Saint Joseph College

Graduate School Department

JESSICA E. LARAN
STOQ 101

Misconception about the relationship between Christian faith and Science

A commonly held belief in contemporary culture is the idea that faith and science
are in direct opposition to one another. Richard Dawkins, a prominent scientist and atheist,
promotes this contrasting belief. He says that “of all the forces opposing an evidence-based
response, religion is the most active.” However, the notion that these subjects are
irreconcilable has not always been the norm. In fact, many prominent scientists such as
Galileo, Isaac Newton, and Francis Bacon are not only recognized Christians but men
enthused by faith to pursue science. Bacon’s faith prompted him to say that “a little
philosophy inclines man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy brings men’s minds
about to religion” . Bacon recognized the importance of religious faith concerning its
relationship to scientific discoveries. Science and faith are not in opposition to one another.
Instead, they are similar in regards to their approach to creation, their goals and
applications of scientific findings, and their unique ability to complement each other.
Scientific and religious interpretive approaches to creation are similar as evident in
their relationship to knowledge and their use of presuppositions and paradigms for
interpretation. While it may seem impossible that interpretive approaches can be similar
even when many scientists are not Christians, many of the inherent presuppositions of faith
and science are the same. In fact, the greatest similarity in starting points between science
and faith is their relationship to knowledge; this relationship means that “there is the
potential for them to overlap in what they speak about” . Science provides knowledge on
many of the functions and methods of creation, while faith provides knowledge on the
Creator himself and his plans and purposes for creation. When scientists study both points
of view together, overlap occurs and truth is understood more fully. It is also popularly
believed that science is a neutral method of study and is simply concerned with the facts,
while religion interprets facts through a particular framework. However, both faith and
science operate under particular paradigms. In terms of science, “the accepted standard
examples (‘paradigms’) of past research will control the direction of scientific inquiry” .An
example of this paradigm approach is seen in the interpretation of experimental processes.
Scientists exercise personal judgment in the assessment of evidence; if an experiment yields
results that do not conform to a currently held paradigm, the results are thrown out as “an
anomaly or attributed to chance variation. This conformity to certain paradigms makes
science akin to religion, which operates from the paradigm that the Scriptures are the truth
and must be used as a means to interpret portions of creation.
Some misconception of the relationship between Christian faith and Science is that
“the early church fathers only embraced a literal interpretation of Scripture”. That is not
true!  One of the early church fathers, Saint Augustine (AD 354–430), suggested that the
biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from
science and our God-given reason. From an important passage in his  De Genesi ad
litteram libri duodecim, or The Literal Meaning of Genesis (early fifth century AD), we
read: It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about
other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and
distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage
of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such
things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even
by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be
avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on
these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he
could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they
are. Augustine’s words resonate with us, as they did with Galileo. If the church had
heeded Augustine’s advice not to impose itself in matters in which it was unskilled, and
if power and control had not been such a focus for the church at the time, then this
long battle between the church and science may never have taken place.
Religion and science are similar in that both have their presuppositions, are not
founded on fact alone, and have a deeply personal element. In the words of Charles A.
Coulson, a published Oxford professor of mathematics and theoretical physics, “Science has
its presuppositions, though they are often unrecognized, science is not based on facts alone,
since we have no unfailing criteria for what is either a fact or an adequate proof, and
scientific laws develop because there is a considerable personal element inextricably
involved even in their formulation”. Scientific presuppositions may be hard to recognize,
but all scientists operate under presuppositions of some sort. According to Roger J. Voskuyl,
a member of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), “Every science presupposes faith in
self, in our consciousness of self; presupposes faith in the correctness of the laws of
thought; presupposes faith in something universal hidden behind the special phenomena;
presupposes faith in life; and especially faith in principles for which we proceed”. Just as
science operates from paradigms and possesses certain presuppositions, so religion is not
