The argument goes like this . . . “we KNOW how the world began, and it has nothing to do with a god and six days from the Bible.” We need to get rid of archaic and pre-scientific ideas that have no basis in fact.
Well, yes and no.
Yes, we have exciting new discoveries abort the birth of our world that give us detailed information about the mechanics of everything we see. Some scientists claim to know the exact sequence of events up to a fraction of a second after the “Big Bang.” It is interesting and exciting stuff to read about and makes you marvel at all that we can know.
But lets talk about what it means to ‘know.’ Because what the Bible claims to ‘know’ and what scientists claim to ‘know’ are worlds apart.
When the scientist says that she knows the temperature of the nascent universe was, say, a million degrees, she is answering questions that are answered through observation of data or objects. There is no relationship to the object is needed. Nothing needs to be ‘revealed.’ This kind of ‘knowing’ is answering “what?”
The Bible is a collection of sometimes bizarre and unexplainable encounters with a God who interferes in history. The important word here is ‘encounter.’ Scientists record observations – there is nothing personal about it. Faith records encounters and is concerned with relationship, understanding the meaning behind things. Faith is all about ‘why?’
When your car breaks down and you open the hood and try to figure out what is wrong, you are employing the methods of a scientist. You make decisions based on what you see. When your girlfriend breaks down, you ask her to tell what is wrong – you rely on the method of revelation asking her to tell you ‘why’ she is upset. Both are important things to know – both are worlds apart.
In fact, someone saying that science has disproved faith is like saying you can use car tools to find out what is wrong with your girlfriend – you can’t. Ever. You don’t answer ‘why’ questions with a ‘what’ method. The Bible reveals to us a God who cares and deeply loves us – wanting to reveal more of himself to us. And this fits rather nicely with science as it describes the world around us – but to go so far as to say it answers anything outside a ‘what’ question (like whether there is a God) is simply . . .
un-scientific.
A quick comment or two:
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that science does, in fact, ask "why" questions. The droll measurement-taking you refer to only proceeds in the first place because scientists have big "why" questions they want answers to.
"When your car breaks down and you open the hood and try to figure out what is wrong, you are employing the methods of a scientist. You make decisions based on what you see. When your girlfriend breaks down, you ask her to tell what is wrong – you rely on the method of revelation asking her to tell you ‘why’ she is upset."
Whether I hear my girlfriend telling me what is bothering her, or whether I make a scientific measurement, a "revelation" is occurring either way. Information is being "revealed" to me. So I'm not sure I see the qualitative difference between these two scenarios.
"In fact, someone saying that science has disproved faith is like saying you can use car tools to find out what is wrong with your girlfriend – you can’t."
But you also can't use faith to find out what is wrong with your girlfriend. You actually have to figure it out: you have to ask her, and use your brain to understand what's going on. Faith is the insistent belief in an idea despite a lack of supporting evidence. This is not going to help anyone understand their girlfriend.