(Premise Vol.V, No.3:1-11, 1998)
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS: On Scientific and Theological MethodJohn BylCan a Christian living in the space age still believe in heaven,
angels, and life after death, or has modern scientific knowledge disproven
such naive notions? Does the big bang theory provide evidence for a
Creator, or does it cast doubt upon Genesis? Christians are being increasingly confronted with such disturbing
questions. The aim of this study is to examine some of the deeper issues
lurking behind these problems. Our investigations will take us into the
realms of cosmology and theology: cosmology is the science
concerned with the study of the physical universe as a whole (we shall
consider it to include cosmogony, the study of the origin of the
universe); theology is the study of God and His revelation.
How do theology and cosmology affect each other? To what extent is
cosmology influenced by theological biases? What, if any, theological
consequences can be drawn from cosmology? Such questions will form the
focus of this study. We shall limit ourselves primarily to Christian
theology, taking the Bible as the prime source of divine
revelation. For Christians a major issue is that of what the Bible has to say
regarding cosmology. The Bible certainly seems to address itself quite
specifically to the origin and destiny of the universe, as well as to the
existence of a spiritual world. In medieval times a detailed cosmology was
constructed, based, it was thought, on such Biblical information. In modern times the situation has changed. The old medieval picture of
the universe has long since been discarded. It has been replaced by a new
dominant cosmology: the big bang theory. This theory postulates that the
physical universe, with all its contents, were caused by the initial
explosion (the big bang), and subsequent development, of a highly
compressed ball of energy-matter. How is this modern cosmology to be reconciled with Christianity?
Christians have reacted with a rather wide range of opinion. It is clear
that big bang cosmology is at odds with the traditional interpretation of
the Bible. The acceptance of big bang cosmology thus requires a new look
at those biblical texts that appear to have cosmological implications.
One possible approach is that of concordism, which strives to
reinterpret the Bible so as to bring it into harmony with modern
cosmology. Indeed, some authors claim that the big bang actually confirms
Genesis, if only we read it properly. Others, convinced that such concordist interpretations are invalid, may
adopt more drastic methods. Perhaps the Bible, written in a prescientific
age, is in error when it addresses scientific matters. Perhaps the Bible
is concerned only with theological matters. A view that has recently
become quite popular is that of complementarianism, which sees
cosmology and theology as totally independent, each dealing with different
matters: the give complementary descriptions of the same reality.
Theology deals with questions of Who and Why; science deals with matters
of When and How. In short, adapting the Bible to big bang cosmology seems to entail
either stretching its interpretation or curtailing its authority. Evaluating Cosmological Models In constructing a cosmological theory, or "model" (i.e., a simplified
mathematical representation) of the origin and structure of the entire
universe it is clear that we have only limited observational data at our
disposal. It is only in the last 70 years or so that we have observed very
distant galaxies. And even what we can presently observe forms,
apparently, only a small fraction of the whole universe. To draw general conclusions regarding the whole universe from a limited
set of data necessarily requires that we make some theoretical
assumptions. For example, we can not directly observe the big bang, which
supposedly occurred some 15 billion years ago; it can only be inferred on
the basis of data, in the form of light rays, which we receive
now. Moreover, as we shall see, the data are explicable in a number of
different ways. Can we be certain, for example, that the physical laws
applicable here and now are valid universally? Perhaps the constant of
gravity or the speed of light varies in space and time. A number of such
proposals can be found in professional astronomical journals. Or, perhaps,
the entire universe was created instantaneously, in the not-too-distant
past. While such a possibility may strike us as unlikely, it is
notoriously difficult to disprove. In short, there exist a host of
possible theoretical extensions and explanations of the astronomical
observations. Given such a large choice of theories, how can we hope to stumble upon
the correct theory? Indeed, even if we were to chance upon the best
theory, how could we recognize it as such? Or, for that matter, how can we
even choose the better of only two competing theories? Within the last half century it has come to be quite generally accepted
that scientific theories can't be simply deduced from observations. On the
contrary, the origin of scientific theories is now considered to be
largely subjective. The noted philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper
asserts that "we must regard all laws or theories as hypothetical or
conjectural; that is, as guesses";[1]
he sees theories as "the free creations of our minds."[2]
Or, as Carl Hempel puts it:
It seems that theories are not so much given to us by nature as
imposed by us on nature; they are not so much the result of
rational thought as the creations of our irrational intuition. While one might think that further research may falsify the majority of
such theories, this is in practise not easily done. A favoured theory,
such as big bang cosmology, can always be saved from observational
disproof by making suitable modifications to it. A theory that must be
supported by artificial, "ad hoc" (i.e., designed specifically to overcome
a particular shortcoming) devices is generally not highly ranked in terms
of plausibility. Nevertheless, however difficult it may be to demonstrate
a particular ad hoc theory to be true, it is even harder to conclusively
disprove it. According to Imre Lakatos: "Scientific theories are not only
equally unprovable, and equally improbable, but they are also equally
undisprovable."[4] While recognizing that there was no logic to the discovery of
