I have heard many people lately make the comment that we must be careful to evaluate any truth claim through the lens of scripture, and honestly, I bristle when I hear it. The heart in this claim is that Christians are certain that Scripture is absolutely true truth. Therefore, any claim of finding truth must be evaluated by how it lines up with what we already know to be true.The heart of this statement is understandable. However, it is also a dangerous claim that can lead to ignorance and irrelevance of the truth to the outside world. A Christians claim to truth in Scripture is limited to the scope, intent, and context of that portion of scripture. Culture and perspective play a large role in how one interprets scripture. Does that mean there can be no absolute truth in scripture? Of course not. What it does mean is that our perspective of scripture can and does change over time.
Take for example the resistance of the church to accept Galileo's confirmations that the Earth revolves around the sun. The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."*This statement could be echoed in many current debates regarding science and faith. there are other examples including the use of scripture to back up slavery in the pre-civil war US or our cultural understandings clouding our view of the gospel in other cultures.
My point is that we often attach things to scripture that it perhaps was never meant to claim. For any Christian to say that no facts outside of my understanding of scripture should be considered is a pompous claim to ignorance. If we attach our faith to an understand which is very obviously incorrect due to observable evidence, it makes that faith irrelevant to anyone outside that belief system.
Our actions should not be to ignore all facts outside our understanding, but to hold loosely to our understanding as new facts are learned and find out what the reality must be. If Christ is indeed true, he can handle our inquiries to truth. In fact they will lead us to him ultimately. To deny reality is to deny a way to understand God.
Of course this does not mean we accept all scientific whims of the day and try to fit them into our current worldview. There are many scientific theories that turn out to be absolutely false later. Our role is to evaluate the plausibility of these theories and ask where they might fit (or not fit) into our current understanding of the world – if they warrant it. Often Christians feel I am talking about accepting evolution when I argue this. I am not...necessarily. But rejecting evolution should not be because it contradicts my understanding of scripture (it may), but because I think the theory itself is not extremely plausible given my current understanding and facts I accept. Therefore, I would see no reason to grant it an understanding or assimilation within my current worldview understanding.
This is the route I advise others to take – understand plausibility, understand the facts, and allow it to shape your current understanding if it so warrents. If God is truth, it will only lead to him…while potentially shattering the false beliefs we may be holding onto as truth that were never intended to be truth.
*Janelle Rohr, editor, Science & Religion--Opposing Viewpoints (Greenhaven Press, 1988), p. 24. as cited at www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html#18
6 comments:
but you also have to realize, that there are definitely those out there who try to interpret the scripture based on what they feel is the absolute truth of science. and, as we all know, the pendulum of scientific theories swings pretty darn wide. it's a dangerous, dangerous thing to believe 100% in science and then try to make the scriptures fit around it and in every little crack & crevice, changing what we have understood in the past to fit what modern science deems "fact."
Definitely. And to those people I would ask to read my previous post on the reliability of science. Sciece is only as good as its ability to reflect truth.
But too often the idea of sticking to scripture means we discredit science simply because it can be wrong or can have an agenda. The point I would make there is that sometimes our interpretation of scripture is wrong (and usually has an agenda) and that does not mean we should throw out the truth it may communicate.
I agree with what you say, but in a genuine search for truth - at this point in my life - I'm not sure I could say that we can believe 100% in our understanding of God and Scripture and fit science (or other sources of truth) into that - bold as that claim may sound. Neither a Christian's interpretation of scripture nor scientists interpretation of data are 100% reliable yet it is this presumption that usually leads to these types of statements.
Pretty bold statment. Thoughts anyone?
So, I know that you will bauk at this, but what about the fact that science can only answer the physical and religion the metaphysical. I know that sepparating the two is not always helpful in the quest for "truth" but it does help to realize that science can only look at the created world and cannot make any sort of comment on the world before it was created. The very discipline of science should be limited to better understanding physical evidence, not for use in proving or disproving God (as many scientists have tried to make it). That said, the Bible should also not be read as a book for sciencetific answers. If we look to science for answers about God and the Bible to answers about science we will always be disapointed. Science can say nothing about miracles, prophesy, love, hate, morality... just as the Bible often says nothing about new discoveries. We should not look to prove or disprove God in science, but we should still acknowledge that God uses the natural world to show Himself. Romans 1:20 is a great example of this "For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes-his eternal power and divine nature-have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse." However, seeing God's natural world is not enough to save a man, it is only enough to bring a man into the understanding that there is a God, not anything about who he is (his nature) or anything about His son Jesus. That is why we may only be able to find some sort of general revelation from the created world or maybe from science. But if we want to know about who God is, his nature, his heart, why the world is not a perfect paradise, why sacrifice, why Jesus, why do bad things happen... we need to look at the Bible. Science can maybe point us to the plausabilty of God, but we will never fully find God in science. That is why we have God's word.
Now, I know that you are going to tear this apart, but think of the practical application in this... if you are searching for God, you will find some answers in science but you will never fully find the answers to your satisfaction in science because God's creation is only a sign to point us in the right direction to Him but it tells us nothing ABOUT Him. Make sense? So, if you are really interested in finding God, look at His specific revelation (the Bible) not His general revelation.
Very well stated Mindy. Mike, I've been thinking about your struggle, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems as though you have been challenged in your belief by science and are now looking to science to answer those questions. At some point, faith must play a part. As you pointed out, people literally saw Truth (Christ) and denied it. Faith MUST be acknowledged and faith is actually the answer. Science can only take you so far. Christianity is not a blind faith though. There are answers out there to the tough questions, and when examined, I believe they show Christianity as the "most plausible." I can only hope for you that you find some answers that in the end will only help to strenghten your faith.
Mike n. - I hope that as I put the questions out there, there are people who can continue to help find those answers as you say. Right now, I'm not finding that the answer that Faith...in the sense of you must just believe in the truth of God...can hold up. I feel like I could believe in ANYTHING if I just choose to, but that does not make it right. As I used to use in talking with non-Christians, I can believe that I can walk through the wall. In fact 200 other people could tell me how much I should believe in that and if I just believe I will understand that truth. But nothing will change the fact that I simply cannot walk through that wall.
As for science being my major struggle...I tried to clarify that a bit in my post today. In short it is part of the struggle now because I've began to look at the alternatives to belief in God hoping they would bring me confidence in the plausibility of Christianity, but the heart of my struggle is not with accepting science, but with the invisibility of God.
Mindy, of course I'm not going to tear your ideas apart. I think you make some valid points. The problem is that once you start seperating science and the Bible, any claim that is made from the Bible that Science also attempts to address (such as our current series on Genesis) must be taken as allegory OR it must be taken as fact. If taken as fact, there can be only one truth. At that point it would be up to us to weigh the evidence on which facts are more reliable (assuming a contradiction). Matt said on Sunday that Genesis is written as history, not as poetry alone. If this is the case, any contradiction with the text cannot also be true.
That said, I do agree with your statement that the two - science and religion - address different things. I think there are certainly scientists (Dawkins) who take a combative stance to Christianity that is completely unwarrented...while I believe there are Christians who do the same to science (those I term fundamentalists).
Looking in the bible to find the true answers to my questions...? You are probably right. But if I cannot first establish the plausibility of God...and then the reliability of the Bible as the specific revelation - both of which I am working toward - then reading that revelation alone would only lead to further skepticism.
Post a Comment