Does Science Contradict Christian Theism?

In 1982, there was a court case concerning the addition of Creation Science in scientific textbooks in the state of Arkansas (McLean vs. Arkansas).[1] Critics of this initiative argued against the inclusion of Creation Science in the school curriculum. They believed that Creation Science necessarily included a belief in God and objected to the inclusion of Creation Science in textbooks on the grounds that the state should not support any particular religious position. Accordingly, the critics of Creation Science argued that science must be essentially atheistic.

Ultimately, the court decided against the state of Arkansas and determined that Creation Science could not be included in school textbooks. This decision was based in large part on the testimony of Michael Ruse, a professor of the philosophy of biology, ethics, and science at Florida State University. Ruse’s testimony included a description of principles which he argued were definitive of good science. These principles, he maintained, were antithetical to what he understood to be the inherently theistic nature of Creation Science.

The criteria of good science as described by Michael Ruse in his testimony are as follow:[2]

1. Scientific explanation “relies exclusively on blind, undirected natural laws and naturalistic processes.”

2. “A scientific explanation may try to explain how one phenomenon follows in a tight and definite way, as a result of the working of natural law.”

3. The explanations of science must be “testable.”

4. The explanations of science must be “tentative.”

But do these principles which Ruse asserts to be the characteristics of good science conflict in any way with a theistic worldview? In his book, The Universe Next Door, James Sire identifies the basic presuppositions which function as the a priori assumptions through which individuals view the world.[3] Here he outlines the presuppositions of the Christian faith, which are as follow:[4]

1. God is infinite and personal (triune), transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign and good.

2. God created the cosmos ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system.

3. Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness and creativity.

4. Human beings can know both the world around them and God himself because God has built into them the capacity to do so and because he takes an active role in communicating with them.

5. Human beings were created good, but through the Fall the image of God became defaced, though not so ruined as not to be capable of restoration; through the work of Christ, God redeemed humanity and began the process of restoring people to goodness.

6. For each person death is either the gate to life with God and his people or the gate to eternal separation from the only thing that will ultimately fulfill human aspirations.

7. Ethics is transcendent and is based on the character of God as good (holy and loving).

And so the question is, is there an inherent contradiction between the presuppositions of the Christian faith and the principles of good science? The thesis of this composition is that they do not. There is no explicit contradiction between the Christian presuppositions of James Sire and the tenets of good science as maintained by Michael Ruse in his testimony in McLean vs. Arkansas.

In order for there to be an explicit contradiction between two propositions, there must exist a “conjunction of a proposition and its negation.”[5] This is not the case when the principles of good science as espoused by Michael Ruse are weighed against the presuppositions of Christian theism. Rather, the coexistence of both sets of propositions is logically possible.[6]

But while it is clear that there is no explicit contradiction between much of what Sire understands to be axiomatic of the Christian faith and what Ruse maintains to be the characteristics of good science, methodological naturalists might object, maintaining that there is a contradiction after all. It might be clear that there is no unambiguous negation between the Christian understanding of the afterlife and the testability of scientific explanations, but there may appear to be a contradiction between the “blind, undirected natural laws” of good science and the sovereignty of God as posited by Sire in the first of his presuppositions. Doesn’t it seem that God’s sovereignty would entail a divine control of these natural laws?

While it is true that the divine attribute of sovereignty does include God’s control of natural laws, Ruse’s description of these laws as “blind” and “undirected” does not conflict with this idea. In his testimony, Ruse explains that “uniformitarianism refers to scientific reliance on blind, unchanging natural laws.”[7] Further, he says that uniformitarianism describes the fact that the natural world is “subject to the same natural laws in the past as in the present.”[8] Thus the characterization of natural laws as “blind” and “undirected” is merely an account of their uniformity. This, of course, in no way conflicts with a Christian worldview.

Ultimately, unless it can be shown that the presuppositions of Christianity contradict the principles of science, then science need not be necessarily atheistic. And not only does it appear obvious that no explicit contradiction exists between science and theism, but it seems that the distinctives of good science are dependent upon the Christians worldview. Ultimately, the uniformity of natural law upon which Michael Ruse says good scientific explanations are dependent, is expected by Sire who presupposes the universe to “operate with a uniformity of cause and effect.”[9]

_________________________

Endnotes

[1] The information included in the summary of McLean vs. Arkansas was taken from “Hoisted Upon Their Own Petard: How Design Science Satisfies the Scientific Criteria as Established by Its Critics,” by Bryan O’Neal, Assistant Professor of Theology, Moody Bible Institute. This paper was presented at the 2005 Midwest Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO which I attended.
[2] Michael Ruse, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1996), 296-301.
[3] James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1997), 16.
[4] Ibid., 23-35.
[5] Simon Blackburn, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, (New York: Oxford, 1994), 81.
[6] A proposition is logically possible when its negation does not entail a contradiction. Ruth B. Marcus, “Possibility,” The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, (New York: Oxford, 1995), 706.
[7] Ruse, 298.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Sire, 16.

