Science and Theology...
At the suggestion of someone else, I'll talk about something I've thought about for a long time: the relationship between science and theology. Having grown up Christian, and being somewhat gifted with an analytical mind, these two methods for finding things out have to be somehow harmonized. Historically it has been a very thorny and complicated relationship, fraught with high emotions, accusations and misunderstandings. Einstein said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
So how do I think these two ways of finding things out, both monumentally important in human history as well as human present, can be reconciled? In my observation, many end up placing one over the other, on the grounds that there is only one Truth, so science and theology should line up. Some choose to guide their science by their theology, and end up suggesting things like "Creationism" as a scientific theory. Some guide their theology by science and end up with a religion that is cold and impersonal, one that is powerless to do what religion should do, i.e. explain our continual desire for "something more" and the fact that mere physical expansion and reproductive efficiency fail at making us feel whole, among other things.
As for myself, I feel the premise above is flawed, and leads to flawed versions of science and theology.
You see, this thing we call "science" as cool and useful as it is, is simply a set of methods and tools for developing and evaluating physical theories, models of the universe. It is not a route to "Truth" in the traditional sense of the words. Imagine, for example, that two conflicting scientific theories both predict the results of experiments with equal accuracy, and both explain those results with equal simplicity and satisfaction. Both these theories are equally "true" scientifically. In fact, as far as science goes, it really does not matter which one is closer to the "truth" and there is no way to tell that, except by continually gathering more data and ruling out more and more theories. Science is, at the end of the day, a set of tools that lets us figure out medicine, air conditioning, automobiles, the Internet, etc. If we had a theory that fit all the facts in the universe, we could still conceive of another one that could fit all the facts as well, and science would be unable to distinguish between them. Indeed, there would be no reason for *science* to care, as long as data are correctly predicted and explained to satisfaction.
Now, if we start guiding science by anything other than scientific principles, we are no longer doing *science.* Many Christians want to start with what they believe theologically as physical, scientific assumptions, and immediately rule out any theory that seems to oppose their theological beliefs. But this is something that all scientists should avoid as much as they can, as it is bad, bad, very bad science. Science must start only with physical evidence and end with physical evidence. We must only use such explanations and models as lend themselves to the physical evidence, independent of any metaphysical beliefs.
There is a side-note to this that is equally important. If we take the tools or results of science, and aim them at anything other than scientific questions, we are again not doing science. Using science to do theology is just as bad as using theology to do science. By this I don't mean we should forget the rules of logic when doing theology. Those are common to both science and theology. But conclusions come to by scientific (read: physical) methods cannot say much about metaphysical questions. For example matter how well we understand the process by which life and consciousness arose, we cannot, by science, say *why* they arose, or what it means that they arose.
Theology on the other hand, searches for Truth in the traditional sense. If we are talking about Christian theology, then we must use our minds to search the scriptures for what they mean about God. The Bible is a theological book, and should be taken as one. There are portions that are historical and factual, and there are portions that are symbolic, allegorical and poetic. We should not try so hard to extract answers to physical questions from a book whose purpose is to answer metaphysical questions.
So my conclusion is simply that we use science as a tool, and as a diversion. It is a tool for healing, keeping people safe, and it can also be fun for its own sake and for its applications. But we should not confuse it as something that can answer life's most important and deepest questions, or to teach us what is True and Real in the metaphysical sense. That task, I think, we must leave to theology.
So how do I think these two ways of finding things out, both monumentally important in human history as well as human present, can be reconciled? In my observation, many end up placing one over the other, on the grounds that there is only one Truth, so science and theology should line up. Some choose to guide their science by their theology, and end up suggesting things like "Creationism" as a scientific theory. Some guide their theology by science and end up with a religion that is cold and impersonal, one that is powerless to do what religion should do, i.e. explain our continual desire for "something more" and the fact that mere physical expansion and reproductive efficiency fail at making us feel whole, among other things.
As for myself, I feel the premise above is flawed, and leads to flawed versions of science and theology.
You see, this thing we call "science" as cool and useful as it is, is simply a set of methods and tools for developing and evaluating physical theories, models of the universe. It is not a route to "Truth" in the traditional sense of the words. Imagine, for example, that two conflicting scientific theories both predict the results of experiments with equal accuracy, and both explain those results with equal simplicity and satisfaction. Both these theories are equally "true" scientifically. In fact, as far as science goes, it really does not matter which one is closer to the "truth" and there is no way to tell that, except by continually gathering more data and ruling out more and more theories. Science is, at the end of the day, a set of tools that lets us figure out medicine, air conditioning, automobiles, the Internet, etc. If we had a theory that fit all the facts in the universe, we could still conceive of another one that could fit all the facts as well, and science would be unable to distinguish between them. Indeed, there would be no reason for *science* to care, as long as data are correctly predicted and explained to satisfaction.
Now, if we start guiding science by anything other than scientific principles, we are no longer doing *science.* Many Christians want to start with what they believe theologically as physical, scientific assumptions, and immediately rule out any theory that seems to oppose their theological beliefs. But this is something that all scientists should avoid as much as they can, as it is bad, bad, very bad science. Science must start only with physical evidence and end with physical evidence. We must only use such explanations and models as lend themselves to the physical evidence, independent of any metaphysical beliefs.
There is a side-note to this that is equally important. If we take the tools or results of science, and aim them at anything other than scientific questions, we are again not doing science. Using science to do theology is just as bad as using theology to do science. By this I don't mean we should forget the rules of logic when doing theology. Those are common to both science and theology. But conclusions come to by scientific (read: physical) methods cannot say much about metaphysical questions. For example matter how well we understand the process by which life and consciousness arose, we cannot, by science, say *why* they arose, or what it means that they arose.
Theology on the other hand, searches for Truth in the traditional sense. If we are talking about Christian theology, then we must use our minds to search the scriptures for what they mean about God. The Bible is a theological book, and should be taken as one. There are portions that are historical and factual, and there are portions that are symbolic, allegorical and poetic. We should not try so hard to extract answers to physical questions from a book whose purpose is to answer metaphysical questions.
So my conclusion is simply that we use science as a tool, and as a diversion. It is a tool for healing, keeping people safe, and it can also be fun for its own sake and for its applications. But we should not confuse it as something that can answer life's most important and deepest questions, or to teach us what is True and Real in the metaphysical sense. That task, I think, we must leave to theology.