
Every Monday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from one of The BioLogos Foundation's co-presidents: Karl Giberson and Darrel Falk. Today's entry was written by Karl Giberson.
"Christianity," wrote someone who likes to comment under the cover of an alias on the Science and the Sacred blogs, "is extremely anti-science. Every single Christian belief, especially the disgusting childish belief in the Resurrection, is scientifically impossible."
"The choice is Christianity or science," wrote this poster who prefers his world black and white. "A normal person couldn't possibly accept both."
This reaction is standard "New Atheist" fare and we hear it from Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, PZ Myers and countless other self-appointed watchdogs of rationality.
I would be the first to say that science and Christianity are very different and, certainly, if one goes at Christianity with scientific tools, it certainly does not do as well as, say, magnetism, which holds up very nicely under scientific scrutiny. But Christianity is not like magnetism.
Accepting both science and Christianity is a bit like accepting that the earth is both round and in the Milky Way galaxy. For most of human history we did not know about galaxies; as they gradually came into view a century ago, we learned that there is much more to reality than we thought. So we brought some new ideas into our worldview.
The belief that the earth is both round and in the Milky Way is not contradictory because they are different sorts of claims. One is a claim about shape, the other about location.
To be a Christian is to accept that there is another layer of reality that lies beyond the purely scientific. The evidence for this other layer is, of course, not like the evidence for magnetism or the shape of the earth. But it is not an unfounded belief, even from a scientific point of view.
Consider belief in God. Almost everyone throughout history, from Plato to Darwin believed in God, although Darwin developed some famous doubts along the way. Most people today believe in God, including a great many intellectuals. There are legitimate arguments for God's existence, some of which are present on the BioLogos website. One may not find the arguments convincing--Sam Harris certainly does not--but many smart people who, unlike Sam Harris, actually finished their graduate degrees, do find these arguments helpful.
If God exists, then all kinds of things become possible. The reality of God implies that the scientific picture is not all there is. Once we know that reality extends beyond science, new questions emerge: What is this reality that we call "God" like? Is God a super-intelligence? Can God communicate with beings like us? Is God powerful? Is God personal?
A reality that includes God is very different from one that does not. Consider the following analogy. Suppose you were the first human explorer on Mars. You examine terrain and weather and soil. But you are puzzled by what look like gardens and at night you hear what sounds vaguely like singing. Sometimes you find perfectly round granite marbles. These puzzling features of your experience make no sense.
But now suppose you come across the brow of a hill and discover a village, populated with creatures that are scurrying about in purposeful ways. Martian reality has just expanded dramatically. All manner of things have just become possible. Those gardens actually were gardens, those spheres were indeed artificially produced and that singing was singing.
The kinds of things that can happen in any world, from fictitious places like Hogwarts, Middle Earth, or Narnia, to real places like Mars or Earth, depends, in a detailed way, on what exists in those worlds. Narnia did not have airplanes so the children could not fly back and forth. Earth does not have time machines, and Mars probably does not have creatures that would cultivate gardens. But Narnia did have an Ice Queen, the earth does have jumbo jets, and Mars has a rover that NASA has sent there.
What is the nature of our reality if God exists? What kinds of new things are possible? What puzzling and unbelievable stories from the past become plausible if God exists? What claims made by people today have to be taken seriously if God is real?
The central idea of Christianity--that God raised Jesus from the dead--is, as our critic above has claimed "scientifically impossible." In fact, I think our mystery critic may not be aware that this is hardly a controversial claim. I am unaware of anyone who does not think the resurrection of Jesus is scientifically impossible. In a world where science is the only reality, such an event would indeed be impossible. Likewise, on a planet with no creatures it would be impossible to encounter gardens, marbles and music.
But, if God exists, might there be events that science cannot explain? The answer is obvious. So, when we read in the Bible that some people in the first century saw a resurrected Jesus and concluded that God had worked a miracle, we must not dismiss this as "childish." The biblical accounts certainly do not sound childish. First century Palestine is not Narnia.
This is not to say, of course, that God's existence provides a license for unbridled speculation, or somehow validates all past and present claims of miracles. It does, however, open reality to possibilities that go beyond what science can explain.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon




Monty,
The world exists
Agreed. But this does not indicate that it was created.
life exists against almost insurmountable odds
The odds are evidently not insurmountable, since it exists.
humanity exists, humanity is profoundly different to all other life,
Agreed. But this does not indicate that humanity was created.
the laws of physics exist, these laws show all the signs of having been made to allow life to exist, if the laws were one tiny bit different life could not exist,
Simply false I'm afraid: Is the universe fine-tuned for us?.
evolution alone cannot satisfactory explain the “hard” problem of consciousness
You've forgotten to include your argument again.
and so a creator probably exists.
Even if all your points were true, this still would not follow.
Maybe donate to a charity to help poor African villages get clean drinking water and avoid guinea worm disease.
I give monthly donations to World Development Movement, Medicin Sans Frontiers, and Sight Savers. Together with other charitable and campaigning donations, they make up about 5% of my net income over a year. Not great, I admit, but I have a family, and I retire in 5 years and do need to save. In my day job, I coordinate an international research project aimed at finding ways to encourage reduced energy demand, in EU countries, and hence reduce the chances of dangerous climate change. I spend time in political meetings and campaigns I don't generally enjoy - I'd much rather read, write and think. I am going to Copenhagen next month, by train, at my own expense and in my own time, to press for an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I wouldn't normally bring up such things in such a forum, but you rather forced my hand.
I regard the irrationality of which religion is a prime example as perhaps the greatest enemy of humanity.
Now, may I cordially invite you to take your religious superiority complex, and stick it where the sun doesn't shine?
Knockgoats,
I'm afraid I must offer two apologies.
One is for the late reply, the second is for making the mistake that I was engaging a rational non-believer with valid arguments, rather than yet another atheist fundamentalist.
And I do not forget to include answers, I refer you to my second reply regarding high horses, and since you will refuse to even consider anything I say what is the point in talking to you?
I, however, am not that blinkered, and will do you the courtesy of reading the web link you so graciously provided. Despite the fact it says nothing I have not read before.
One wonders where you get the idea I have religious superiority complex? Was it where I stated that humanity should take responsibility for its actions and help others? Interesting that an avowed atheist should think that, or does that hint at what an introverted, intellectually moribund world view atheism really is?
Now, I must say goodbye. Well done on destroying yet another discussion.
p.s. Regarding the “hard” problem of consciousness, did I really need to explain my argument regarding that? Disappointing.
Knockgoats:
Help! I'm surrounded by apophatic Alberts!
Yipes, time to hide. Check this then, as I only have eyes for you!
It is actually a bit of an in-joke, as some kings and emperors, (e.g. Charles the Bald was not bald at all), were reputed to have epithets which were ironic.
Giberson states "The central idea of Christianity--that God raised Jesus from the dead--is, as our critic above has claimed "scientifically impossible."" It seems Giberson's attitude toward science is that there are things that are correct and things that are incorrect as he agrees with the critic. A key category is being left out that science humbly accepts: the unexplained. Is all of the unexplained unscientific? Of course not. That's why we still advance our knowledge of the world around us. Is it scientifically possible for Jesus to rise from the dead? With our current understanding of the universe, this is almost 100% improbable. Truth is really about what we as humans accept based on evidence and our current understanding of the universe. Believing something that contradicts evidence (and therefore has a very high probably that it is incorrect) is a belief that must be based on faith alone and not on science. I agree that science and religion are very different, but only one can lead to truth.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.