Responding to an Objection to the Christian Faith

Excuse me, sir, but your worldview is the worldview in which this problem exists. Perhaps you ought to consider the possibility that the real problem might be your bankrupt worldview.

Christian Worldview, Part V - Ways We Allow Unbelieving Worldviews to Creep into Our Thinking

1. Counseling
Within most Bible-believing evangelical churches in Americaf there are those problems which are perceived as problems that go beyond the church’s capacity to handle. Problems that are often seen by the church as something requiring a professional counselor include addiction, depression, anger, low self-esteem, and a host of other things.

Approaches from the field of psychology are essentially rationalistic conclusions based upon non-Christian presuppositions. In this way they stem out of an unbiblical worldview. For example, while the Christian worldview recognizes the fallenness of human beings, the world of psychology generally believes that we are inherently good and, therefore, have the capacity to do well given the right direction, motivation, and education. Therapy sessions, therefore, in which a therapists seeks to provide this kind of direction, motivation, and education, apart from any requirement of a supernatural change in a counselee’s moral disposition, are viewed as something that will help a counselee to overcome his or her problems. And while this is only one example, it is generally true accrss the board that conclusions within the realm of psychology are the rational outworkings of a series of unbiblical presuppositions. The findings of psychology, therefore, are at odds with the way God has created and ordered things to operate (moreover, the kinds of issues with which psychologists often deal are the kinds of issues about which the biblical authors speak and to which the gospel itself applies).

2. Church Practice
One approach to church that has been successful by some standards is the seeker-sensitive model. As they began thinking about how to establish a church, what was to become Willow Creek Community Church conducted a six-week, door-to-door survey. In this survey they asked people who didn’t attend church, why they didn’t attend. They asked them what church would have to be like in order for them to attend. And the answers they received in this survey served as the basis for the establishment of this particular church.

Now, traditionally, Christians have sought to establish church practice based upon the teachings of Scripture. And while we have embraced different ecclesial forms, different forms of church government, different emphases in worship, and a host of other differences, biblical Christianity has always maintained that the Scriptures are the ultimate authority in church practice. This is because of our worldview—we believe that in order to know something truly that we must look to God to tell us. This is how we come to know things. But the seeker model I just described has actually incorporated something from existentialism in allowing human experience to inform us in regard to church practice.

3. Christian Apologetics
Christian apologetics is something to which Christians are called in 1 Pet 3:15. Peter tells us to always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks us about the hope that is within us. And so Christian apologetics is the discipline which trains Christians to give an answer for their hope—it is the “defense of the faith.".

Now, traditionally, Christian apologetics has taken the form of arguments designed to prove to the unbeliever that the Christian faith is true. On one level, this is legitimate. But as Christians, we should not set our faith aside or adopt non-Christian presuppositions in order to make this happen. Unfortunately, this is what we have often done. We have sought to appeal to the unbeliever’s presuppositions in order to establish the Christian worldview. However, if we are appealing to the unbeliever’s worldview, then we are really just solidifying him or her in unbelief. What we really want to do is overturn the unbelievers’ worldview with the Christian worldview. But again, this isn’t what has always been done.

Christian Worldview, Part IV – Competing Worldviews

Having defined the Christian worldview, I thought it would be helpful to examine some of the ways unbelievers differ in their view of the world. So we'll look at several non-Christian worldviews and I'll suggest a few ways Christians can challenge these unbelieving worldviews from a Christian perspective.

1. Naturalism
Naturalism is a worldview in which it is believed that nothing exists except matter. The natural world, a naturalist would say, is all there is. God does not exist. Human beings are complex machines which have evolved from lower life forms. Life itself is not the product of creation or design, but the product of nature operating in accordance with natural laws.

A challenge for the naturalist: Are laws material or immaterial? In a worldview in which it is believed that only matter exists, there is no room for abstract immaterial principles such as laws. But it seems that if a naturalist is going to appeal to such laws, that he or she must first account for them within the context of naturalism.

2. Empiricism
Empiricists believe that they can come to know things through their five senses. How do you know there is a tree out in the front yard? Well, you go out and look at it. This is the philosophical justification that underlies science. Science depends upon experiments in which hypotheses are tested through observation. And so someone who believes that science is the ultimate criterion of truth is, fundamentally, an empiricist.

