As Christians we are... immersed in this scientific culture and yet God’s Word communicates to us from very different cultural contexts. 
Posting about religion and science­­­­­­­­ from In All Things - an online hub committed to the claim that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has implications for the entire world.
http://inallthings.org/models-of-the-interaction-of-science-and-religion

Jelsma, Tony N.

English

Dordt College

Digital Collections @ DordtFaculty Work: Comprehensive List6-24-2015Models of the Interaction of Science and ReligionTony N. JelsmaDordt College, tony.jelsma@dordt.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_workPart of the Christianity Commons, and the Philosophy of Science CommonsThis Blog Post is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Work:Comprehensive List by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact ingrid.mulder@dordt.edu.Recommended CitationJelsma, Tony N., "Models of the Interaction of Science and Religion" (2015). Faculty Work: Comprehensive List. Paper 276.http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/276Models of the Interaction of Science and ReligionAbstract"As Christians we are... immersed in this scientific culture and yet God’s Word communicates to us from verydifferent cultural contexts."Posting about religion and science from In All Things - an online hub committed to the claim that the life,death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ has implications for the entire world.http://inallthings.org/models-of-the-interaction-of-science-and-religion/KeywordsIn All Things, religion and science, God, creationDisciplinesChristianity | Philosophy of ScienceCommentsIn All Things is a publication of the Andreas Center for Reformed Scholarship and Service at Dordt College.This blog post is available at Digital Collections @ Dordt: http://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/faculty_work/276Models of the Interaction of Science and Religioninallthings.org /models-of-the-interaction-of-science-and-religion/Tony JelsmaThis is post #1 of 1 in the series “Religion and Science - A Reformed Perspective”A series exploring the interactions between religion and science.We live in a scientific age. The impacts of science and technology are all around us, from the ubiquity ofcell phones, to amazing progress in our understanding of the creation, to life-saving advances in medicaltreatments. As Christians we are also immersed in this scientific culture and yet God’s Wordcommunicates to us from very different cultural contexts. As a result, it can be a challenge to connect whatwe know about God from his Word to our present scientific understanding.A frequent perception held by the general public is that religion and science are at odds; that science hassupplanted religion. However, this perception has not always been the case. The warfare model of “religionversus science” that is prevalent today was largely influenced by Andrew Dickson White’s 1896 A Historyof the Warfare of Science wtih Theology in Christendom. However, John Hedley Brooke’s more recent in-depth study Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives points to a much more complex array ofinteractions. Religion often had a cordial relationship with science, even stimulating scientific advances.Ian Barbour, in his Religion in an Age of Science , describes four types of interactions between religion andscience. These types form a spectrum of increasingly favorable interactions between religion and science.While my experience has been that the interactions of religion and science do not always fit into neatcategories, I do find them to be a helpful starting point.ConflictThe Conflict model assumes that religion and science are incompatible and that only one of these is alegitimate source of knowledge. We are familiar with the militant atheist-types like Richard Dawkins, whoderide any kind of religious sentiment. For them religion is a delusion and the only true knowledge isscientific knowledge, which is subject to testing and objective analysis. However, what Dawkins and otherslike him do not acknowledge is that everyone is religious in some way. Roy Clouser argues convincingly inThe Myth of Religious Neutrality that anything that is assumed to be true without question is therebyreligious. Thus, Dawkins’ naturalistic perspective is in itself religious.It is easy to see how people like Dawkins hold to the conflict model of “science versus religion”, butBarbour argues that biblical literalists do the same. For them the Bible is the only source of truth, andscientific knowledge must be interpreted in light of what the Bible says. If there is any perceived conflict,Scripture trumps science. One might even quote Romans 3:4, “Let God be true and every human being aliar.”IndependenceThe late paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould, coined theterm NOMA in his book Rocks of Ages . NOMA stands for Non-Overlapping Magisteria, which argues thatthe domain of science is the study of objective facts, while the domain of religion is that of personal values.In other words, science deals with the “what” and religion deals with the “why.” Thus, they cannot conflictbecause they have different functions.However, as Nancy Pearcey pointed out in her book Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its CulturalCaptivity consigning religion to the values domain strips it of any factual basis because it is only tied to anindividual’s personal beliefs. When they appear to be in conflict on a particular question, objective sciencewill always win out over subjective religion, leaving religion with nothing to contribute.DialogueThe dialogue position is a modification of the independence view and holds that religion and science aremostly separate, but acknowledges that in some cases an explanation in one field will have implications forthe other. Sometimes the two perspectives may inform each other, but there may also be conflicts.Perhaps these two examples will help illustrate this position.While the Big Bang is understood to be a scientific theory of the origin of the universe, it has theologicalimplications. A beginning suggests a Beginner and some (Christian apologists) argue that this is evidencefor God. Others try to avert the theological implications of the Big Bang by postulating a Big Crunch, wherethe universe would collapse in on itself and subsequently produce a new Big Bang, meaning the world didnot have a beginning after all.Second, a miracle is a unique event that God uses for special purposes. As such, a miracle is religious innature. However, if a miracle really did happen, then there could be “scientific” evidence that it occurred.While one should be careful in asserting that miracles can be scientifically studied, since by definitionmiracles are unique, miracles are also real events.IntegrationThe final position that Barbour describes is an integration position. In this view, both religion and sciencehave authority to reveal truth. Moreover, the two perspectives are inextricably intertwined. One’stheological perspective shapes how one uses and interprets science, but science also influences how weview God and his revelation and actions in the world.Each of these views has its merits, but also its drawbacks. Tomorrow, we will investigate those in moredetail. For now, I just wanted to establish clear understandings of these four positions as a baseline for therest of our conversation.

Models of the Interaction of Science and Religion

https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&amp;context=faculty_work

Models of the Interaction of Science and Religion

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Dordt College