is based on the fact that “scholars believe that the word sex is related to the Latin word secare,” the root for other words like sect, section, dissect and bisect. This may well be true, but it still seems a counter-intuitive definition, and thus I expected a lot more explanation in its defence. He does point his readers to other books dealing more specifically with the definition of sexuality for those who are interested, however for such a central theme to the book I found it an excessively brief analysis.A result of this broad definition of sexuality is that it leaves the book with a far wider scope than that implied by the title. Readers looking for a book looking purely at sex and God may well be disappointed by this. In my own opinion, this is a minor point, and detracted little from the overall message of the book.That overall message I find hard to define, not because it is poorly written, but rather because it is simply an extended metaphor between spiritual truths and sexuality. As such there are a number of important but otherwise unrelated points drawn from it, and these are well organised into the various chapters (which the titles don’t do justice to). These range from the inherent value of humans, being in the image of God, to considering the strength required for commitment. From the importance of recognising both our spiritual and sexual nature, to the risk God takes in extending his love towards us.Rob Bell’s style, while making ideas readily understandable, is prone to over-simplification. However this is really only a consideration for his secondary points (an interesting example being his description of humans as spiritual beings, where he says “a divine spark resides in every single human being.” This is almost the exact wording my Early Christianity tutor used to describe Gnostic thought), his main ideas seem well explained and his terms defined. But still, those wanting an in depth and thorough investigation of the issues, this book will probably fall short of expectations.There are a couple of cases where I question the validity of the theology of the book. As already mentioned, Bell proposes that God takes a risk in demonstrating his love for us on the cross insofar as we can choose or reject him.“People God [has] made have freedom. Freedom to love anybody they want. And freedom not to love anybody they want. God takes this giant risk in creating and loving people, and in the process God’s heart is broken.”This seems a tricky stance in light of verses that say “we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”.Another controversial idea is that “…God has left the world unfinished. And with every action, we’re continuing the ongoing creation of the world.” According to Bell, the story of creation is a process of moving chaos and disorder toward order and harmony, and so our actions ultimately effect the creation of the world. Perhaps this is just a foreign way (to me) of explaining an otherwise legitimate truth, however something about it seems fishy. This isn’t the forum to fully debate all the theological points made in the book, it will suffice to say readers should be aware of these things.I liked how Bell often expressed biblical truths in light of their historical context. Anyone familiar with the Nooma videos will probably understand this. Bell frequently refers to otherwise obscure passages and fleshes them out with their significance to the original audience, and hence discerning their importance for us today. Through this I learnt a number of valuable things about ancient Israelite society, which will no doubt prove to be of worth in the future. This also provides a good example of reliable exegesis to a readership that often wouldn’t touch many commentaries.Issues of sexuality, commitment and relationships are touchy, and Rob Bell does an admirable job at remaining sensitive to these. The book is helpful and relevant to singles, couples and those with more turbulent backgrounds. While still upholding values such as the importance of commitment, it does so in a manner that is not condescending towards those who have a marred record. Instead it seeks to bring change more by inspiration than by command, and in this I think it has been immensely successful.I very much enjoyed reading this book. Rob Bell has a way of putting things that makes sense and is entertaining. Though the basic ideas were things I already kind of knew, I still learnt a lot from his fresh perspective on life. His writing clearly seeks to uphold a biblical perspective on the issues, while being a refreshingly different way of presenting them. Readers need to be wary of a tendency to over-simplify concepts, and instances where it stands on shaky theological grounds. For the most part, however, I think this book will constructively teach, inspire and enthuse any reader.

