Faith gives us access to an unseen world. As Hebrews tells us,
“By faith, we understand that the universe was created by the word of God so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” - Hebrews 11:3
For Christians, faith in the word and promises of God provide a framework through which we see the world. Faith shouldn’t blunt our desire to make observations about the world or to try to understand how the world works. Instead, it provides us with a framework for meaning.
From a philosophical perspective, meaning is a complicated concept, yet we all have a more or less intuitive sense of meaning. While teaching a class on biblical interpretation, I was trying to help the students understand the difference between observation and meaning. I brought in an old podium that I found in storage and asked the students to describe it. Some noted the artistic quality of the woodwork. Others just saw it for “what it was.” It was an old podium.
After the students had given their observations, I gave the students a “what if” scenario. I asked them how their perception of the podium would change if told them my grandfather had been a preacher at a small church. What if I told them he had left me the podium when he died in hopes that I would follow in his footsteps? Would such a story change their perspective of the podium? For some, the podium was still just an old podium. They could see how it might have sentimental value for me, but it didn’t take on additional significance for them. Others talked about objects or places that were special to them because of the unique experiences and stories associated with them.
The point is that we often understand what we can see by what we can’t. Strict observation is insufficient to convey meaning. Observation and even theories based on observation may tell us how the world works, but they don’t tell us why we should care that it works that way. To return to the old podium without some “unseeable” story, experience, or emotion, it isn’t clear that the old podium has any advantage over a new one. Faith allows us to see more than we can observe.
The Limits of Observation and the Tension between Faith and Science
After telling the parable of the sower in Matthew 13:1-9, his disciples ask him why he spoke in parables (Matt 13:10). In response, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6, noting, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive” (Matt 13:14). Notice that observation is not the problem. Those listening to the parables are not deaf and blind. They can “hear” and “see,” but they cannot “understand” or “perceive.” Observation may be necessary to understand the world, but it is ultimately insufficient.
Strictly speaking, we seldom have problems with observations. To the extent that science makes accurate observations about natural phenomena, we have little reason to disagree. Observation, however, often leads to interpretation, which involves the development of theories. These theories often give rise to disagreement on at least two levels: (1) selection and (2) authority.
Selection is an inescapable basic form of bias. If you think about it, everything you read, watch, or listen to (including this article) has a point of view informed by the selection of some set of data over another set of data. Deciding to include one set of data or to pursue one line of argumentation requires that we determine what is or is not relevant. At worst, those decisions can be wrong. At best, they are always incomplete.
Authority involves the way a given discipline’s criteria come to be seen as a litmus test for truth or, at the very least, plausibility. While science has traditionally had a high degree of authority, that authority has been in decline more recently. From the perspective of the Christian faith, science can be seen to exercise authority over a domain different than, though not completely separate from, that of faith. We don’t, for instance, generally consult the biblical text when attempting to build a suspension bridge or create the engine of a car.
Tensions between faith and science have arisen as some within the scientific community have selected data that seem to undercut biblical accounts or have gone beyond available data to construct authoritative accounts of reality that deny God. So, can faith and science co-exist? How do we go about thinking Christianly about science?
Relating Faith and Science
When we consider the relationship between science and faith, we often consider plausibility. Science can provide evidence that supports various biblical accounts. There is nothing wrong with turning to science to demonstrate the plausibility of biblical narratives. For instance, Dr. Dan Biddle argues in The Ark and the Darkness that there is ample evidence from a variety of fields to support the biblical account of the flood. Such an approach can be quite helpful.
Plausibility efforts can also have a dark side when they assume to know which scientific evidence must align with biblical accounts. For instance, some creationists demand that Genesis 1:1-2:3 be read as a relatively straightforward historical account, arguing that the “days” in Genesis should be understood as 24-hour days. Certain scientific evidence is then used to bolster that interpretation. At the same time, other creationists argue that the “days” in Genesis are “ages” and cite scientific research to demonstrate the old age of the earth. Both perspectives are “plausible,” but both tend to merge biblical interpretations with scientific evidence.
While I appreciate much of the scientific research, I have had enough conversations with those who approach Scripture with a relatively strong commitment to science to know that the Bible can be made to serve either perspective (and often is). Some of those who advocate for a young earth suggest that any interpretation of the creation account in Genesis that does not affirm a historical seven-day timeframe is undercutting the authority of God’s word. Such assertions are an overreach. While I tend to believe that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is referring to 24-hour days, the passage itself doesn’t read like history. Its grammatical structure is quite different than biblical narratives such as Genesis 22. While the genre of the creation account is not easily identifiable, the fact that it isn’t narrative should give us some pause when insisting on every correspondence to reality in the same way. There is room within orthodox Christian thought and biblical interpretation for interpretations of Genesis 1:1-2:3 that recognize the highly stylized nature of the account and the various ways the creation account echoes the laws, practices, and structures of ancient Israel.
The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It provides a number of observations about the world in the course of revealing God through story, poetry, law, and various other literary forms. As such, there is often a necessary separation that needs to be maintained between faith and science. Faith is, after all, how we navigate that which cannot be seen. Science, to some degree, depends on what we can observe. We simply need to recognize that science and faith often intersect, but they also speak to different aspects of reality. Ultimately, our goal is not to harmonize the Bible with science but to allow the Bible to speak as the final authority for life and faith.
Photo Credit: popba from Getty Images Pro/Dee from ภาพของSakorn Sukkasemsakorn via Canva Pro
