KEY DEFINITIONS
1. Science
Definition: The study of the natural world based on observation, experimentation, and evidence. It focuses on explaining phenomena through natural laws and empirical methods.
2. Religion
Definition: A system of beliefs, practices, and rituals centered around the supernatural, the divine, and matters of the soul. It often seeks to explain existential questions like the origin of life and the universe.
3. Miracle
Definition: An event or action that is believed to be caused by a supernatural force, typically God. It defies the known laws of nature and is often seen as a sign of divine intervention.
4. Supernatural
Definition: Anything that exists or occurs outside the realm of natural laws, typically attributed to divine or mystical powers (e.g., miracles, spirits, gods).
5. Natural
Definition: Everything that exists and operates according to the laws of nature, observable and testable by science.
6. Faith
Definition: Belief in something without empirical evidence, often associated with religion. In the context of science, it refers to trusting scientific findings based on authority and evidence rather than direct personal verification.
7. Religion of the Gaps
Definition: The practice of invoking divine explanations for phenomena that science has not yet explained. It fills gaps in knowledge with supernatural causes instead of waiting for further scientific evidence. [Related to God of the Gaps - the idea of using God as an explanation for things science can't yet explain.]
8. Science of the Gaps
Definition: The idea of relying on science to explain phenomena that fall outside current understanding, but without invoking the supernatural. It attempts to fill gaps in knowledge through future discoveries or new theories.
9. Conflict Thesis
Definition: The view that science and religion are inherently in conflict, particularly in areas where scientific discoveries contradict religious teachings (e.g., evolution vs. creationism).
10. Complementarity
Definition: The argument that science and religion can coexist and complement each other, with science explaining the "how" of the world and religion explaining the "why."
11. Testimony
Definition: A statement or declaration made by a witness or expert, often relied upon in both science and religion to establish truth or validity. In science, it refers to the credibility of experimental findings; in religion, it refers to divine or scriptural revelation.
12. Creation Ex Nihilo
Definition: The belief that the universe was created "out of nothing" by God, a supernatural act that cannot be explained by natural laws.
13. Evolution
Definition: A scientific theory proposing that species change over time through natural selection and genetic variation, which challenges certain religious views about creation.
14. Literal Interpretation (of Scripture)
Definition: The belief that religious texts, particularly the Bible, should be interpreted exactly as written, without metaphorical or allegorical readings. This often leads to conflicts with scientific understanding.
15. Idolatry
Definition: The worship of idols or physical objects as gods. In the context of Christianity, it refers to the prohibition of creating and worshipping images or statues as divine.
THE ARGUMENT
Can you say science and religion fit when science can never call a real miracle a miracle?
Religion is supposedly about bringing the supernatural to us and us to it, while science is only about the natural.
One vaunted difference is how God supposedly plants the miracle of love inside us, while science only finds chemical responses and other physical ties. This is supposed to be an example of how we need both to learn and understand.
We are not told how one is guessing/hearsay and the other is not. Nobody really knows if anything is planting the love or what it is. Science says there is always more to what is tested than we will ever know. But that should mean we say, "I'm not sure." It is not a go-ahead to bring in the preternatural or paranormal.
Science would not use the word miracle, but it would call it—
"something that nature cannot explain and which needs further information."
Religion and science cannot really fit together in everything. The fitting, as we have seen, is forced.
There are gaps in both religion and science, but neither should fill the other's void. When science encounters uncertainty, it seeks further explanation; it does not claim divine intervention. For instance, if we couldn't explain lightning and simply attributed it to God’s will, we would be halting progress. Likewise, when religion faces gaps in knowledge, it shouldn't use miracles to fill them.
Filling scientific gaps with religious explanations makes religion appear more credible than it is. Any belief system could do the same; for example, a faith that claims kissing a leprechaun statue every morning will protect you from evil. This is no different than using miracles to explain what science has not yet uncovered.
Both "science of the gaps" and "religion of the gaps" are misleading. While religion may fill science gaps with faith-based ideas, it often rejects science when it tries to fill religious gaps with reason and scientific data.
A book about life in Alaska and one about life in Australia are not necessarily both correct just because one does not contradict the other. The "science complements religion" argument is spoken nearly always by religionists. That is having two disciplines and saying they fit. But you cannot know that.
To avoid science is to be against it. Jesus said that to avoid Him is to oppose Him. The point is that the truth cannot go away, and if you stare the other way, that is opposition to it.
Ask religion if there was a choice between:
Burning all science books
Burning all its faith books
What would it choose? The answer will be that science should go.
Christianity claims that the Bible respects and grounds science, and so it claims to be the one religion that should not be suspected of being a secret or open foe of science.