theories, Popper hoped to construct a rational process for the objective
selection of theories. He proposed that genuine scientific theories
should be "falsifiable" (i.e., they should make definite testable
predictions). However, if we were to apply this criterion to cosmology we
would have little theory left over: currently virtually all cosmological
models are falsified by observations. Nor does Popper offer any
justification as to why easily falsifiable theories are more likely to be
true than others. It is, of course, possible to play the game of cosmology under
different rules. Various criteria for assessing theories have been
suggested. For example, Howard van Till lists those of cognitive
relevance, predictive accuracy, coherence, explanatory scope, unifying
power, and fertility.[5]
Yet, while such criteria may seem reasonable enough, it is generally
granted that they are by no means rigorous. They merely reflect values
used in practice. Indeed, the creation of selection criteria is no less
subjective than the creation of scientific theories. As Lakatos
notes:
In short, science in general - and cosmology in particular - is plagued
by the lack of definite, objective criteria that might allow us to easily
separate true theories from false ones. It is at this crucial point that
we must often guided by extrascientific factors. Religious Commitments It is clear that in practise, at least, religious beliefs can play a
decisive role in the creation, assessment, and selection of cosmological
theories. For example, the choice for or against the big bang is sometimes
made on the basis of religious grounds. Thus Fred Hoyle[7]
rejects big bang cosmology at least in part because the sudden appearance
of the universe at a finite time in the past seems to him to imply a
supernatural cause, while, on the same grounds, Christians such as Norman
Geisler[8] and Hugh Ross[9]
are favourably inclined towards the big bang. Or consider the rejection by creationists of an long evolutionary
history of the universe. This is based primarily on their religious
commitment to the Bible. On the other hand, the National Academy of
Science in the U.S.A. has objected to creationism primarily on that
grounds that creationism "subordinates evidence to statements made on
authority and revelation" and that "it accounts for the origin of life by
supernatural means".[10]
This prompt rejection of revelation and the supernatural is likewise a
religious choice. In this regard it is notable that modern cosmology is
marked by a pervasive naturalism that leaves little room for any religion
in the traditional sense.
Van Till's exclusion of religious commitments from the selection of
scientific theories follows from his presupposition that science and
religion complement each other, each being sovereign in its own domain.
But even this consideration, like all standards for theory selection, is
itself based on extrascientific considerations. At heart we cannot avoid being guided by religious and philosophical
factors in our assessment and selection of theories. However much one
might wish to eliminate the supernatural from science, it is quite another
matter to prove that it actually is absent from reality. The universe
beyond our observations may be quite different from our preferred
cosmological model. Special and General Revelation One could, for example, adopt the orthodox position that the Bible is
the inerrant word of God and that the traditional interpretation is the
intended one. Granted the premise of an omniscient God who has revealed
truth to us, it follows that divine revelation should speak
authoritatively on all it addresses. Such a divine source of knowledge
would carry more epistemological weight than mere speculative theorizing,
with its subjective criteria and assessments. A consequence of such an epistemology is that cosmological theories
should be selected so as to be consistent with Scripture. In the traditional view general revelation consists only of God's
self-revelation. Through His works of creation and providence the
invisible character of God is made known (e.g., Rom.1:20). After the fall,
man's knowledge of God through general revelation has been darkened by
sin, so that Scripture and the grace of the Holy Spirit are now needed for
man to understand properly the message of general revelation.[12] Those who reject this view often justify this by appealing to a more
expanded assessment of general revelation. Recently David Diehl has urged
that general revelation should include not only knowledge of God, but also
that of His works in nature. He has in mind both observations of nature as
well as scientific theorizing that goes beyond the observations. According
to Diehl, some scientific views that have been unpopular with theologians
are so well-established that it would be truly unscientific and unfair to
general revelation to reject them.[13] Special and general revelation should, asserts Diehl,
have equal authority, each having final authority within its own
territory. What are we to make of this? To be sure, few would deny the importance
of our observations of nature. Nor would many object to the principle that
our reading of Scripture should be consistent with our experiences of
nature. In this sense "general revelation" (I would prefer the term
"nature" here) is surely authoritative: we must appeal to it, or at least
our experiences of it, as a check on all our scientific
theorizing. Further, to make sense or our reading of Scripture we must rely on the
rules of logic. God has made the universe in such a way that these rules
apply, and God has endowed man, created in His image, with the analytical
abilities to apply these laws. Observations and logic both come directly
from God. However, our reasoning powers are not confined to the mere application
of logic but include also the ability for imaginative, theoretical
thought. Unfortunately, particularly after the Fall, our reasoning is a
tool that is controlled by our inner desires. As such it can easily be
misguided: "for out of the heart come evil thought" (Matt.15:19). Clearly,
man is responsible for his thoughts and hence also for their products:
scientific theories. After all, as we have seen, scientific theories are
but the speculative inventions of man's creative imagination. A proper epistemology will thus give high weight to Scripture,
observations, and logic. These are all God-given and will thus be in
