The origins How do we relate the claims of science, scientific theories with the claims of religion and religious doctrines? How can we build this? How to think for example, about the relationship between natural laws and divine action?
Or how do we relate the Christian doctrine of creation to the standard cosmological model. THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHRISTIAN FAITH AND SCIENCE IN BRAZIL People try to disseminate the point of view where theology always restrained science. In the Post-Reformation period, especially within Protestantism, it was the other way around: most of these people were not holding assumptions that denied God, instead, they were holding assumptions perfectly compatible with the viewpoint that the Universe had an origin, a design.
. . The greatest battlefield between Science and Faith is surely biology.
I think there is no doubt about it. The greatest leaders of the battle against faith are either biologists or make use of biology. For me, it is a matter of scale: what is the point point in arguing about the emergence of life and neglect or forget the origins of the Universe.
For me, the emergence of life is contained within the emergence of the Universe. I believe it is there where Science and Faith converge; it is where everything started. A classic example to be presented in this regard is the issue about the Big Bang's cosmology, which, whilst cosmology, is a purely scientific issue; but the fact that the present cosmology has shown that the Universe had a beginning, (which involved the creation, not just of things, but of space and time themselves) naturally raises a question mark about what could have triggered this process of the emergence of the Universe.
So, it is natural for us to start from physics, for example, and reach metaphysical questions. "I do not acknowledge a conflict between faith and science (. .
. ) Every science in a certain degree starts from faith, and, on the contrary, faith, which does not lead to science, is mistaken faith or superstition, but real, genuine faith it is not". Abraham Kuyper Peter Harrison is a very prolific historian of science and, along with others such as John Hedley Brooke or Stephen Gaukroger have shown that in the beginning of modern science, we find religion playing a very important role.
It is common today to find intellectuals, whether religious or Christians using Science to try to demonstrate the rationality or the truth of religion. But, actually, science was initially legitimized and gained positive cultural sanctions when it was accommodated to projects of Natural Theology of that time. In other words, projects to justify the study of nature based on the devotion to God, based on Christian doctrines and faith.
"I wanted to be a theologian; for a long time I was unhappy. Now, behold, God is praised by my work even in astronomy". Johannes Kepler The account of the creation in Genesis is not even a question of saying what the text intends to say; firstly, you must know what it is actually saying.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth The earth was. . .
and everyone says "formless and void", because thais is what our translation does. That's a borrowing that came through the Septuagint these are words that in every other place where they appear they mean "inhospitable, not suitable for human dwelling, not good for men, not a good place. " Now tell me that this does not change the way of interpreting what is written there.
One thing is what the Bible says, another is what "we" say that the Bible says. When we accept that our interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily a synonym of what the Bible says, we can review our claims in the light of what Science can help us understand. On the other hand, Science insists to claim things that the Bible claims the opposite.
And we should say; "science is the current state-of-knowledge," is what we know so far; so, what we know so far seems to contradict what the Bible says. But, as science progresses, it can be surprised. .
. We need to bring the Bible closer to science without merging them. I believe that the word of God and modern scientific theories should be seen as rails that should be close enough so that the train of existence runs through them but not so close or too far apart that would make the train derail.
"Idolatry means turning a good thing into an ultimate thing. " Tim Keller A scientist needs to build a career, a name, but a Christian needs to remember that he is not defined by his work, his name or his career or his academic resumé. But there is a pressure to be an active Christian, someone engaged in a local church and at the same time a scientist who devotes time and is actively trying to develop his research and to contribute to knowledge.
In order for me to be a good Christian engineer, I need to understand how these two things ride along and communicate with each other because out of the interaction between technology and Christian faith there may also be conflicts or apparent contradictions. For example, how can I exploit the resources of our planet to exhaustion? Or pollute water sources for example, without taking into account something that is trending today, which is sustainability?
How can I develop a cell phone and not consider the social impacts? Every scientific work requires an ethical framework. I can use atomic energy to explode a building or to explode a cancer.
There are broader issues such as: what is the place of the scientific field in an unfair society? Is science accountable for poverty? How do we relate Human Sciences and Natural Science in this regard?
So, there is an array of ethical questions and if we can discuss these ethical questions with both the information that comes from faith as well as the information that comes from science, then, we will have an enriched discourse. "Discovering to others the perfections of God displayed in the creatures is a more acceptable act of religion , than the burning of sacrifices or perfumes upon his altars. The rational contemplation of nature is the philosophical worship of God.
" Robert Boyle Robert Boyle, for example, or Nicolaus Copernicus and mens like Kepler, for instance, or Isaac Newton, considered that their scientific work had also a spiritual meaning. So, for them, it was easier to connect these things. But, due to a series of historical reasons, certain developments of Christianity in Modernity adopted a very antiscience stance.
But we see this also in the university context. There is a prejudice against religion. .
. In my point of view, one of the trends that is very strong is the trend to try to ban religion from public spaces, trying to confine religion to a private circle and this is a disastrous trend for the dialogue. For science is produced within the public circle.