A challenge for the empiricist: Given your metaphysic, why do you think your perceptions have objective meaning? In other words, what reason do you have to believe that the information you are seeing, touching, hearing, tasting, and smelling corresponds to any kind of objective reality?

Another challenge for the empiricist: Your five senses provide you with "raw facts." How are you able to interpret those facts? How do you account, for example, for the law of cause and effect? You might observe that the eight ball moves when it is struck by the cue ball. However, how do you know that the eight ball was caused to move by the cue ball?

3. Rationalism
Rationalism maintains that we can come to know things by way of human reason.

Rationalism is often associated with the French philosopher, Rene Descartes. Around the time of the Enlightenment, there was increasing skepticism about morality and the claims of the church. Descartes, who was a Roman Catholic, sought to establish a firm foundation from which he could dialog with these skeptics. And the way he went about this was that he tried to think of something to which he could not raise an objection. He sought a belief which he could not question as a foundation from which he could reason. Is the sky blue? Well, maybe I only perceive that the sky is blue and maybe my perceptions are mistaken. Am I standing in this room? Well, I don’t know, maybe I’m dreaming. And these aren’t necessarily the specific things that Descartes questioned, but this is the kind of thing that he did. What Descartes found was that he could question almost everything. The only thing, in fact, that he found he could not doubt was the fact that he was doubting, whence comes the dictum, cogito ergo sum, “I think, therefore, I am.” The only thing that Descartes could not doubt was that he was doubting. And since doubting is a form of thinking, Descartes concluded that he was thinking. And if he is thinking, he must exist in order to do the thinking. Therefore, he concluded, “I think, therefore, I am.” From there he went on to reason about other things.

This is rationalism. According to rationalism, we can know things ultimately by way of reason. Unlike Christian epistemology in which one’s knowledge is dependent upon God and his revelation, rationalism is a system in which it is believed that we don’t need God to tell us anything. We can figure it out on our own, thank you very much.

A challenge for the rationalist: How do you know your premises are true? Rationalism requires that one accept certain truths before he or she begins to reason. Consider the following syllogism:

Premise 1: Socrates is a man.
Premise 2: All men are mortal.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

In order to accept the conclusion of this syllogism, one must accept the truth of premises 1 and 2. But if all things must be demonstrated by reason if they are to be believed, we must prove premises 1 and 2 before we can accept the conclusion. But in order to accept premises in support of premises 1 and 2, we would have to prove those premises using other premises. Ultimately, unless we begin by accepting something as true apart from reason, this process would continue infinitely and we could never prove anything.

4. Nihilism
Nihilism is a philosophical system which some naturalists have embraced. Nihilists have reasoned this way. If all of reality is composed of impersonal matter, then we really have no reason to believe anything. Our thoughts, experiences, and perceptions, after all, would simply be the result of chemical processes which take place in our brains. Therefore, they conclude (and I think rightly given a naturalistic perspective), we don’t have any reason to believe that our thoughts correspond to any kind of objective reality. Therefore, we can’t know anything.

A challenge for the nihilist: How do you know that we can't know anything? Nihilism is self defeating in that it is a claim to knowledge.

5. Existentialism
Some philosophers found it difficult to live consistently as nihilists. They responded by affirming the truth of Nihilism, but then to they went on to make the moral affirmation that despite the fact that we can’t know anything and everything is therefore meaningless, we must rise above the meaningless and create our own meaning. This, it was believed, was the way out of a hopeless nihilistic. So, within existentialism, human experience becomes ultimate. How can we come to know things? We can come to know by way of our experience. By our experiences, we invent our own meaning.

A challenge for the existentialist: Why rise above the meaninglessness to create your own meaning? Existentialists will fall into arbitrariness as they attempt to answer this question.

Christian Worldview, Part III – The Presuppositions of Which the Christian Worldview Consists

So, we've seen that a worldview is a network of presuppositions that is not tested by natural science and in terms of which all of our experience is related and interpreted. Now I want to spell out the network of presuppositions which make up the Christian worldview. In this I am largely indebted to James Sire and his book The Universe Next Door.

Note that there are basically six questions which will essentially define one’s worldview. Here they are:
1. What is the nature of ultimate reality?
2. What is the nature of the world around us?
3. What is a human being?
4. What is the meaning of reality?
5. Is knowledge possible? If yes, how may we come to know things?
6. What is the nature and basis of morality?

So I want to answer these questions from a Christian perspective and thereby define the Christian worldview.

