<<

Volume 47 Number 4 Article 8

June 2019

Science vs. Faith: The Great False Dichotomy

Ben Hayes

Sacha Walicord Dordt University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege

Part of the Commons, and the Higher Education Commons

Recommended Citation Hayes, Ben and Walicord, Sacha (2019) "Science vs. Faith: The Great False Dichotomy," Pro Rege: Vol. 47: No. 4, 36 - 40. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol47/iss4/8

This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more , please contact [email protected]. Science vs. Faith: The Great False Dichotomy

One of the recurring themes in Christian or in the process by which opinions are formed. higher education is the perceived challenge of Every scientific outcome will be determined a integrating the biblical Christian faith with sci- priori by the that the scientist, ence. We are told that there is a contradiction who is engaged in the scientific endeavor, holds between much of what is found in science and by faith. Nobody is -free, but we a plain reading of Scripture. Because of this ap- all need presuppositions, by way of , in parent contradiction, integrating science and the order to make sense of . In other words, Christian faith has become one of the biggest before a person—Christian or non-Christian— challenges for both Christian higher education begins any scientific endeavor, he or she already and for believers who seek to understand what holds basic presuppositions concerning metaphys- ’s Word has to say about reality. Although ics, and ethics. A person holds these we are told that the and science are at odds, presuppositions or assumptions by faith since nobody ever seems to critically analyze the per- he or she cannot gain any or under- ceived axiom itself. But what if there is no need standing without having a concept about reality for such integration because the perceived dilem- (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), and - ma does not really exist? What if it is really a false rality (ethics) first. dilemma? What if the axiom that science and For the purposes of this paper, we define sci- faith cannot be reconciled is altogether wrong? ence as the process of gaining knowledge of any That is exactly the point of this paper. We will kind. The particular field or kind of science is -ir prove that the perceived dichotomy between sci- relevant for our purposes, as this endeavor, with ence and faith is really a false dichotomy, and its underlying presuppositions, refers to all kinds that there can logically be absolutely no tension of human thinking and reasoning. The outcome between the Christian faith and true science. of any scientific endeavor will always be deter- The perceived dichotomy between science and mined by, or based on, the specific presupposi- the Christian faith is, in reality, a false dichoto- tions that a person has adopted beforehand by my. The falsity can be explained by the different faith. Persons who, for example, have subscribed presuppositions that each side chooses to believe. to the metaphysical concept of secular natural- According to Greg Bahnsen, a presupposition ism have made an a priori commitment not to ac- is an elementary assumption in one’s reasoning1 cept the at all, and so their research outcomes will always be interpreted according to this a priori faith-commitment. Does this mean Dr. Sacha Walicord, of Business Administration that a scientist who has adopted a secular natu- at Dordt University, mentored senior Kuyper Scholar Ben Hayes and collaborated with him on this paper for Hayes’ ralistic worldview can never discover anything final project, for May 2019. true or useful?