So, if religion is confined in a private sphere, there is simply no dialogue. And there is a second trend as well, which is also very strong, which is to match the religious with the irrational. Actually, to be frank the trend is to believe that a person can only be religious if she is not intelligent, or to think that in the 21st Century, there is no reason for someone to think about religion unless for stupidity or for an unsatisfactory intellectual development.
The Enlightment tradition in Brazil ended up expelling theology from the university space and, in turn, the revenge of theology tries to place science as something subordinate and we all lose with this. This defamiliarization happens either by pure prejudice from the scientist himself or the theologian by saying "there is no dialogue", or, sometimes, it happens due to an inadequacy to know how to deal with the issues and the results of each one of those sciences due to ignorance. Maybe a theologian is so focused on his|her disciplines and matters of the theological realm - and, likewise, the social scientists or philosophers, - that they end up not being competent enough to deal with those issues.
We need to learn to dialogue with respect. Sometimes I would say that religion does not dialogue with respect insofar as it does not take seriously the other one and it does not take seriously the calling of others and it does not take seriously the creation itself. And what we notice is that the scientific world considers itself autonomous.
They consider themselves above God, so to speak. So it is an idolatrous world and, therefore, it does not allow any kind of approach and dialogue with other religious expressions. One think that the other cannot speak truth, or cannot discover things that are true.
This is risky and dangerous you are saying: "I own the truth and only my field can discover true things about the world. " This is not true! I would say that people need God and people also need science.
And science has its place in making life work. So we need to respect each field. Kuyper said that, there is not a square inch of life over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry “Mine!
”. And if there is not a square inch in life over which Christ will not say “Mine! ”, this includes science and knowledge.
Christ is sovereign over everything, including knowledge and the production of knowledge. So, on our part, there is a conviction that knowledge is, not just possible, but necessary for us to have a scientific knowledge of the world that is built upon the assurance of God's existence and upon the assurances that the Scriptures affirm as real. "Our belief in a transcendent Creator mandates a distinct perspective for the interpretation of every aspect of life.
And this distinct perspective extends to the construction and interpretation of philosophical, scientific, and all other theories because there is no area or issue of life which is neutral with respect to belief in God. †Roy Clouser In Brazil, there is still a gap between science and faith. People believe that a scientist cannot be a Christian nor a Christian can be a scientist.
So, when people say or when I say that I am a Christian and yet I am a scientist, people look at me with a certain astonishment. We have seen very important people in the field of science with world-renowned works that at the same time, are deeply spiritual and deeply devoted to their faith. One easily recognizable example is Francis Collins, who was the head of the government's section of the Human Genome Project in the United States.
For many years, during the government of President Obama in the United States, he has been the General Director of the NIH, National Institute of Health, which is a position of someone who manages, maybe, the largest budget on the planet in the field of biomedical research. Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible.
So let us together seek to reclaim the solid ground of an intellectually and spiritually satisfying synthesis of all great truths. " Francis Collins What we end up developing due to a lack of incentive within these contexts of seminary and church is precisely a schizophrenia of Christian people who, within the universe of the seminary and the church, he|she thinks about Christian issues with a Christian view and, when he|she thinks about non-Christian issues, he has a switch that he|she has to change and it is as if he|she had changed his|her worldview and now his|her way of seeing is changed, because he|she understands that is incompatible for these issues to be dealt within a Christian view. I believe there is a tension there, one that is cultural and historical.
We live this tension because religion in Brazil is on the same level as politics and soccer: we do not discuss it! So I do not discuss it, do not listen to other arguments and live a life in which I do not mix these two things, even if I am a Christian scientist. It is common to find Christian scientists who work from Monday through Friday as if faith did not exist; then, on Saturday and Sunday, they put on the assumptions of their faith and live their Saturday and Sunday as if science did not exist.
To be presuppositionally aware and to openly recognize the assumptions of faith that orientates me, that does not make me just a better Christian, that makes me a better scientist. A lot of people disagree, they believe that I should enter the lab and hang all my assumptions outside. Then I reply saying that "you cannot do it just as you cannot leave your skin or heart outside.
. . it cannot be done.
You dwell in the universe of your assumptions". "It is for the covering up of ground motives, not for their content, that a Christian philosopher must reproach his humanistic opponents. " J.
P. A. MEKKES Sometimes we listen people saying: "I would like to make an integration between faith and my field of knowledge".
I remember that during the 70s and 80s I was young and I listened to people saying that they wanted to make an integration between psychology and faith in a school of thought named "Integrationism". And I remember that, one day, I learned something while listening to a guy named Larry Crabb (who was a teacher of my father and, as a teenager, I listened to some of his lectures). He used to say that the hard part is when you want to make an integration between psychology and theology, but either you come for the integration with a Ph.
D. in psychology and a theological knowledge of Sunday school, or with a Ph. D.
in theology and a knowledge of psychology from a self-help manual. It is never going to work, let us be realistic. It is very common to see an “expert discourse” attitude, that discourse that forces all others to be silent.