"Sex God" by Rob Bell

If you have seen any of the Nooma series of films, you will know something of Rob Bell’s quirky, understandable and very insightful style of teaching. This book oozes that same tone, and often while reading it I could almost hear his voice speaking the words. As I was expecting, Sex God proved to be a very entertaining and relatively light read.The book is written about the connections between sexuality and spirituality, however I found the definition of sexuality to be somewhat dubious:“Our sexuality, then, has two dimensions. First, our sexuality is our awareness of how profoundly we’re severed and cut off and disconnected. Second, our sexuality is all of the ways we go about trying to reconnect.”Nothing about males and females and nothing related to what is commonly thought of as sex. This definition is based on the fact that “scholars believe that the word sex is related to the Latin word secare,” the root for other words like sect, section, dissect and bisect. This may well be true, but it still seems a counter-intuitive definition, and thus I expected a lot more explanation in its defence. He does point his readers to other books dealing more specifically with the definition of sexuality for those who are interested, however for such a central theme to the book I found it an excessively brief analysis.A result of this broad definition of sexuality is that it leaves the book with a far wider scope than that implied by the title. Readers looking for a book looking purely at sex and God may well be disappointed by this. In my own opinion, this is a minor point, and detracted little from the overall message of the book.That overall message I find hard to define, not because it is poorly written, but rather because it is simply an extended metaphor between spiritual truths and sexuality. As such there are a number of important but otherwise unrelated points drawn from it, and these are well organised into the various chapters (which the titles don’t do justice to). These range from the inherent value of humans, being in the image of God, to considering the strength required for commitment. From the importance of recognising both our spiritual and sexual nature, to the risk God takes in extending his love towards us.Rob Bell’s style, while making ideas readily understandable, is prone to over-simplification. However this is really only a consideration for his secondary points (an interesting example being his description of humans as spiritual beings, where he says “a divine spark resides in every single human being.” This is almost the exact wording my Early Christianity tutor used to describe Gnostic thought), his main ideas seem well explained and his terms defined. But still, those wanting an in depth and thorough investigation of the issues, this book will probably fall short of expectations.There are a couple of cases where I question the validity of the theology of the book. As already mentioned, Bell proposes that God takes a risk in demonstrating his love for us on the cross insofar as we can choose or reject him.“People God [has] made have freedom. Freedom to love anybody they want. And freedom not to love anybody they want. God takes this giant risk in creating and loving people, and in the process God’s heart is broken.”This seems a tricky stance in light of verses that say “we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will”.Another controversial idea is that “…God has left the world unfinished. And with every action, we’re continuing the ongoing creation of the world.” According to Bell, the story of creation is a process of moving chaos and disorder toward order and harmony, and so our actions ultimately effect the creation of the world. Perhaps this is just a foreign way (to me) of explaining an otherwise legitimate truth, however something about it seems fishy. This isn’t the forum to fully debate all the theological points made in the book, it will suffice to say readers should be aware of these things.I liked how Bell often expressed biblical truths in light of their historical context. Anyone familiar with the Nooma videos will probably understand this. Bell frequently refers to otherwise obscure passages and fleshes them out with their significance to the original audience, and hence discerning their importance for us today. Through this I learnt a number of valuable things about ancient Israelite society, which will no doubt prove to be of worth in the future. This also provides a good example of reliable exegesis to a readership that often wouldn’t touch many commentaries.Issues of sexuality, commitment and relationships are touchy, and Rob Bell does an admirable job at remaining sensitive to these. The book is helpful and relevant to singles, couples and those with more turbulent backgrounds. While still upholding values such as the importance of commitment, it does so in a manner that is not condescending towards those who have a marred record. Instead it seeks to bring change more by inspiration than by command, and in this I think it has been immensely successful.I very much enjoyed reading this book. Rob Bell has a way of putting things that makes sense and is entertaining. Though the basic ideas were things I already kind of knew, I still learnt a lot from his fresh perspective on life. His writing clearly seeks to uphold a biblical perspective on the issues, while being a refreshingly different way of presenting them. Readers need to be wary of a tendency to over-simplify concepts, and instances where it stands on shaky theological grounds. For the most part, however, I think this book will constructively teach, inspire and enthuse any reader.