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 Christianity 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 information, 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 presuppositions 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 presupposition-free, but we a plain reading of Scripture. Because of this ap- all need presuppositions, by way of worldview, in parent contradiction, integrating science and the order to make sense of reality. 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- God’s Word has to say about reality. Although ics, epistemology and ethics. A person holds these we are told that the Bible 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 knowledge 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 mo- 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 supernatural at all, and so their research outcomes will always be interpreted according to this a priori faith-commitment. Does this mean Dr. Sacha Walicord, Professor 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 desires, 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 truth, 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 existence of God in his or her think- is true. Romans 1:18-19 describes the mindset 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 heaven 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, justification and works with them, assuming re- or “facts-only,” as is often claimed, has already peatability without ever being 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 salvation and personal piety 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 acceptance 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 paradigms.” 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 trust in the Word of God and, with it, in ethics, in order to interpret general revelation.