Science and Faith

You do a great disservice to both science and the faith of your readers by bluring the distinctions between the two pursuits of humankind.

Science can neither prove, nor disprove the ultimate quest of faith: a personal relationship and understanding of god. After all, the ultimate expression of faith is that it exists in the absence of proof, scientific or otherwise.

Conversely the application of one’s faith in the pursuit of science automatically invalidates the results of the scientific pursuit.

Stated another way, science merely seeks to explain the nature of things that already are, even if part of the explaination is that things are as they are now in part because of the way they were. Science simply reveals to us what is and how it works.

Our faith, on the other hand, tells us why things are.

Finally, the clear deliniation and distinction, of each pursuit is why so many of our greatest scientists have had no problem using scientific tools to advance our understanding of the universe while maintaining their personal faith in God as they know it.

Charles Darwin, Sir Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein have all mastered the understanding that allowed them to be great scientists, great men of faith, and thereby the greatest exemplars of mankind.

You would do well to follow their example.

Aaron Braskin
USA

You do a great disservice to both science and the faith of your readers by bluring the distinctions between the two pursuits of humankind.

Science can neither prove, nor disprove the ultimate quest of faith: a personal relationship and understanding of god. After all, the ultimate expression of faith is that it exists in the absence of proof, scientific or otherwise.

What you are outlining here is the ‘two storeys’ approach. You will not find this approach in the Bible. It is more of an Aristotelian concept, taken further by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas divided his ‘universe’ into two realms, Grace and Nature, illustrated in this diagram, taken from Francis Schaeffer (who was arguing against the approach, as I am).1

This approach is specifically contradicted in the Bible. Jesus said to Nicodemus “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12). The earthly and the heavenly cannot be in conflict, otherwise they cannot both be believed. The Apostle Paul shows that we can learn at least something of God’s nature from what He has created. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

Although our faith is not something susceptible to some sort of scientific “proof,” that does not mean it is irrational, or merely subjective. In Hebrews 11:1, we find that faith is both substantial and evidential: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Conversely the application of one’s faith in the pursuit of science automatically invalidates the results of the scientific pursuit.

Stated another way, science merely seeks to explain the nature of things that already are, even if part of the explaination is that things are as they are now in part because of the way they were. Science simply reveals to us what is and how it works.

Our faith, on the other hand, tells us why things are.

The Bible declares itself to be God’s Word. If that is so, as I believe it is, then where the Bible touches on issues of geology, astronomy, anthropology or biology, I would expect it to be correct. I find the “double-think” approach of believing two irreconcilable opinions to be profoundly unsatisfactory.

Moreover, you say that faith tells us why things are, rather than how they came about. Yet when we read Genesis 1, we notice that nowhere in that passage does God ever say why He created—we simply read the facts of what He did.

Finally, the clear deliniation and distinction, of each pursuit is why so many of our greatest scientists have had no problem using scientific tools to advance our understanding of the universe while maintaining their personal faith in God as they know it.

Charles Darwin, Sir Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein have all mastered the understanding that allowed them to be great scientists, great men of faith, and thereby the greatest exemplars of mankind.

You would do well to follow their example.

Aaron Braskin
USA

The examples you give actually rather prove my point, rather than yours. None of these three men drew any lines between their religious beliefs and their scientific work. Einstein opposed the concept of “uncertainty” because he said “God does not play dice.” Darwin’s gradual move away from Christianity was not the cause or effect of his theory of evolution—the two attitudes were in tandem. As for good old Sir Isaac—he wrote more volumes on theology and the Bible than he did on science. His scientific discoveries were based entirely on his belief in God. He believed that God made the universe in six days, just six thousand years ago. As the world’s greatest ever mathematician, Isaac Newton checked all of Archbishop Ussher’s calculations on the age of the earth, and found them to be sound. So Newton was a creationist, just as I am, just as this website is, and as were Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Pascal … in fact most of the major foundational scientific discoveries were made by creationists. I count it an honour to follow their example.

Paul Taylor, AiG–UK