Science ignores the supernatural. To say something has come from nothing—that it has been created—is supernatural. It is not naturally possible. The Bible teaches that only God can create or make from nothing. The Bible sees creation as a miracle, endorsing a supernatural worldview. The conflict is fatal to religion.
Religion responds that, though science does not deal with the
supernatural, it doesn't refute it. But that is confessing there is
no scientific evidence for the supernatural. So why suppose there is
a supernatural, then? Why take it seriously? And there are liars who
claim that science has proven the Turin Shroud and the Eucharistic
Miracle of Lanciano to be real miracles and truly supernatural! That
is all they are—liars.
The claim that science tells us how things came to be; the Bible (or
religious faith) tells us why is untruthful. The Bible does say how
things came to be. Jesus did not rise from the dead so we could
simply wonder why He did it. The answer to the how of the
resurrection is that God, the master of life, raised Jesus. Acts
2:32: “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses
of it.” The how is inseparable from the why because if God was not
the cause of the resurrection, then the why does not matter.
Believers would read all this and chant, "Science is based on faith too!"
Some believers in Christ argue that what we call science is really just taking the testimony of some scientists on faith. Usually, people believe what Stephen Hawking says, even if they don't read his books or think it through. That is really an abuse of science. Science demands that you try to check them out in your own head.
Some complain, “Why do so many people today insist on adopting a literal approach to Genesis—one that inevitably puts them on a collision course with science?” (Stannard, R. Science & Belief, The Big Issues [Lion, 2012], p. 19). The reason is that they are getting away with it, and when they get support, they feel their opposition to truth is being validated and supported.
Christians say that the fact that the scriptures give evidence that God has spoken doesn’t make them unscientific but shows respect for evidence.
They will say that evidence matters hugely in science, so there is no necessary conflict of methodology.
They will add, "We put faith in what the scientists tell us and trust that they conducted experiments honestly. We just cannot get away from faith, and faith is scientific. The Bible, like science, requires faith. The importance of the Bible is that it gives us a way to ‘divinize’ science and fill it with light and life so that it is not a source of insipid and dry facts." This leads logically to the outrageous conclusion: science is based on testimony, surely the person who grounds himself on divine testimony is the most scientific person of all? God is in a better position to tell us than anybody else. Matthew 6:4: “Your Father, who sees what is done in secret...”
Again, we know from earlier that the testimony of science will always be more dependable than the testimony of the Bible. This is not to say that science is always right. It is because science isn't always right and is self-correcting that it should be taken the most seriously.
Significance of the Bible
God’s word is said to be significant to the people of Bible times, for it developed their knowledge, and thus science was able to take shape. Christians think that God saved us from pre-scientific forms of dangerous and blasphemous religion—for example, the worship of human-type gods. Exodus 20:4-6 has God decree:
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
The Christians are saying that, since statues, for example, are not even alive, we cannot make gods of them. They argue that God opposing idolatry was scientific. That is a stretch!
It contradicts the Christian claim that science and religion are two separate fields and that science cannot disprove anything religious and cannot prove that a statue is not a god.
The believers go as far as to claim that the Bible is the foundation of modern science! Not true! There is no record even of the apostles conducting a commission of investigation to satisfy the skeptics and the scientifically minded that Jesus really rose.
Evaluation: If Bible religion was an improvement on paganism, that is a very weak argument in its favor. Many forms of paganism were civilized and humanistic.
Finally
The Bible was written by ordinary and often poorly educated people, and it shows. Faith in the Bible is anti-science. We are told that faith in science and in Christ are complementary. That is an untruth.
If the Bible is not from a higher being, then it should contradict science. To argue that it is from somebody who knows better than science is to interpret science through the Bible prism. It is to oppose science while making it look like you do not.
The Bible should contradict science. And it does. It does it in attitude more than it does in specific scientific detail. Such vital truths as evolution are not even mentioned. We read about the Virgin Mary having not known man, and the most important truth of all is not even considered worthy of mention. Nobody can say that the Bible approves of evolution. That is only guessing, for it never gives any hint that the fact of evolution is a fact.
Christians may say there is no conflict between religion and science. Surely they know that there are forms of Christianity that differ hugely from one another, and are we to think that there is no conflict between any of these and science? The following has to be shouted, for it is so important:
CHRISTIANS SAY THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN SCIENCE AND CHRISTIANITY. THEY SAY THEY FIT TOGETHER AND COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. BUT IT IS NOT UP TO CHRISTIANS TO SAY THAT BUT SCIENTISTS WHO ARE CHRISTIANS (AND THE FEW THAT ARE DON'T THINK ABOUT RELIGION MUCH OR UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY). THAT YOU HAVE POPES AND THEOLOGIANS SAYING IT PROVES THAT THEY ARE ARROGANT AND UNTRUTHFUL.