Science as true worship, part 1

The Christian basis for the philosophy of science

Isaac Newton

Many years ago when I was a grad student, I had a conversation with a biology grad at another university. We talked about evolution, and when I brought up what I thought were some problems with neo-Darwinism, I expected him to push back. Instead, he told me that biologists were well aware of them. I was taken aback, because I didn’t remember hearing about this in popular science news. When I asked him why biologists weren’t publicly acknowledging these problems, I was floored by his response: “We don’t want to hand a victory to Christians.” It was one of the most unscientific things I’d ever heard. And yet, in a way, I understood what he was saying.

The popular media doesn’t often do justice to actual science news, and when it does, this news is often deliberately or inadvertently misunderstood by people who have strong emotions about certain scientific ideas. For instance, when recent observations using the James Webb Space Telescope pushed back the timeline for the formation of the earliest galaxies to a point that’s uncomfortably close to the big bang, some people seized on that to announce that the big bang had been disproved (it hadn’t). This sort of thing is annoying and unhelpful for the advancement of knowledge. Still, that didn’t stop astrophysicists from loudly announcing their eyebrow-raising new result and opening up the discussion. This should be an example for all scientists to promote the truth even when it will provoke an unpleasant response.

Unfortunately, the dogmatic and unscientific approach to conducting and discussing science is becoming more prevalent the more science becomes divorced from its Christian roots. It also trickles down to the popular level, especially with the “I f—ing love science” crowd. These are the people who neither understand how science works nor respect its limitations. You can often recognize them by the way they declare a theory is a “fact” or say that the science is “settled” or refer to anyone who questions popular sentiment as “irresponsible” or a “denier.” This crowd was the driving force behind the heated response sociologist Mark Regnerus received after publishing the results of a controversial study on same-sex parenting about ten years ago. What should have been a considered discussion about an important topic ended up as a scientific food fight.

But it’s not just the science fetishizers. Many people, even some who practice science, fail to understand that science is not merely a body of facts and explanations, but a system of knowledge held together by a particular worldview. This is what’s referred to as the philosophy of science.

From Wikipedia:

Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.

However, we can express it more simply:

• The purpose of science is the search for truth about our material universe.

• Any discipline or process that follows all of the available evidence counts as science.

• The scientific pursuit of truth is based on the faith that our universe (including our own minds) operates according to natural laws.

• Everything else is elaboration and details.

I’ve previously discussed the Christian foundation of modern science, which consists of three core principles:

1. Christian belief: the utterly counterintuitive biblical notion of linear time.

2. Christian faith: faith in a deliberately ordered and knowable universe created by a rational being.

3. Christian purpose: the obligation to test every claim; an obligation to understand God through study of the natural world.

There would be no modern science without #1 and #2. It could perhaps be argued, in principle, that while #3 did in fact play a significant role in the development of modern science, it was not absolutely necessary. In practice, however, I believe #3 is as essential as the first two.

It is an undeniable fact that the great pioneers of modern science were mostly Christians who wanted to know the mind of God. From Mitch Stokes’ biography of Isaac Newton:

For Newton, “To be constantly engaged in studying and probing into God’s actions was true worship.” This idea defined the seventeenth-century scientist, and in many cases, the scientists doubled as theologians.

I am not saying a person has to be Christian in order to be a good scientist. Just as you can have moral individuals who aren’t religious, you can have good scientists who aren’t Christians. But by the same token, just as you can’t have a thriving moral society without religion, you can’t have a thriving scientific culture without Christianity.

As with any institution, the continued survival of science depends, not on the beliefs and conduct of a few individuals, but rather on the overall vigor of its culture. Science that is mostly practiced by people who believe what they are doing is a form of true worship of the Person who created the universe is less susceptible to corruption than science that is mostly practiced by people who are motivated by other considerations.

There are many reasons science can go off the rails, but history and human nature tell us that the three greatest corrupting influences on science are:

1. The desire for approval. Sometimes this is to gain social acceptance or accolades, but it’s also sometimes necessary to maintain employment or funding.

2. The desire to cling to a cherished idea or worldview.

3. The love of money.

Christians are not immune to these corrupting influences. We are all fallen and we live in a fallen world. But a sincere desire to understand the mind of God is far less likely to lead to corruption than a desire to win someone’s approval or to get a lot of money. Christianity is necessary to resist this corrupting influence, not because Christians are inherently better people, but because the struggle against the desire for worldly things is coded into the Christian way of life.

But how do Christians guard themselves against the desire to cling to a cherished idea? No matter how principled you might be, it is still possible to fall into the trap of ignoring uncomfortable facts and conclusions because they seem to contradict your favorite interpretation of scripture. However, not surprisingly, all it takes is faith to avoid this trap.

In Part 2 next week, we’ll look at a lesson in good science from an unlikely source, some of the great Christian revolutionaries in science, and where science is falling into corruption. (Update: Part 2 is here.)

This is an updated and edited repost of an article originally published on my old blog.