harmony; they form the touchstone of our knowledge. On the other hand,
human theorizing, in all its forms, is in a much lower category of
knowledge. If it fails the test of logic, observation, and Scripture then
we can reject it as certainly false. Even if it passes this test we must
be cautious: any claims that goes beyond observation and Scripture is
still likely to be false. The difficulty with Diehl's position arises when he extends the
contents of "general revelation" beyond observational data and logic to
include also scientific theories. If, as Diehl believes, general
revelation is infallible, then such infallibility must also be granted to
certain theories. But which ones? The history of science is filled with
many examples of scientific theories, now discarded, that were once held
as undoubted truths. The most famous such case is that of Newtonian
mechanics, which was for centuries considered as absolutely true but which
has now been dethroned by Einstein's theory of relativity. Unfortunately,
Diehl offers no criteria by which we can separate correct theories from
false ones. The notion that God has revealed truth in two books, Scripture and
nature, has been used as a means of reconciling science and Scripture
already from the beginning of the scientific revolution. Historically,
however, the doctrine of the two books has led to a decline in biblical
authority. Once we allow the premise that some scientific theories can be
taken as divine truth then we are in essence permitting the "book of
science" to modify Scripture. In the absence of valid criteria by which we
can devise and detect correct theories, our reading of the Bible will be
forever subjected to the latest favoured scientific theory. In short, a major problem in reconciling science and Scripture is what
we can refer to as "the problem of scientific knowledge": we have no
justifiably valid criteria for finding correct theories. The only place
where it is relatively[14] easy to draw a line is between observations and
theories that are devised to explain or extend the observations. We can
accept as scientific facts only the actual observed data. Once we step
beyond the observations we are set adrift in a sea of subjective
speculation. Hermeneutics The question of the proper interpretation of Scripture has been
disputed already from the early days of Christianity. Augustine, and later
Aquinas, argued that we should take the Bible in its literal sense, unless
internal Scriptural evidence shows conclusively that a non-literal
interpretation is required. As to the claims of natural knowledge, these
were to be over-ridden by Scripture unless they could be proven to be
true. The lightest word of God was to have precedence over the heaviest
word of man unless the latter could be conclusively demonstrated. In that
case, since God's word can not conflict with the truth, it is evident that
another interpretation is required. But what would constitute a valid proof of the correctness of any item
of extra-biblical knowledge? Since the 16th century, with the advancement
of scientific investigation, various aspects of the traditional
interpretation of Scripture have been challenged: for example, its
apparent geocentricity, the account of Noah's Flood, Biblical chronology,
and the story of Adam and Eve. Some Christians have nevertheless held on
to the literal reading of Scripture, denying that the new scientific ideas
had been adequately demonstrated. Most, however, felt the need to modify
their reading of Scripture at least to some degree. At first the troublesome portions of Scripture were merely
reinterpreted so as to be reconciled with modern learning. Elastic methods
of interpretation were advocated. To take just one typical example of this
concordist school, consider Davis Young, a Christian geologist, writing in
1982:
The obvious difficulty with such a flexible approach to Scripture is
the danger of merely reading out of it what we put in. Scripture is
reduced to a mirror of human thoughts rather than a source of divine
light. The inadequacies of concordism have been stressed by none other than
Young himself in a more recent work, where he repudiates his earlier
concordism:
Concordism is inconsistent with an epistemology that stresses the
supremacy of God's word. It is crucial that we adopt a hermeneutic that is
not unduly influenced by human theorizing. If we are to listen to God's
word with an open ear then we must strive to interpret the text
objectively, applying sound hermeneutical principles. The most direct,
natural interpretation is thus generally to be preferred, unless internal
Scriptural evidence indicates otherwise. Limited Biblical Authority Nevertheless, Young believes that the weight of scientific evidence is
such that the literal reading can't be true. Having rejected concordism,
Young opts for what amounts to a limitation of biblical authority. He
advocates that we treat Genesis 1 not as a scientific or historical
report, but as a piece of ancient literature with well-defined thought
patterns, structures, symbols and images, intended to convey theological
truths.[17] In recent years the nature and extent of Biblical authority has been
much discussed also in evangelical circles. One increasingly popular
position is that science and Scripture do not contradict each
other, but complement each other. Howard van Till, a Christian
astronomer and a colleague of Young, has vigorously supported this point
of view. As we have already noted, van Till believes that science should
be religiously neutral. According to van Till, the evolutionary and
biblical views of the cosmos are complementary descriptions that answer
different types of questions. Science reveals information about the
physical structure and past history of the universe; the Bible tells us
about its relation to God. Science answers question of "how" and "when";
the Bible answers questions about "who" and "why".[18] The difficulty with this solution is that the Bible itself doesn't
suggest that its authority is limited to theological questions of "who" or
"why". On the contrary, it seems at times to speak rather specifically on
such matters, also regarding the origin of the physical universe. On what
grounds, then, can we set a boundary to its authority? Van Till tries to draw a line by distinguishing between the divine
contents of a biblical story and the human packaging in which it comes.