based solely on facts because of the relational component of Christianity .
Despite popular misconceptions on the incompatibility of the goals of science and
faith, the common goal of both is surprisingly similar: both aim at truth. Even if people
recognize that faith and science are similar in their approach to creational discovery, they
conclude that the goals of science and faith are so different that their respective approach
in interpretation is irrelevant. Often, people claim that “science is about what and how,
religion is about why; or, science is about facts, religion is about values” . This is a simplistic,
inaccurate, and trite view of the relationship between faith and science. Although the
emphasis of the realm of truth in these two subjects varies slightly, the common goals of
both run parallel. Mikael Stenmark, professor of philosophy of religion at Uppsala
University claims that “[science] aims to make the world technologically and predictively
intelligible, and we value science because it is useful and because it helps us control, predict,
and alter the world”. He contrasts this to the aim of religion, which is “to make sense out of
existential experiences, to diagnose them, and find a way through the barriers to our well-
being” . Now this is not to say that science only aims at understanding and predicting the
world, and religion aims only at making the world existentially intelligible. In reality, “the
epistemic and the practical goals of science and religion are of the same kind” While
individual fields may be better equipped at understanding either the epistemic or existential
aspects of creation, the goals of both faith and science are shared.
 Finally, faith and science complement one another when individuals use them from
mindset and for the same purpose. Coulson states that “science has its proper place in the
whole economy of life, for it shows us God as seen and experienced from a different point
of view from any other” Rather than being opposed to one another, religion and science
form a mutually beneficial relationship. Another complementary aspect in the relationship
between faith and science is the ability for each to be used as a tool in the interpretation of
the other. God has revealed himself both through general revelation (his creation) and
through special revelation (through the Scriptures). When used in unison, both means of
revelation provide a fuller and deeper understanding into who God is. According to
Hendrikus Berkhof, Professor of Systematic Theology, “Science never reaches final results,
nor can it by its nature and limits give answers to the questions which it raises. It can
describe a process in its phenomena, but cannot make any statements about the meaning
or goal of the process” As a stand-alone subject, science is unable to completely articulate
the various aspects of our world. For instance, “[Christianity] gives purpose to science. The
aim of science from the Christian position is twofold: to glorify God and to improve the
welfare of man in his state on this earth” Just as faith provides clarity and insight into
scientific findings, so “science can be used to confirm and clarify the Scriptures; not that the
Scriptures in themselves need confirmation, but our sin-damaged minds need apologetics,
and our faith needs to be bolstered and strengthened”. When science is performed from a
Christian perspective, it can be an effective tool in understanding God’s revelations in
creation. God is glorified as we study, wonder, and stand in awe of all that he has created.
He is also glorified when we use this same creation to aid—either through technology or
new discoveries—those who are in need. God’s general revelation through creation is
applicable both to believers and nonbelievers; this is known as common grace. This same
common grace enables non-Christian scientists to make profound discoveries; however,
these discoveries bear fewer implications than when they are approached through a faith-
based viewpoint.
Yet one more misconception about the relationship between faith and science
requires a response: the commonly held belief that faith is a crutch upon which weak
individuals lean to support all that science cannot explicitly prove. This mindset assumes
that scientific discovery trumps biblical revelation and interpretation. Such a skewed view
of the infallibility of Scriptures poses inherent problems for believers. Rather than viewing
faith as a crutch to support and fill in the holes of scientific claims, faith in God should be
“based on observations of meaning and value and order that actually underlie science itself”
This misunderstanding—commonly referred to as “God of the gaps” philosophy—must be
rooted out before a complementary relationship between science and faith can be
established.
Science and theology do not have to be fields of study that are mutually exclusive.
Instead, through the observation of each one’s approach to creation and their goals and
applications of scientific findings, science and faith are able to complement one another in
God-glorifying ways. Just as great scientific thinkers of the past like Bacon have agreed
upon, science is a wonderful tool to help us understand more about who God is and how He
has revealed himself through His creation. Similarly, faith provides insights and operational
frameworks for scientific thought. Together, they work collaboratively to further the
Kingdom of God on this earth.