ST MICHAEL’S PARISH CHURCH  • LINLITHGOW  •   EH49 7AL

tel - 01506 842188   e-mail - info@stmichaels-parish.org.uk

MINISTER:  REV DR STEWART GILLAN  BSc MDiv PhD

St Michael’s Parish Church is recognised as a Scottish Charity  No SCO16185

Home Page

In this second article I intend to look briefly at what I think are some of the main issues in the faith-science debate, and at the limits of science.

First, there is an approach adopted by many atheistic science writers which is sometimes called ‘reductionism’. Central to this is a view that if science provides an explanation for a phenomenon, then that is the only valid explanation. This attitude has been dubbed ‘nothing buttery’ (‘we are nothing but highly evolved animals/ agglomerations of atoms and molecules/sophisticated computers’, to quote various reductionist views). This approach overlooks the fact that science is limited to studying the physical world.  It can give no grounds for saying that there is nothing in the universe apart from the physical world. It cannot, therefore, deny the existence of God or a spiritual element to human beings; nor can it say anything about the value of other disciplines such as theology or philosophy in studying such matters.

Then there is the related ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy. This is the tendency – shared by many Christians and evident in some of the arguments of the ‘Intelligent Design’ movement – to look for evidence for God’s existence in the gaps in our scientific knowledge. ‘Aha’, goes the argument, ‘but modern science can’t explain such and such’. The problem with this line of thinking is that if it were correct, it would have God constantly on the retreat or shrinking as our scientific knowledge grows. Yet such an approach does no justice to the God of the Bible who, rather, creates, sustains and upholds all of the universe – not just the parts that science can’t explain.

Scientists who are Christians see supportive evidence for their faith in the underlying order and complexity of the universe and in its ‘fine-tuning’ for life (the so-called ‘Goldilocks effect’, in which the physical constants and laws of nature are ‘just right’ for our existence, despite seemingly massive odds against this happening.) Further, there is the remarkable way in which scientists minds are ‘in tune’ with the universe – so that time and again the most elegant and economical explanation, especially in physics, turns out to be the correct one. This provides indirect support for the belief that we are made in the image of the God who created the universe.

Nonetheless, it is clear that different scientists have come to quite different conclusions from the same evidence. It is also clear that science has its limitations, and that we should not look to science alone to prove or disprove the claims of religion. There are several reasons for this. Disagreements between atheistic scientists and Christians often centre upon whether life has meaning and purpose. Contrary to the views of  Dawkins and colleagues, science can contribute little to this debate, such questions being more appropriately addressed by disciplines such as philosophy, metaphysics and theology. Nor can science be used as an objection to the occurrence of miracles (as it often, mistakenly, is). Science is concerned with providing descriptions of and explanations for recurring, repeatable phenomena. It has nothing to say about miracles, which are ‘one-off’ events. Furthermore, science involves taking nothing on trust, constantly testing and re-testing every hypothesis. Faith, however, involves a personal relationship between the believer and God, and involves a large element of trust. Imagine a relationship in which one party is constantly doubting the other and springing little traps just to make sure that the other really cares. We would rightly criticise such a person for a moral failing; not commend them for their logic.

Science does have a limited contribution to make in answering questions about the existence of God and life’s meaning, but we must also look at other evidence. Christians, including scientists, will point to human consciousness and reason, our sense of right and wrong, our appreciation of beauty and, above all, the existence of love, as powerful, if subjective, signs for the existence of a Creator.

Like the findings of science, none of these provides any irrefutable argument for God’s creating role, but this is perhaps to be expected. If we look at what happens in our world, in our lives and those of others, it is clear that individuals respond quite differently to the same events or information. Things that lead some people to turn to God will cause others to turn away. Perhaps we should not be surprised that people draw very different conclusions from the findings of science.

God demands a personal response from each of us; one that involves belief, trust and commitment. We should not expect science (or any other discipline) to prove the truth of Christian beliefs in a way that rules out an individual response. Thus the most important evidence in support of Christian beliefs is inevitably personal and subjective. It concerns the way in which the biblical account relates to our own lives and how we understand the world around us. As CS Lewis once put it: ‘I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen – not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.’ Most importantly, we have the evidence that comes from knowing a living God through the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, in our lives.

Faith and Science

PART 2 - THE LIMITS OF SCIENCE

by Gordon Wardall