The theological thrust of a Biblical passage can be taken as trustworthy,
but not the specific physical details that form the "packaging":
Yet one may well ask how van Till can be so certain that the
"packaging" is not divinely inspired as well. How, in the absence of
clear, divinely ratified criteria can we ever hope to disentangle the
divine message from the allegedly human wrappings? Ultimately the
discernment of the divine teachings contained in Scripture is left to the
subjective whims of the individual reader. Of course, there are other options beyond the above categories of
concordism and complementarianism. One could consider Scripture and
science to be either more or less interdependent. However, to the extent
that these involve a reduction in Biblical authority, the same
considerations apply. We conclude that whereas concordism unduly distorted the Biblical
message by its elastic hermeneutics, complementarianism distorts it by
imposing unwarranted limits on Biblical authority. Those who wish to
modify the traditional reading of Scripture are plagued with the lack of
clear, valid criteria for separating the wheat from the alleged chaff. If
we cannot accept all of Scripture as authoritative, how can be sure any of
it is? It should be noted that the proclamation of the epistemological
supremacy of Scripture implies its inerrancy. If we accept Scripture as
the highest standard then there is no means to test its accuracy;
inerrancy must be assumed from the start. If we follow the principle that
Scripture must interpret Scripture, then our interpretation of Scripture
should be internally consistent: there should be no internal errors. Of
course, since the Bible does make specific predictions regarding the
future, Biblical claims are ultimately testable. Meanwhile, however, we
must resist the temptation to "prove" inerrancy by appealing to scientific
evidence, for that in effect makes the scientist, fallible man that he is,
the judge of Scripture. Hence inerrancy must be our starting point, not
our conclusion. Is the traditional interpretation of an all-authoritative Scripture
tenable in our scientific age? That is the prime question to be addressed
in the chapters ahead. It is noteworthy that, if scientific "facts" are to
be limited to direct observations, there will be little actual conflict
between the Bible and scientific knowledge. After all, the Bible is
concerned with events in the distant past, in the (as yet unobserved)
future, and in the (unseen) spiritual realm; scientific observations
concern only the present and the very recent past. The main conflicts that
can arise will be between the Bible and scientific theorizing. The
fundamental question that must be posed is, therefore, whether the
scientific theories of modern cosmology, uncertain as they may be, are
nevertheless sufficiently established to warrant their elevation above
Scripture. Preview 1. How have theological and philosophical considerations influenced the
construction, assessment, and selection of cosmological theories? 2. How have recent cosmological models influenced modern
theology? We shall begin, in the next chapter, with a brief examination of
medieval cosmology, its theological connections, and the factors that led
from it to modern cosmology. In the following chapter big bang cosmology
will be analyzed. Its strengths, weaknesses, and underlying assumptions
will be discussed. Various alternative cosmological interpretations of the
observational evidence will be presented. The next chapters examine various theological implications that have
been drawn from big bang cosmology. Cosmological evidence has been used in
a number of proofs for the existence of God. The validity of such proofs
is the topic of one chapter. Another chapter deals with the future of the
universe, particularly with regards to life. The possibility of
extra-terrestrial life is also examined. Supporters of modern cosmology
have proposed a variety of gods allegedly more feasible in the modern
world than the Christian God. These strange gods, and the hope the might
present for a life hereafter, will be discussed in a further chapter.
Next we examine what the Bible has to say regarding cosmological
matters. This is followed by a chapter examining a variety of cosmological
models that are built upon Biblical givens. The validity and function of
such models are discussed, particularly with an eye on their usefulness as
an apologetic tool. A final chapter summarizes the conclusions
reached. Notes[1] Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge (London:
Oxford University Press, 1972), p.9.
|