Rector’s Reflections
Tuesday 23rd July 2024
Does there need to be a conflict between Science and Christianity?
Today I am starting a new series of reflections, inspired by our current Benefice Festival of Science. The relationship between Science and Christianity is rich and complex, and much has been written on the subject. It also happens to be a subject close to my own heart. The current series of reflections will look only at one aspect of the subject: the question of whether or not there is a necessary conflict between Science and Christianity. Some Scientists and some Christians would claim that there is a conflict, or that a conflict can arise in certain circumstances. Others would say that there is no necessary conflict between Science and Religion. Why are there different views? While recognising the existence of a diversity of opinions, is it possible to propose a “mainstream” view – ie a view held by the majority of those Scientists and Christians who have an interest in the subject, and have given the subject some thought?
I will start with outlining some of the reasons why Scientists and Christians can hold different views on the relationship between Science and Christianity.
To begin with, many of the issues relate to debates about the nature and significance of Science, rather than to the debates about Christianity. There is no accepted definition of the nature of Science. Does the word “Science” define a particular area of study, or does it relate to the manner in which study is carried out? This confusion is particularly likely to occur when the debate is carried out in English: another languages, such as German, is much better at distinguishing between Science as an area of study and Science as a methodology.
The definition of Science as a methodology focusses on what can be considered to be a “Scientific Method”: typically, it suggests that Science is that area of human inquiry which seeks knowledge through the collection and measurement of data, and the testing of hypotheses based on the data. I say “typically”, because there is no agreed definition of the difference between a “scientific” from a “non-scientific” method; furthermore, there is the question of how a “scientific” method is related to the study and application of Mathematics. A “scientific” method is not necessarily synonymous with a “mathematical” method, but they are clearly related. This in turn raises the question: is Science the handmaid of Mathematics, or is Mathematics the handmaid of Science? Discuss!
A “Scientific Method” can be applied to many areas of human knowledge. For example, it is possible to apply a “Scientific Method” to the study of History, or the study of Theology. Much theology is scientific in this sense: it collects data (for example relevant comments from sacred texts, and information about human behaviour) and uses this data to construct hypotheses about the nature of reality , and in turn these hypotheses are then explored and tested in the laboratory of the real world. For example, when theologians talk about Sin they are doing much the same as when physicists talk about Gravity: they are using a shorthand to describe a useful theory about one aspect of the world works.
The complexity of the nature of Science is compounded by another consideration: the complexity of human language. The word “Science” as it is generally used in contemporary English is a fairly recent newcomer to the academic scene: before the 19th Century, the word “philosophy”, “nature”, or “Natural Philosophy” could be used to cover much the same ground. Again, since our school days, we are used to the tri-partite distinction between Biology, Chemistry and Physics. But it could be argued that this is an unhelpful and arbitrary distinction. For example, if we are to understand the activity of a human cell, we need to combine “Biology”, “Chemistry” and “Physics”.
So Scientific language is far from straight-forward, and much of the language we use depends on definitions which suit our own purpose. It is easy to win an argument about Science in general or about a particular branch of Science if we define in advance what we mean by the terms we are using, and then declare that our own definitions are the only valid definitions. We set the rules of the debate and, lo and behold, we declare victory. But what is the value of a such a victory? It might make us feel better, but it’s contribution to the advancement of knowledge is limited, to say the least.
So one reason why people can have different views on the relationship between Science and Christianity is because people hold different views on the nature of Science, whether considered as an area of study or as a distinct methodology. There are other reasons as well, and we shall explore some of these in the days ahead.