Science as true worship, part 2

The truth will set you free

In part 1, we talked about the Christian influence on the philosophy of science and the increasing corruption of science the further it moves from its Christian roots. I identified three significant corruptors of science as:

1. The desire for worldly approval

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

3. The love of money.

Christianity acts as a brake on these corruptors, because encoded in the Christian way of life is the struggle to resist worldly things and to embrace the truth (John 8:32), however difficult it might seem.

As we discussed before, this does not mean Christians are immune to these corrupting influences, and we particularly have to guard against dismissing uncomfortable truths when they appear to contradict a cherished interpretation of scripture. I promised Christians a way to avoid this trap, and here it is.

Have faith and go where the evidence leads.

Do not be afraid of the truth, because the truth will set you free. That’s how you avoid falling into trap #2. If you truly believe God is the sovereign creator of the universe, then careful, honest scientific inquiry can only reveal truths about God’s character.

So, have faith and go where the evidence leads.

How that works in practical terms is up to you. You can take the approach of Georges Lemaître, and compartmentalize your religious and scientific views, or you can take the approach of Gerald Schroeder or Hugh Ross and attempt to reconcile the two. I favor the latter, since that’s what brought me to Christianity in the first place.

In previous posts, I’ve talked about the importance of evidence in science, and how that standard is gradually being eroded. Mostly I have criticized atheists for this, but Christians are guilty of it as well. As Christians, we must not abandon that standard out of a misguided sense of devotion to a particular interpretation of scripture, but rather uphold that standard as being fully in accord with God’s will.

Here is a lesson in the importance of empiricism from an unlikely source:

While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe … and that the sun does not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.

These words were spoken by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who was head of the Inquisition that prosecuted Galileo. Modern intellectuals have excoriated the Inquisition for its treatment of Galileo, but as Dinesh D’Souza commented in his book, What’s So Great About Christianity, Bellarmine’s approach is actually a model of sensible procedure.

D’Souza goes on to say:

Bellarmine assumed that there could be no real conflict between science and scripture, which is what Christianity has always taught. Consequently, he argued, if we have been reading scripture one way and the natural evidence shows that we are wrong, then we need to revise our interpretation of scripture and acknowledge our mistake. But first let us make sure that there is in fact conclusive scientific proof before we start changing scriptural interpretations that have been taught for a very long time.

It’s unfortunate that Galileo’s arguments in favor of heliocentrism were flawed, otherwise Bellarmine might well have been convinced. (If you want to read more about Galileo’s run-in with the church, go here.)

History treats the Church rather unfairly with regard to the Galileo affair, because we know in hindsight that Galileo was right, albeit for the wrong reasons, and we now have no difficulty reconciling scripture with the notion that the Earth moves around the Sun. In Bellarmine’s time, there was no definitive scientific case for heliocentrism, so we can have a forgiving attitude towards him and others like him.

We, however, are at the point where there is a definitive scientific case for a very old universe and Earth. It is time for us to consider the various interpretations of scripture, and understand how an old universe is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Have faith and go where the evidence leads. And here is why you should not be afraid to do so.

Science does not progress in timid little steps, but in courageous leaps. The history of science is full of revolutionaries who had the courage and perseverance to go where the evidence led, and as a result overturned old, incomplete ideas and replaced them with new ones that have given us astounding insights into the workings of the universe and the character of its Creator.

Here are just a few scientists who had the faith to go where the evidence led:

• Copernicus: Overturned the almost 2,000 year-old Earth-centered model of the universe with a model in which the Earth goes around the Sun. The heliocentric model represented the beginning of the scientific revolution.

• Galileo: Demonstrated the importance of observation and experiment in science, and was one of the first scientists to emphasize the mathematical nature of physical laws. He also laid the groundwork for Newton’s laws of motion and Einstein’s relativity.

• Newton: Though he made many important contributions, he is best known for uniting the heavens and the Earth with his law of universal gravitation. Newton’s work represented the closing book end of the scientific revolution, and he is considered the greatest scientist who ever lived.

• Lemaître: Demonstrated mathematically that the universe isn’t necessarily static and eternal, but could be expanding and finite in time. His dedicated work on this idea earned him the title of “Father of the big bang.”

• Planck: Discovered a solution to the so-called “ultraviolet catastrophe” and in the process discovered that energy in particles is quantized. His work kicked off the quantum revolution, and earned him the title of “Father of quantum mechanics.”

• Einstein: With his special and general relativity, he expanded our understanding of gravity and overturned the rigid and distinct concepts of space and time with the concept of a flexible spacetime. Einstein is one the greatest and most well-known scientists of all time.

Note that all but one of these pioneers were Christian. Copernicus and Lemaître were both priests, and Newton wrote more about theology than anything else he wrote combined. Einstein, though not Christian, characterized his immense curiosity about the natural world as “wanting to know God’s thoughts.”

Our faith equips us to be courageous (Eph 3:12). So let science be true worship.

If we reject science altogether, we abandon one important avenue of worship of God. If we embrace science, then the question is whether we worship God or something else when we engage in and with science. If we abandon empiricism and place anything ahead of the search for truth, we worship something other than God—the world, self, money, or wherever else our hearts are trying to lead us. But if we embrace empiricism and go where the evidence leads, we worship God.

We will discuss the ways in which science is currently being corrupted in Part 3.

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