36 Pro Rege—June 2019 Such a scientist can of course discover or de- bribe off the enemy by those concessions which velop things that are true or useful for mankind the enemy most , the apologist has re- but is limited in two major ways. The first is that, ally abandoned what he started out to defend.”2 while he or she can find and discover fragments About those who claim neutrality, Bahnsen adds of , like a new and very helpful fact about that “they do not approach any issue neutrally. genetics, he or she will never fully know. This Any claim to neutrality is a pretense, and it is person does not know why this fact exists or to philosophically impossible.”3 While secular sci- what ultimate end it exists. This person does not entists constantly claim neutrality, the opposite accept the in his or her think- is true. Romans 1:18-19 describes the of ing at all and, therefore, will never accept Him as the unbeliever and therefore also the mindset of the source and His glory as the end of all reality. the unbelieving scientist: At this point it might be noted that the secular For the wrath of God is revealed from scientist can only do any kind of science because against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of he or she “steals” or makes assumptions that can men, who suppress the truth in unrighteous- only be assumed through the existence of the ness, because what may be known of God is immutable, unchangeable, and faithful Creator manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. of the universe. Such a scientist, for example, assumes reliable laws of nature without logical The scientist who thinks that he is neutral, and works with them, assuming re- or “facts-only,” as is often claimed, has already peatability without ever able to account for fallen into the trap of his own biases without even such an orderly universe apart from the God of knowing it. the Bible (Romans 1:25). What then does this mean for the Christian Second, as soon as any research object is root- scientist? Has the Bible anything to contribute to ed in a supernatural act of God, the secular natu- the scientific endeavor at all? Or, is God’s Word ralist scientist will necessarily always be wrong. only useful for and personal as is This is also where the Christian scientist who has often claimed? If the Bible were useful only for adopted naturalistic presuppositions for his or her personal salvation, there would be no difference “science” will be wrong in exactly the same way. at all between a Christian scientist and a secular And that’s exactly from where the perceived ten- scientist. And that exactly is the very sad part in sion comes. It is not to be found between Biblical all this. Many scientists in the Christian realm, faith vs. science but between Biblical faith vs. a apparently in order to find with secu- “science” based on naturalistic, counter-Biblical lar Christian academia, utilize the same secular- presuppositions. It is therefore, not a battle be- naturalistic presuppositions as non-Christian tween an “irrational faith” vs. “rational science” scientists and then claim that their supposedly but a battle between the reasonable Christian “neutral” research has rendered results that con- faith vs. an unreasonable competing faith. flict with the perceived teachings of God’s Word. We must understand that there is no such But that claim is not true, as we have already thing as neutrality when it comes to scientific showed. Of course, some still might ask why endeavors, and therefore it is of the utmost im- it should even be considered a problem if there portance to make sure that a scientist is aware of were no difference between secular science and his or her particular biases and presuppositions. Christian science. J. Gresham Machen comments on the nature The problem is that those Christian scientists of neutrality and science: “the liberal attempt who do not see any difference between the two at reconciling Christianity with modern science approaches are engaging in the fallacy of circular has really relinquished everything distinctive reasoning. All thinking and therefore all scientific of Christianity …[;] in trying to remove from activity is all about starting points. Just like secu- Christianity everything that could possibly be lar scientists, such Christian scientists start with objected to in the name of science, in trying to secular counter-Biblical assumptions and then

Pro Rege—June 2019 37 are surprised to often receive results that clearly allows for different possible interpretations, we conflict with the Scriptures. If such scientists, must look to general revelation to find Scripture’s for example, are confronted with supernatural intended meaning. But such a notion is noth- claims in the Bible, they will find themselves ing less than preposterous. Of course, people constantly busy with searching for alternative ex- can interpret Biblical texts differently, but to use planations in line with their naturalistic presup- the possibility of different interpretations as an positions; and they tell the people in the pew or excuse to abandon Biblical validity for doing sci- their Christian students that “science has found ence apart from (=contrary to) Biblical principles contradictions in the Bible”—or the “milder” means to engage in the abusus non tollit usum fal- form of, “we need to rethink our theological or lacy.5 Occasional abuse does not render the prop- interpretative .” Now the problem is er use invalid. A researcher needs a worldview, that the Christian in the pew or their students consisting of metaphysics, epistemology, and lose in the Word of God and, with it, in ethics, in order to interpret general revelation. If God Himself; and all this eventually will destroy he or she is not using the Biblical worldview, the churches and whole denominations. It is exactly alternative is a non-Biblical worldview—which this kind of fallacious circular reasoning that has will, of course, lead to non-Biblical results. actually created the whole (perceived) tension Such is the whole problem at hand. Even if we between science and the Bible. Jason Lisle com- consider some differences in the interpretations ments, concerning the nature of such circular of some passages of Scripture, how many differ- reasoning, that “it is fallacious if used in argu- ent interpretations are there of general revelation ments that do not involve necessary foundational apart from Scripture? How often have scientists truth claims.”4 Secular scientists and Christian erred about all kinds of things in the history of scientists who work on the basis of the same sec- the world? Furthermore, it should be clear to all ular materialistic presuppositions to claim that propositional Word-truth is much clearer “neutrality” and keep assuring us that they’ll go than secular truth, as it comes directly from “wherever the facts lead,” but, as we have already the mind of God and is not affected by the fall, seen, in reality the outcome of their research has as general revelation is. More and more we are already been determined by their a priori faith- hearing from Christian academics that we need commitment to secular-naturalistic assumptions. the natural scientist’s “unbiased” interpreta- Bahnsen used to tell the story of a man who went tion of general revelation in order to understand to see a medical doctor, claiming that he was ac- Scripture properly, and we are pushed to declare tually dead. The confused doctor first thought them a new class of priests, who can tell us how this to be a joke but then realized that the man to (re-)interpret God’s Word properly. Thereby was dead-serious (literally!). After much back- the Christian scientists, with their counter-Bibli- and-forth between the two, the doctor lost his cal presuppositions, lift themselves and their per- patience, took a needle, and pricked the man’s sonal interpretation of general revelation above finger. As one can imagine, blood dropped on God’s Word. Again, we see that it is all about the floor. Confident of victory, the doctor smiled, starting points. The so-called “scientific method” only to hear his patient exclaim, “It is true after itself is biased because it is based on naturalistic all—dead people do bleed!” This humorous ex- empiricism–it does not allow for the supernatu- ample actually gives us a serious lesson: it dem- ral at all. The “scientific method” itself, therefore, onstrates how powerfully one’s presuppositions is a faith commitment and was not determined one’s reasoning. through any valid, scientific process. Therefore, Similarly, we are often confronted with the we can see that the “scientific method” itself is notion that scientists can neutrally interpret “gen- not all that scientific but is based on counter- eral revelation” in an unbiased way, apart from Biblical philosophical assumptions, which are Biblical presuppositions, in order to find real themselves held by faith. truth. We are then told that because Scripture All of this of course raises a question: since we

