Big Questions

in
Science and Religion
Samford University
Center for Science and Religion
Relationships between
Science and Religion

Big Questions in Science and Religion

Samford University Center for Science and Religion
What is Science?
•The word scientia
originally meant general
knowledge and was
inferior to sapientia
which meant wisdom
•Science as an
occupation did not
appear until the 19th Image source:
[Link]
[Link]/2012/01/rejected-by-
century science_27.html (fair use)

•Before the 19th century,

many scientists sought
to provide evidence for
religion (natural
philosophy)
A Definition of Science
Acquisition of reliable but
not infallible knowledge of
the real world, including
explanations of the
phenomena
Science is a process,
not a body of
knowledge Image source:
[Link]
Science is always Endeavor-Primer-Principles-

tentative (what hasn’t Practice/dp/0805345965/ref=sr_1_1?s=boo

ks&ie=UTF8&qid=1358951332&sr=1-
been disproved) 1&keywords=scientific+endeavor (fair use)

Science deals with

empirical knowledge
Science includes
explanations in the
form of hypotheses,
theories, and laws
What is Religion?
•The word religio
initially meant an
inner piety or desire
to lead a Christ-like
life
•Religion as a body
Image source:
of beliefs and [Link]
religion-and-terrorism-a-socio-historical-

practices appeared reconsideration/ (fair use)

around the 17th

century, partially as
a result of the
Protestant
Reformation
 A Definition of Religion
 A strong belief in a supernatural power or
powers that control human destiny
 An institution to express belief in a divine
power
 A belief concerning the supernatural,
sacred, or divine, and the practices and
institutions associated with such belief
 The sum total of answers given to explain
humankind’s relationship with the universe
How Do We Know
Things in
Science?
Experiments seek to
control all (or almost all)
variables associated with
a phenomenon
Observation of
phenomena that can’t be
controlled (paleontology,
cosmology, ethology) Image source:
[Link]
together with reason s-iv/optics/[Link] (fair use)

Evidence is reported in
peer-reviewed journals
available to all
Best explanations are
predictive
How Do We Know
Things in Religion?
Sacred texts are inspired by
divine power
Individual revelation through
visions, dreams, prayer,
events
Reason about the nature of
Image source: [Link]
God and the relationship good-joins-interfaith-presentation-on-sacred-
texts/sacred-texts/ (fair use)
between God and humans
Study of sacred texts and
the conditions under which
they were written
Study of the natural world?
Worldviews
We all have belief systems
that influence how we
answer the important
questions of life
Range of views within
Christianity, Judaism,
agnosticism, relativism,
Image source:
Buddhism, atheism, [Link]
022011-religion-and-terrorism-a-
Islam socio-historical-reconsideration/
(fair use)
Scientists also have
worldviews (paradigms)
that determine the
questions they
investigate
Are there differences in
worldviews between
science and religion?
 Scientific and Christian Beliefs
Beliefs Needed for Science Christian Beliefs

 Nature can be studied  Humans are made in the

by humans image of God
 Nature works by natural  God rules the world in a
cause and effect faithful, consistent
 Natural phenomena are manner
repeatable/observable
 God has established
 Experiments and
observations are natural laws
needed for explanation  Humans are not able to
Source: Haarsma and Haarsma, Origin: A understand God’s world
Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and
Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Faith Alive, 2007) completely
How Do Science and
Religion Relate to Each
Other?
Ian Barbour
identified four ways
Conflict
Independence
Image source:
Dialogue [Link]
on-Science-Gifford-Lectures-
Barbour/dp/0060609389/ref=sr
Integration _1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid
=1358952534&sr=1-
1&keywords=religion+and+sci
From Barbour, Religion and ence+ian+barbour (fair use)
Science: Historical and
Contemporary Issues (New
York: HarperCollins, 1997)
Conflict
Religion and science are two
ways of viewing the same things;
therefore one is correct and the
other is incorrect
Both are based on interpretation
of the Bible
Scripture is inerrant in
everything it comments on
and if science appears to
contradict the Bible,
science is wrong (Biblical
literalism or inerrancy)
Parts of the Bible are
contradicted by science, so
all of the Bible must be
rejected and therefore
science is the only reliable Image source: [Link]
path to knowledge of the (used with permission)
real world (scientism,
philosophical materialism)
Conflict
Scientific Materialism
Scientific method is
the only reliable path
to knowledge
Matter (or matter
and energy) is the
fundamental reality Image source:
[Link]
in the universe ries/workplaceconflict/ (fair use)

