The Caricaturing of Christians in Science

Christian students entering into the field of science will face great challenges, especially if they choose to question the naturalistic worldview that dominates today’s scientific establishment. Christians doing science has been given a bad rep by the media in recent years. Books like Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great, along with docu-dramatizations such as Bill Maher's recent Religulous, have brought much public attention to the New Atheism, which seems to have as its fundamental mission the eradication of all forms of religion, with Christianity at the top of the hit list. At the same time, the public hears news about such situations as the Dover, Penn. trials on the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Or rather, the public hears the media portrayals of the Dover ID trials, which often do injustice to the actual circumstances. More often than not, media portrayal of cases involving religion and science are incomplete, inaccurate, and biased. Conventional wisdom is that Faith and Science are like Oil and Water — they don’t mix. Or worse, they are like Sodium and Water, with explosive results when they do mix.

But like a Newton's cradle, when a ball strikes on one side, another ball rebounds in reaction. This wave of anti-religious media has caused a number of books to be written in response, such as God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox (spoiler alert: his answer is "no!"), What's So Great About Christianity? by Dinesh D'Souza, and The Devil's Delusion by David Berlinski. The potential positive result is that those people who take the time to carefully read and think through the points presented by both sides will realize that Christianity does have a reasonable response to all the attacks against it that have been raised by the New Atheists. But the ones who approach both sides with an even hand are rare; most people simply subscribe to the misportrayals of the other position given by their preferred side. And sometimes these misportrayals are so ubiquitous that even those who are being misportrayed believe that this is actually the way things are.

Consider these three common statements about the history of science and Christianity, gleaned and paraphrased from various articles and web postings:

• Medieval Christians believed that the Earth was flat, until Columbus proved the Church wrong.
• The Trial of Galileo was an example of how the Church placed dogmatic religious belief in geocentrism over the scientific evidence for heliocentrism.
• The Scientific Revolution was a triumph of reason over religion, as the early scientists applied science to undermine the authority of the Church.

When I asked my high school students which of these statements were true, just about all of them stated that at least one was true, when in fact all three of these commonly held beliefs are false. My students, many of whom had attended Christian schools throughout their education, had somehow learned these myths in their classes or simply from the media portrayal of the history of Christianity and science.

The general belief is that Christians have always been opposed to science, holding on against the evidence to “anti-scientific” views such as:

• A flat Earth
• Geocentrism
• The Universe was created by design

Belief in a flat Earth and geocentrism have been proven to be scientifically false, while the supernatural creation of the universe has not. But because of the perceived association between Christians and the first two erroneous positions, when Christians today try to present the scientific merits of a created universe, we are given the same credibility as if we were trying to make the case for a flat Earth or a solar system with the Earth at the center. Christians are caricaturized as being such close minded simpletons that we adhere to a wooden, literal reading of the Bible rather than accept what “Science” plainly reveals to all who think rationally.

Here's an example of this caricature (credit Steve Sack, Star Tribune, August 5, 2005):

This is the history that most people—Christians included—believe. But it is a false history, and it is one that Christians should strive to correct in the public perception. My goal with this series of posts is to provide the means to address the previous 3 myths about the history of science and Christianity, so that we can stand on a solid historical footing as we engage in the discussion of science and religion. For when it comes to science and Christianity, history is in fact on our side.

Consider the conclusion of historian of science Colin Russell in his essay, The Conflict Metaphor and its Social Origins:

The common belief that… the actual relations between religion and science over the last few centuries have been marked by deep and enduring hostility… is not only historically inaccurate, but actually a caricature so grotesque that what needs to be explained is how it could possibly have achieved any degree of respectability” (quoted in John Lennox, God’s Undertaker, p. 26-27).

Response to Lawrence Krauss' WSJ Article "God and Science Don't Mix"

A couple of weeks ago, Lawrence Krauss penned an article in the Wall Street Journal titled God and Science Don't Mix. Though I highly admire and respect what Mr. Krauss has to say on the subject of physics, I find his understanding (and training) in religion and philosophy sadly lacking. That the WSJ would allow someone to speak to the relationship of science and religion who holds so little regard to and understanding of the latter is puzzling. At a minimum, I think providing a response or alternative view on this particular subject was in order, lest the WSJ be judged as explicitly advocating Krauss's viewpoint. Or perhaps the WSJ should also stick to what it is best at, financial reporting, and leave this topic for others who will treat it with the respect it deserves.

Following are eight observations that I would like to offer from my reading of Krauss's article:

1) Krauss begins with an assumption that (any) religion is false, and he thus places it in the same category as astrology and witchcraft. First, has he demonstrated that all religions are false, and second, what does he have to say to those of a religious stripe that don't believe in either astrology or witchcraft? Would religion simply be their myth of choice?