38 Pro Rege—June 2019 now know that the non-Christian is by no means This helps us get to the core problem at hand. neutral, what about us? Can we, as Christians, To say it in the words of Van Til, “facts and in- claim neutrality in our research? The answer to terpretation of facts cannot be separated…facts this question is a loud and clear “no.” Neither without God would be brute facts. They would non-Christians nor Christians are unbiased in have no intelligible relation to one another. As their interpretation of reality since they both need such they could not be known by man.”9 All a worldview (consisting of metaphysics, epistemolo- “facts” need interpretation and every interpre- gy, and ethics) in order to even begin to interpret re- tation is based on a person’s worldview which is ality. The non-Christian, as we now know, is not held by faith. neutral, but neither is the Christian. Cornelius To show an example, we will look to the ac- Van Til rightly stated that the Bible is “authori- count of the floating axe head in 2 Kings 6. There, tative on every subject about which it speaks. we encounter a miraculous account of an iron And moreover, it speaks axe head floating in the of everything.”6 Since it is From here, the question river Jordan. If we were the only source of special to utilize the naturalistic revelation about creation no longer becomes one of worldview of a secular sci- from God, it should be neutrality, but it becomes one entist, and applying the the starting point from of judging correct or incorrect scientific method trying which any scientific inter- presuppositions. to reproduce this event, pretation is developed. If we would have to come science is done from the to the conclusion that basis of the affirmation of the divine inspiration an iron axe head can never float. Therefore, the and infallibility of Scripture, it requires scientists Bible would need to be irrationally reinterpreted, to develop and analyze their theories and inter- or called a book of lies. The main presupposi- pretations according to what has been revealed in tion behind such an interpretation is a secular, God’s Word. The problem with many Christians naturalistic concept of metaphysics. Such an ap- today is not one of outright denying the proach would introduce a method of Biblical “in- of Scripture, but of trying to accommodate secu- terpretation” which we are now obliged to con- lar interpretation of reality over against Biblical sistently apply to the whole Bible. And the new truth. Schaeffer warns that “here is the great principle is this: there are no . If there are evangelical disaster - the failure of the evangeli- no miracles, then there is no resurrection from cal world to stand for truth as truth. There is only the dead. And if there is no resurrection of the one word for this—accommodation.” 7 dead “then Christ is not risen, and if Christ is From here, the question no longer becomes not risen then your preaching is empty and your one of neutrality, but it becomes one of judging faith is also empty…and if Christ is not risen, correct or incorrect presuppositions. On the issue then your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” of judging presuppositions, Van Til commented: (1 Corinthians 15:14-15,17). We often hear that There are two mutually exclusive methodolo- this whole problem is “not a salvation issue,” but gies. The one of the natural man assumes the we have just shown that it ultimately and con- ultimacy of the human mind. On this basis sistently is. It will ultimately lead us down the man, making himself the ultimate reference road of the German liberal theologian Rudolf point, virtually reduces all reality to one level Bultmann and his concept of the demythologiza- 10 and denies the counsel of God as determina- tion of Scripture whereby everything in the Bible tive of the possible and the impossible. Instead that cannot be explained by a naturalistic world- of the plan of God, it assumes an abstract no- view must be considered a myth. That would be tion of possibility or , of being and the end of Christianity in the minds of men. rationality…8 Understanding that all scientific interpreta- tion is berthed out of presuppositional biases,