Science can be
reduced to chemistry
and physics
 Conflict
 In order to accept this model, scientific
materialists must believe that:
 they are completely neutral with respect to
their biases and worldviews
 all of life, including the arts, social sciences,
and others, is reducible to physical processes
 that there is a single way of interpretation of
the Bible, and that it is mistaken
 Are these true?
Conflict
Biblical Literalism
Scripture is
inerrant in
everything it
comments on Image source: [Link]
[Link] (fair use)
If science
appears to
contradict the
Bible, science is
wrong
Conflict
In order to accept this
model, Christians must
believe that:
there are no conflicts,
inaccuracies, or
contradictions in the Image source:
Bible [Link]
009/05/[Link] (fair use)
scientists are mistaken
or purposely fraudulent
in their investigations
into origins (and origins
alone; i.e., not with
respect to medicine,
technology et al.)
scientists are hostile to
Christianity (or religion)
Are these true?
Independence
Contrasting Methods
Science and religion
are separate spheres
of human life
Religious faith
depends on divine Image source: [Link]
initiative, science relies christianity/ways-of-understanding-science-and-
[Link] (fair use)
on human discovery
Science is thought to
be testable, public, and
objective while religion
is not testable, private,
and subjective
 Independence
 Differing Languages
 Scientific language is used primarily for prediction
and control (theories, delimited questions)
 Religious language elicits a set of attitudes and
encourages allegiance to moral principles
 Religious language often deals with liberation
from suffering and experiences of peace and
unity (not scientific)
 What it means: science will discover/explain
everything it can, and religion will explain the
rest
Independence
Problems with this
model: people
generally like to be
consistent in their
beliefs
For Christians, God
is sovereign over
everything, not just
Image source:
the non-scientific [Link]
(fair use)
part of life
Where should
evolution be placed?
Independence
Does Scripture influence
interpretation of science?
May be a misuse to
read into the Bible
things it may not intend
to teach (farming,
economics, weather,
e.g.)
The Bible tells us to look
beyond science for
explanations Image source:
[Link]
Does science influence 2/04/[Link] (fair
interpretation of Scripture? use)

May be a misuse to
ignore parts of Bible that
conflict with science
Scientific findings can
change and improve
understanding of
Scripture
Dialogue
Methodological parallels
Religion and science are
alike in certain ways:
religion is not
necessarily completely
subjective and science is
not necessarily
completely objective
Scientists are not just Image source: [Link] (fair use)

passive observers
(quantum mechanics)
If God created the world
and humans, God meant
for humans to know the
world
Dialogue
Nature-centered
spirituality
Some scientists
have had
spiritual Image source:
[Link]
experiences in atSci102/lectures/[Link] (fair use)

the study of
nature
(Copernicus,
Rachel Carson)

Image source: [Link] (fair use)

 Dialogue
 Intelligibility and contingency can be areas of
dialogue: neither is completely answerable by
scientific methods
 God is the primary cause and works through
secondary causes, which science can
describe
 Avoids God of the gaps, since science is
complete on its own
 In order to accept this model, Christians and
scientific materialists must be open to the
other’s viewpoint
 Integration
 Natural theology
 Existence of God can be inferred from
design in nature, which science has
helped us see
 God can be viewed as the Designer of a
self-organizing system
 Theology of nature
 Main sources of theology are outside
science, but scientific theories may
affect the reformulation of certain
doctrines, particularly creation and
human nature
 “new natural theology” doesn’t offer Image source:
arguments for the existence of God but [Link]
polkinghornes-unseen-realities/ (fair
focuses on features of the universe as a use)
whole (Polkinghorne)
 Example: fine tuning of the universe is
luck, multiple universes, or creation with
conditions for evolution
Integration
Systematic synthesis
Science and religion
both contribute to an
inclusive
metaphysics, such
as in process
philosophy
Image source:
Potential problem [Link]
(fair use)
with the type of God
nature implies (deist
vs. personal)
Integration
In order to accept this
model, science and
religion must be of
equal (or nearly equal)
importance
In order to accept this
Image source:
model, both Christians [Link]
[Link] (fair
and scientists must be use)

willing to modify some

of their views in light of
new evidence and
thinking
Other views of the
relationship between
science and religion
Image source:
[Link]
Mikael Stenmark rch/impactofreligion/Theme
_6/Customized+Science+I
Relationship between %3A+Value-
Free+versus+Value-
science and religion is Directed+Science/?languag
eId=1
dynamic, so discrete Photo credit Max Marcus,
Uppsala University
borders are hard to draw Used with permission