1. What is the nature of ultimate reality? Answer: The Triune God of the Bible exists eternally (John 1:1; Acts 17:28; Col 1). God exists absolutely and eternally. It is impossible for God to not exist since God’s nature is eternal and unchanging. Note that the Scriptures do not attempt to prove God’s existence, rather they presuppose God’s existence and speak about the implications of God’s existence on our lives.

2. What is the nature of the world around us? Answer: The world is God’s creation and is governed and sustained by his almighty power to operate in a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system (Gen 1-2; Col 1). So, God is the ultimate reality upon which everything else depends. All other things were created and are sustained by God. And as God sustains His creation, he is in sovereign control of it, working all things after the counsel of His will. Things operate in a uniformity of cause and effect, that is, they operate in accordance with the laws God has established. But the universe is an open system, which means that God may step in at any point and supernaturally intervene to bring about His purposes. A deist, on the other hand, would believe that the universe is a closed system. God created the universe and left it alone like a watchmaker who builds a watch, winds it up, and then leaves alone to run on its own. But as Christians, we believe God created the world as an open system; it’s a world in which he supernaturally intervenes.

3. What is a human being? Answer: A human being is a creature who is created by God in His image (Gen 1:26-27). Humans are currently in a fallen state which renders them naturally enslaved to a life of bondage to sin apart from God’s redemptive work (Rom 1-3, 6, 8). Now, what does it mean to be created in the image of God? That we are created in the image of God means that we are like God in certain ways. We have intellect, emotion, and will, we have the capacity to love and to be loved, we are personal beings, etc. But it also means that we serve as representations of God. Consider this example, think of a political cartoon. A political cartoon will often bear the image of a politician in order to portray that politician in a certain light (often a negative light!). I remember one political cartoon here shortly after Obama was elected. It showed President Obama on a platform in a stadium filled with multitudes of people. Behind him there was a great big, red, white, and blue banner that read “The Second Coming.” Now, this cartoon bore the image of Barrack Obama. And in bearing his image, it communicated something about his person (or at least something about the way his person was being perceived). The message was something along the lines of President Elect Obama is being perceived as a savior of sorts. And many, many political cartoons function in this way. They portray those whose images they bear as having certain character qualities or as acting in certain ways. This is part of what it means that we bear God’s image. We represent God—we communicate something about God in the way we conduct ourselves. From a Christian perspective, then, this is part of what it means to be human. We are creatures who bear the responsibility of representing God in the way we live our lives (which is the reason that sin is so serious. When we sin, we are sending the message that this is what God is like. God is a liar. God is unloving. God is unmerciful. This is what it means to be human).

4. What is the meaning of reality? Answer: All reality exists to bring glory to God (Isa 43:6-7, 48:9-11; Rom 9:22-23; Eph 1:4-14). God has created all things for His Own glory. Now, when some people hear this, they think that God must be some kind of cosmic narcissist. But I think this is due to the fact that we impose our status as creatures upon God. As creatures, it is inappropriate for us to seek to the worship of other creatures. As creatures who are both sinful and dependent upon God, we are not worthy of that kind of adoration. But this is not the case with God. God is inherently worthy of all glory. And so it would be wrong in a sense for God to not seek his own glory (if it were possible for God to do wrong!). There is simply nothing higher to which God could aspire.

5. Is knowledge possible? If yes, how may we come to know things? Answer: We are able to come to know things through divine revelation (Ps 119:130; Prov 5:1-2, 22:17-21; Col 2:3; Acts 26:18; 2 Tim 3:16-17). As creatures who are dependent upon God, we must look to him to tell us what to think and how to live. Because we are created in God’s image, we have the capacity for knowledge. Yet all knowledge belongs to God—God knows all things perfectly. Our knowledge, therefore, is a subset of God’s perfect knowledge. We must, therefore, look to God in order to obtain that knowledge. As Paul writes in Colossians 2:3, Christ is the one “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Furthermore, because God is the ultimate authority over his creation, his Word is absolutely definitive. There is no higher authority to which we can look to substantiate it.

6. What is the nature and basis of morality? Answer: Morality consists of thoughts, actions, and attitudes which reflect the character of God (Gen 1:26-27). As we have already seen, we bear the responsibility of living in ways that reflect the character of God. We sin when we fail to live in a way that is consistent with God’s character. And so it follows that God’s character is the basis for morality. Those things that are good are good by virtue of the fact that God delights in them; those things that are wicked are wicked by virtue of the fact that God hates them. This is a Christian understanding of morality.