And, surely, this does not promote any dialogue. It is not you agreeing with someone, but tolerance is your ability to disagree until the end and at the same time giving the right to the other to present his|her thought and respect the realm of scientific discussion as the realm in which the diversity of arguments is vital. What we should never do is to create a sort of encapsulated knowledge; in other words, having an education that pertain to only one thing and stay encapsulated inside it, without the ability to transit, talk and listen.
And, even when you have no idea of what is that about, to be humble enough to listen, trying to understand. . .
It is important for this conversation to have a superior quality and to be carried out by people that know the discourses of both fields and are interested in the relationship between them. So, I believe that the conversation between the scientific and the religious fields cannot be only about theories. it's the rapprochement of dynamics, values and people.
The agenda is not to create a Gospel Science, it is not to create a science “owned” by a religious group, it's not about this. Neither to swallow the scientific field nor to subversively adapt faith. It is about a conversation that recognizes limits and differences as well as the sovereignty and autonomy of each field.
We lack this kind of dialogue. And, in our seminaries, I would say we lack training for this dialogue because, since we end up having a training too much oriented towards our doctrine, our denomination, to my church, our church, we end up not looking at these different realities of the human life. This is why, unfortunately, we find pastors who will welcome young students (that will study biology, for example) and they arrive with lots of questions.
Those very hard question like, for example: "Pastor, what do you think about the theory of evolution? " And the pastor, instead of dealing with the subject, since he knows nothing about it, he simply tells the kid: "go and pray! " But sometimes this kid will not pray, this kid will go on reading and we will end up losing this kid from our religious context, not because of science, but because of ignorance.
"The rational ordering of creation is directly correlated with the incarnation, so to study creation is to study the same logos that was incarnated in Christ, and which has also shaped the contours of human rationality. Human reason, creation and Christ are thus interlinked and interlocked through their relationship with the divine logos". Alister McGrath Indeed, as John Templeton himself stated, religion and science are two essential fields of power within the culture.
And these bridges, reconciliations and dialogues between these two fields must be fertile, with a mutual understanding, because there is a certain fundamentalism in both fields, we see that. But nowadays the Christian community lacks a more positive view of science a view that is more reconciled with what science can produce in terms of potential for the human culture, for human life, by increasing human dignity through the products and knowledge that is produced. In the daily life of scientific and technological production, we are faced with questions, to which we need help answering, we need a community where we can share these experiences, we need to be in touch with people who have already been through that.
We need a material, designed by serious Christians and people who are gifted in this area, and that are prominent in their professional practices, in their exercise as scientists and technology developers, who can share an accomplished journey through this field. We need a “bridging” community, or “bridging” communities, to provide this translation and do it in a responsible way. So that science does not overstep the dimensions of life where faith is better suited to explain, but, likewise, that faith does not overstep or cause any damages and impoverish the scientific field.
To create a common and respectful space where scientists and Christians involved with science may seat and talk at ease, breaking the pattern of tearing the Bible on one side or burning the scientist on the other side. To produce or provide knowledge in several fields of expertise, which is a result or born from an interpretation of a Christian view or worldview of reality. If Christian faith is grounded on reality, it speaks to the whole reality.
And, in this regard, it does have an answer, which oftentimes will not be a direct one, it will have to be built from the Scriptures and from the experience of the Christian community, and it will have to be spoken out not by individual voices, but from a group reflection, in collaboration, that, in its diversity, starts to find a unity of speech around the Scriptures. The project or the initiative to have a Brazilian Association of Christians in Science does not have as a goal the absolute uniformity of opinions, neither about doctrines, Christian theology, nor about science. It is not in our interest to silence the dissenter, so we really hope that there will be space for renewal.
The idea of creating the Brazilian Association of Christians in Science is to establish a high-level forum so that these questions may be addressed the way they should be addressed. With seriousness, depth, with the necessary philosophical, theological and scientific basis. This dialogue and this bridge, have a very rich and important role for the church of the 21st century and for the church going through this moment that we are living today to help Christians to have a deeper understanding of what they believe and the implications of what they believe in every aspect that implicates life, relationships.
. . Think about it: large portions of society will follow what the scientists say, but large portions of society will follow what the religion says.
So if we are able to talk and say things that are concurrent and coherent and if our discourse can gain more resonance, then we might have very positive results for a country, for a city and for the world. We need it, it is time and I believe this has the potential, not just to help the church, but, in the name of the church, help to shake the Brazilian scientific and academic community. "The Gospel itself can never be fully known till nature as well as man is fully known; and that the manifestation of nature as well as man in Christ is part of His manifestation of God".
F. J. A.
HORT We have people today in Brazil interested and qualified to do it, people that are not interested only in defending the Christian faith, and many people know me for this interest, but there are lots of people interested in defending the scientific tradition as well and in defending the scientific institutions and their relative autonomy, their appreciation, the need for financing and respect for this field. And we really need this nowadays. There are places in the world where to talk about principles of faith within the academy is natural and, likewise, to talk about science within the church is natural.
My wish and prayer is that, someday, we may talk about these things naturally in Brazil.