Photo credit Max Marcus, Uppsala University

Used with permission

Nancey Murphy
Five-fold typology related
to Niebuhr’s interactions Image source:
[Link]
between religion and t_2011_08_19_Annual_Le
cture_Vic
culture
States that theology can
influence science
Other views of the
relationship between
science and religion
John Haught
Conflict, contrast, contact,
and confirmation
Confirmation tells of
theology’s effects on Image source:
philosophical assumptions [Link]
of science tag/john-haught/ (fair
use)

Ted Peters
Eight-fold typology
emphasizing history, ethics,
and New Age spirituality
Claims that only science
can produce new Image source:
knowledge [Link]
[Link]/2012/04/professor-
[Link] (fair use)
 How Do We Evaluate Claims
Made by Religion and Science?
 Critical thinking helps us determine the
which claims are more likely to be true
 Being aware of our own thinking (and our
own biases, cultural values, etc.) can help
us evaluate claims also
 Looking for the strengths and weaknesses
of others’ arguments and our own can help
us determine the truth of conflicting claims
 Examples of weaknesses in claims?
Fallacies Associated
with Religion and
Science
Begging the question:
the conclusion is used
as one of the premises
(circular reasoning)
False dilemma:
presumes only two
alternatives exist when
Image source:
there may be more than [Link]
-Think-About-Weird-
two Things/dp/007353577X/ref=s
r_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qi
From Schick and Vaughn, d=1358953931&sr=1-
How to Think About Weird 1&keywords=schick+and+va
ughn (fair use)
Things: Critical Thinking for a
New Age, (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2011)
 Fallacies Associated with
Religion and Science
 Appeal to authority: the use of experts’
opinions in a field in which they are not
experts
 Appeal to the masses: argument must be
true if a large number of people believe it
to be true
 Fallacies Associated with
Religion and Science
 Appeal to tradition: argument that something
must be true because it’s part of an
established tradition
 Appeal to ignorance: opponents’ inability to
disprove a conclusion is proof of its
incorrectness
 Appeal to fear: use of harm to advance one’s
position
 Straw man: misrepresenting someone’s claim
to make it easier to dismiss or reject
 Fallacies Associated with
Religion and Science
 Faulty analogy: using analogy without
looking at dissimilarities
 Slippery slope: performing one action
necessarily leads to additional bad actions
 Image source:
[Link]
[Link]/2012/04/18/au
gustines-intellectual-
development/ (fair use)

From St. Augustine. . .

“If [people outside the faith] find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know
well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to
believe those goods and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of
eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods
on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?”
 Conclusion
 In thinking critically about Christianity and
evolution we need to:
 realize that there are more than two positions
 carefully consider claims, whether they agree
with our position or not
 consider whether biases are affecting a claim,
either our own biases or those of another
 Conclusion
 In thinking critically about Christianity and
evolution we need to:
 use reason as well as emotion in evaluating
claims
 trust (at least provisionally) the opinions of
experts, but only in their areas of expertise
 have the humility to admit that we may be
wrong (after all, there are a variety of views
already)
 Questions
 Which of the ways of knowing are you
most comfortable with?
 The media tend to emphasize the conflict
model. Why do you think this is so? Is
this the most common model?
 What is the role of reason in religion? In
what ways does science seem like a
religion?
 Relationships Between Science and Religion
George E. Keller III, Ph.D.
Samford University

Conditions of Use
The slides contained in this presentation and the accompanying notes are freely
available for use and/or modification by individuals and groups to promote
understanding and dialogue in science and religion with the stipulation that they
may not be sold or traded individually, collectively, or otherwise for any form of
financial or material gain. The source of all images in this collection of slides is
either noted directly (if required by the author) or may be viewed by clicking an
image (in edit mode) and then clicking “Send to Back.” These forms of crediting
images must be included in any use or derivation of these materials.

The contents of these slides and the accompanying notes reflect the views of the
author and should not be assumed to represent the position of Samford
University or its employees.