Christian Worldview, Part II – Defining Our Terms

What exactly is a worldview? The definition I think is most helpful comes from the late Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen says, "A worldview is a network of presuppositions that are not tested by natural science and in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted." Now, this is a formal definition and it has some pretty loaded technical language, but if we break it down I think you’ll find that it’s not as complicated as it might first appear.

First, notice that a worldview is a network of presuppositions. When we speak of a presupposition in relation to a particular worldview, we are speaking of a foundational belief in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted. For example, there are those who have the presupposition that the natural world is all that exists. This is a foundational presupposition about the nature of ultimate reality. Ultimately, such a person would maintain, reality is composed of matter in motion—that’s it. And since this presupposition spells out the nature of ultimate reality—a category about which we must believe something if we are to say anything—then this presupposition is one of the foundational beliefs of a network of beliefs that makes up this individual’s worldview.

Also note that I am referring to the presuppositions which make up a worldview as a “network” of presuppositions. The word “network” connotes the idea that there is some kind of coherence or cohesiveness to the various presuppositions that make up a worldview. So, for example, if you hold the presupposition that the natural world is all that exists, then you would not also hold the presupposition that ethics are transcendent and based on the character of God. Obviously, if you believe that the natural world is all that exists, then you don’t believe in God or any kind of transcendent or immaterial reality. Rather, you would likely believe that ethics is relative. The reason for this is that a worldview is a network of presuppositions that is more or less coherent.

Note in Bahnsen's definition that the presuppositions which make up one’s worldview are not tested by natural science. If there is something which serves as the basis by which a presupposition is accepted or rejected, then that thing is foundational to the presupposition. However, remember that our presuppositions are our most foundational beliefs. Presuppositions are beliefs we accept as true apart from any overarching criteria. They are often ingrained in us through our life experiences, cultures, education, upbringing, etc. And they serve as the overarching criteria by which we understand everything else.

Lastly, note that a worldview is something in terms of which all experience is related and interpreted. As I said in my blog yesterday, human beings are not neutral. We all interpret things in light of what we believe. Our worldview, then, consists of our most foundational beliefs and is the lens through which we understand all of our other beliefs, all of our thinking, and all of our experiences.

Christian Worldview, Part I – The Myth of Neutrality

Often we think that we should have a sort of non-committal attitude towards various truth claims. If something is purported to be true, then we should make an unbiased and objective evaluation of the facts before we come to a decision about the truth of falsity of the claim in question. But while we would agree with this on some level and affirm that we should honestly evaluate the various truth claims that are out there, we should also recognize that our evaluation of these things will not be neutral. We simply cannot put aside our biases and independently make an honest evaluation of something.

The reason for this is that we all have foundational beliefs in light of which we understand things. These foundational beliefs comprise our worldviews. They influence all of our conclusions and it is impossible for us to set these beliefs aside. Consider the following examples. There are those who believe that the events of September 11, 2001 were part of a government conspiracy designed to foster American support for the war in Iraq. There are also those who believe that we didn’t really land on the moon. This was also allegedly a government conspiracy. Now, how might we make a neutral and unbiased evaluation of these claims? Well, you might say, let’s examine the evidence. Let’s look at all of the evidence presented by those who claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy and go check to see if that evidence is in fact there. Or we could go have engineers and scientists examine the blueprints for the rockets and other technological equipment used by NASA on the moon mission to see if it was feasible given the technology of 1969. These are typically the kinds of things we would do to verify these kinds of claims, right?

However, before we would do something like that we need to ask ourselves, why? Why examine the evidence? Perhaps instead of looking at the evidence, we should just flip a coin. That’s one way we could make a decision about whether these claims were true. Now, you might say, that’s just silly! Everyone knows that evaluating evidence is a better way to discern truth than flipping a coin! But if you say that, then you’re no longer being neutral. Rather, you’ve taken the side of the majority. Neutrality would involve an openness as to how to approach the subject. Neutrality would consequently entail that we couldn’t make a decision about whether it was better to examine evidence or flip coins. By insisting upon the use of evidence as the criterion by which to discern the truth of falsity of a claim, one actually embraces a particular bias which says that examining the evidence is a better way to discern truth than flipping coins.

All of this goes to show that if we think that we must set aside all of our beliefs and attempt to make a neutral evaluation of things, then we will have no basis or method by which to evaluate the truth claims in question. We will have set such things aside.

Over the next several days I want to begin to think about what kinds of beliefs we should maintain as Christians as we seek to evaluate claims to truth. What kinds of beliefs should we commend to those who would seek to evaluate the truth of the Christian faith? What exactly should our worldview look like and what kind of worldview should we present to others?

Stay tuned!