2) Krauss asserts that the "religious right" (whatever that definition entails) believes science to be an atheist enemy that must be vanquished. Sorry, but I know many religious folks and I have never once heard anyone say that science within itself is atheistic. A more accurate statement would be that many religious folks believe atheists use science as an enemy against the religious (with Krauss a case in point).

3) Regarding Krauss's assertion that various school boards view evolution as the poster child for "science as the enemy" is, again, not entirely accurate. First, as I stated before, presuming these school board members are religious, I believe he is patently wrong to assert that they believe science is the enemy. Second, their lack of belief in evolution as an explanation for everything holds no logically concomitant view that they also believe science is an enemy. That would be a ridiculous conflation, but Krauss proffers this mistaken view with reckless abandon.

4) Haldane was just plain wrong to state that science by its necessity is an atheistic discipline. That statement is a reflection on him, not on those doing science who may happen not to be atheists. This is a philosophical statement itself, and not a scientific one, so it is the height of dogma to make such a sweeping statement about what science "necessarily" is, particularly with the difficulty over the years of even defining the scientific method.

5) Krauss cites the "remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world" as being a reason that scientists would "understandably" react as Haldane did. I fail to understand his point, as again, not all scientists react the same as Haldane. Further, let's say that I can explain how my BMW 550i "works." That certainly does not explain "why" it works the way it does, and it would be quite audacious of me to claim that its maker, BMW, is no longer "necessary" because I figured out how the car works. For everything I might think I "know" about the car, there may be one hundred other things I don't. And it would be foolhardy for me to further claim that it has no designer just because I have a bit of understanding of "how it works."

6) The virgin birth cannot be explained by biology precisely because it is a miracle. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a miracle. That's not to argue that the virgin birth actually occurred (which I happen to believe did), but it is ridiculous to ask someone to explain a miracle by biology when the whole point is that a miracle would necessarily transcend biology. Hasn't Krauss taken a course in basic logic?

7) Science is consistent with an atheistic view if one just happens to be an atheist. If one is not an atheist and, instead, is a theist, then one would believe that science is consistent with theism (as virtually all theists do). So again, this is a philosophical statement without empirical evidence, and not even a logical one at that.

8) Now what does the crisis in Iran have to do with religion in general, unless all religious people believe the same thing? Moreover, can we say that Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot suggest that a world based on religion is superior than one based on atheism? The body count of the 20th century would argue in the affirmative.

Kicking This Off Right

Last Friday evening (7/10/09), I attended a lecture by biophysicist Cornelius G. Hunter at Biola University. During the lecture, Dr. Hunter referenced an article from the "Opinion" section of the 5/22/09 LA Times that was written by UMM biologist PZ Myers. The Dr. Myers' letter is a response to author Charlotte Allen, whose 5/17/09 article, "Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining," called out Myers (and other prominent atheists) for lacking substance in their attacks against religion and attacking a "straw man."

Setting aside the exact nature of the exchange between Allen and Myers, what's significant is a particular line of argumentation used by Myers (an atheist, if you didn't already know) to demonstrate the certainty of the atheist argument (and it is not what you'd think). Knowing Myers' background as a biologist, one would assume that he would cite some credible scientific evidence of evolution that overwhelmingly and without doubt removes any possibility of God's participation in the appearance and formation of life on earth--and you'd be wrong. Instead, Myers actually makes a theistic argument to "disprove" God's existence! To quote Myers,

We [atheists] go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.

So that's it? That's his best argument? PZ Myers thinks people should take him on his word that he knows what kind of world God would create?

Unfortunately, this situation, where evolutionists' best arguments "for" naturalism are actually tired and easily rebutted arguments "against" theism, is all too common. Much of Hunter's work appears to be in demonstrating how evolutionary belief is primarily grounded in so-called negative evidence for God rather than in positive, empirical evidence for evolution. Certainly, this appears true in Myers' case.

About the Blog

This blog will feature graduate students and alumni of the Biola University Masters of Arts in Science & Religion program. We are a group of Christian scholars with a wide variety of backgrounds, so expect diverse perspectives that may be offered on various topics. For example, some take a Young Earth Creation (YEC) perspective, while some take a progressive or Old Earth Creation (OEC) perspective. None of us are Theistic Evolutionists (TE), as far as I can tell. In a coming post, one of us will post the issues we have with the TE position.

Credits for the Blog Description

The blog description is credited to David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers in their excellent book titled When Science and Christianity Meet. What we would like to accomplish in this blog is a discussion of the nature of the relationship between science and religion, and to demonstrate that in the pursuit of science, there is necessarily a set of presumptions and assumptions that provide the theoretical framework for how scientific data is interpreted. In other words, science will always involve philosophical commitments that will be shaped in some form by one's view of religion.