I got to thinking again recently how sad it is that we are stuck in this “are science and Christianity compatible?” rut. It seems that a high proportion of writing on science and religion works on this level. And when the conclusion is ‘yes’, the immediate response from all sides is to point out the counter-examples.
I can understand why, if you have problems with religion, this might be the question you want to focus on. But if you are a Christian then it’s hard to have any decent theology of creation and still be stuck on this question. OK, you might have problems with specific products of science, but most of the time that’s a side issue. (See also a very old post: Getting Our Terms Straight.) Christians need to build a good theology of science and understand how it fits into our larger picture of creation. We need to move beyond compatibility questions and think about how we act as Christians in science. We need to stop bringing up the contentious issues every time the relationship is mentioned and start thinking more widely.
And, of course, the ultimate way beyond the compatibility question is not to argue and argue, but for Christians to get on and do good science. To be the ones who are increasing knowledge, acting responsibly and taking the questions seriously.
In a recent post, I used this quote from Jeremy Begbie: … humans are not automatons, bound by iron necessity to their environment, but exercise a freedom, an openness that God has granted them. And this itself can be set in a wider context, for such freedom, presuming it is not an illusion, is part …
Read More →
It’s an on-going debate as to whether maths is discovered or created. I was wondering today if we can find a middle way between these. The sketch of the idea is this… In his book Resounding Truth, Jeremy Begbie emphasises that creation has a flexible order — there is structure but in our development of …
Read More →
[I apologise in advance, this may be one of the posts that I am unique in finding of value!] OK, lets ponder around an interesting quote from Smolin’s The Trouble with Physics. …there are different ways that physics can be unified, and we should be careful to distinguish them. So far we have been discussing …
Read More →
I’ve just finished reading The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin. If you are in anyway interested in modern physics then I recommend it. It’s great fun and very thought provoking. To describe the content, I guess Smolin has three or four things going on simultaneously. The motivating theme is his worry over the extreme …
Read More →
I’ve occasionally dabbled here with the idea of comparing science and art to help characterise science. So, I was interested to see art historian Daniel Siedell doing a similar thing in reverse, using discussions of Science and Religion to illuminate the interaction between art and religion. Have a look and try for some cross-cross-fertilisation.
Read More →
OK, I have to finish this before the year is out — I can’t have a book ‘review’ that lasts more than a year. So let’s wind up with an overview of my feelings on Science and Grace… The first great thing about the book are that it asks the right questions. As I have …
Read More →
I’ve said that the lack of a full discussion of creation is a weak point for Science and Grace. This comes out most clearly (to me) in the consideration of what it means to be a Christian in science and especially in relation to God’s renewal of creation. The book asks what difference, if any, …
Read More →
In Science and Grace, Morris and Petcher have a great chapter discussing the biblical story — the creation-fall-redemption-re-creation sequence — in relation to science. Within this they have a welcome focus on the relationship of science to Christ and redemption/re-creation. Having started discussing science in the context of the biblical story in this blog, I …
Read More →