Pro Rege—June 2019 39 Biblical or not, necessitates a need to determine antithesis lies between the Bible and all scientific which revelation must gain priority: general or endeavors operating on anti-Biblical presupposi- special. All beliefs are supported by other beliefs tions—between truth and lie. Or to say it in the and all reasoning is initially circular (=by faith!), words of Kuyper, “Notice, that I do and it ultimately comes down to the person’s not speak of a conflict between faith and science. most basic presuppositions. If persons cannot Such a conflict does not exist. Every science in a support their worldview beliefs, they engage in certain degree starts from faith.”14 Or to put it in unfounded circular reasoning. So, the question the words of St. Paul, “For what fellowship has arises: is there an ultimate standard by which with lawlessness? And what com- to judge all truth claims? As Christians, we rec- munion has light with darkness? And what ac- ognize that the Bible is the only source for ob- cord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a jective truth, and we accept it as the ultimate believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:14-15). standard for everything (2 Corinthians 10:5). As Lisle points out, an ultimate standard must Endnotes be assumed to be true and also affirm its own 1. Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings 11 truth. Lisle says that “all of our chains of - and Analysis (Phillipsburg, NJ.: Presbyterian and ing must be finite. Therefore, everyone must have Reformed, 1998), 2, note 4. an ultimate standard: a proposition (upon which 2. Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity & Liberalism, all others depend) that cannot be proved from a (Michigan, WM. B. Eerdmans, 1923), 7-8. more foundational proposition.”12 Not only must 3. Bahnsen, Greg. Pushing the Antithesis. (Georgia, it prove itself, but it must provide a basis for all American Vision, 2007), 28. knowledge. Knowing this, everyone must recog- nize the need for an ultimate standard by which 4. Lisle, Jason. Discerning Truth. (Arkansas, Master to test all truth claims. Therefore, every Christian Books, 2010), 27. must come to the conclusion that Scripture must 5. The possible abuse of something does not cancel be used as the final authority by which to asses its proper use. every bit of reasoning in the universe. If some- 6. Bahnsen. Van Til’s Apologetic, 36. thing interpreted from general revelation seems 7. Schaeffer, Francis. The Great Evangelical Disaster, to conflict with Scripture, we must always give (Illinois, Crossway, 1984), 37. the written Word priority—because we use it as Van Til’s Apologetic the ultimate standard of reasoning. From this ba- 8. Bahnsen. , 63. sis, it is the Christian system alone that provides 9. Bahnsen. Van Til’s Apologetic. 38. meaning for science in the first place.13 Because 10. “Entmythologisierung der Bibel” science must build itself upon the foundation of 11. Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation, faith (as we have shown), it is of absolute necessity (Arkansas, Master Books, 2009), 141. that the foundation upon which it is built is the 12. Lisle, Jason. Ultimate Proof. 143. truth of God’s Word. Because God must have dominion over every square inch of our lives, we 13. Bahnsen. Van Til’s Apologetic. 90. have to make sure that we are doing science ac- 14. Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on . Six cording to His will. Lectures Delivered at Princeton University under To summarize, we can say that the perceived the Auspices of the L. P. Stone Foundation. (Grand dichotomy between the Bible and science is a Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). 131. false dichotomy. The real dichotomy or the real

40 Pro Rege—June 2019