 |
| Does Science Disprove Christianity? |
|
Does Science Disprove Christianity?
Highlights
Research shows that scientists are as likely to be believers, and active in church, as anyone else. There’s a reason for that. The philosophy of science suggests that religious questions cannot be investigated scientifically. Science can show that those who are active in their religion tend to be happier and healthier—mentally and physically—than other people. It can confirm many of the events mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. What it cannot do is to verify—or disconfirm—the truth of basic religious teachings.
The statement “there is no God” is not a scientific statement.
Neither is the statement “There is a God.” Science deals with statements about the universe, but the Christian God is said to be outside (or "above," or "beyond") the universe.
According to philosophers of science like Karl Popper, scientific statements must make predictions that can be checked against the facts, and they must be capable of being disproved. Consequently, if we want to make the claim that science supports the “No-God Hypothesis,” we need to see if it meets Popper’s criteria. What empirical predictions could be examined to distinguish between the God Hypothesis and the No-God Hypothesis? And what findings would invalidate the No-God Hypothesis? If the No-God Hypothesis cannot be falsified, and no testable predictions distinguish it from the God-Hypothesis, then it is not a scientific theory.
If We Can Explain Creation, Can We Rule Out A Creator?
Some critics of Christianity have argued that the complexity and apparent design of the universe can be explained without recourse to a Creator, by using concepts such as evolution. And, they argue, since we have an alternative to "the God Hypothesis," we ought to abandon that hypothesis.
There are a few problems with this line of reasoning. First, the case for a complete "alternate explanation" hasn't yet been made. It is not enough to show how complex life forms could have arisen from a "chemical soup;" you need to explain the origin of the soup--matter, energy and the laws of physics themselves. At present, the facts point away from a universe that has existed forever and towards a universe that came into existence at a particular point in time—a view which many think resembles the Biblical account.
Second, the "God Hypothesis" wouldn't be automatically invalidated by even a complete alternative explanation for Everything. The existence of an alternative theory doesn't automatically rule out the original. Finally, as noted above, we would have to ask what empirical predictions distinguish the God Hypothesis from the No-God Hypothesis.
Can science disprove scripture?
It is true that scientific discoveries might make a particular interpretation of scripture more or less probable, but that wouldn't necessarily invalidate the verse itself. St. Augustine, a prominent Christian theologian, said in the Fifth Century that no one should read the scriptures to learn facts about the natural world that were not required for salvation, and "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it." Many other theologians have made similar comments.
In other words, even if the Bible is considered to be infallible, we aren't. And neither are our interpretations of Scripture. Christians are not expected to disregard reason or facts.
It might be possible to confirm or disconfirm some minor details from the Bible, but that would say little about the basic teachings. Luke says that, when Christ was born, a man named Quirinius was governor in Syria and Herod was king of Judea. Early evidence suggested that men with those names were governor of Syria and king of Judea respectively, but not at the same time. Consequently, some people argued that Luke's entire Gospel was discredited. But more recent evidence indicates that a second man named Quirinius was indeed governor while Herod was king, so other people are tempted to conclude that Luke has been validated. Yet the evidence that Luke got his details right does not prove the Incarnation happened any more than the original evidence suggesting that Luke was mistaken on a minor point disproved it.
Actually, the most important assertions of Christianity don't lend themselves to scientific investigation. That doesn't mean the assertions aren't true, just that they are difficult to confirm or disconfirm by research. A great many statements about the settings and people in the Bible have received independent confirmation, but that doesn't tell us that the basic stories about God's actions are true. [It does suggest that the stories of God's actions were placed in the real world and not some land of fantasy.]
Is science the "Voice of Truth?"
One with-it bishop, not overly burdened by either traditional religion or the philosophy of science—said that the Bible is "pre-scientific, and therefore untrue." Like the good bishop, a lot of people mistakenly think "scientific" means the same thing as "factual."
But, according to philosophers of science, "scientific" simply means "testable." A scientific theory must say "If I am right, here's what you'll find when you check the facts." A STATEMENT CAN BE SCIENTIFIC EVEN IF IT ULTIMATELY PROVES FALSE. While a scientific theory has to predict new facts, the facts may not have been observed. The theory may not have been tested yet, or it may have been tested and the predictions found to have been wrong. Even if many of the predictions made by a theory have been found to be accurate, it still doesn't follow that the theory is true, because some future prediction may fail.
The very best scientific theory we've ever had is probably Isaac Newton's theory of physics. It endured for over three hundred years, it generated thousands of correct predictions, and it laid the basis for all kinds of engineering projects including the space shots. But, in the long run, some predictions made by the theory were contradicted. Can we be sure that any of our current scientific theories won't be contradicted in three hundred years, or three thousand?
A scientific theory can never properly be said to be true, because there is no way to know that that some new facts won't be found which contradict the theory. Keeps you a little antsy if you're the one who came up with the theory, but it provides job security for all the other scientists. I am under the impression that the theory of evolution looks pretty good right now, but all bets are off if they find an Australopithecus fossil holding a cell phone next to its former ear.
So scientific theories are not evaluated in terms of their truthfulness, which can never be known with certainty, and science doesn't claim to be The Voice of Truth. Instead, scientific theories are evaluated in terms of their usefulness. How useful is the theory in terms of such scientific tasks as explaining known data, predicting new facts, and stimulating more research? And by this standard, Newton's theory was a great scientific theory (still is, for most purposes, even if all of its predictions didn't come true in the long run).
There is another point, which is even more important. STATEMENTS CAN BE TRUE WITHOUT BEING SCIENTIFIC.
"Scientific" simply means that the statement makes predictions which we can check out. But statements can be true (or false) even if we can't prove (or disprove) them. The dictator still did what he did, even if he shot all the witnesses. The declaration “all people are created equal” has no testable consequences in the sense that it is meant, but it might nevertheless be both true and important.
I value science very highly, but I'd argue that the most interesting and significant statements, the ones we have to live our lives by, are not scientific.
Partial list of references
1. Stark, R. (2003). For the glory of God: How monotheism led to reformation, science,
witch-hunts, and the end of slavery, pp 192-197. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Elmes, David G.; Kanrtowitz, Barry H.; & Roediger, Henry L. III. (2006). Research
methods in psychology, 8th ed, pp 34-47.
3. Popper, Karl R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New York.
4. Beck, R. N. (1961). Perspecives in philosophy. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
5. Stroebel, L. (1998). The case for Christ: A jounalist's personal investigation of the
evidence for Jesus. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
|