CHAPTER 5

HOW CAN JUDEO-CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HOLY SCRIPTURE AND ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE?

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy? Job 38:4-8

First and foremost, Judeo-Christians should neither attempt to demonstrate the existence of God with science nor participate in futile efforts to impose legal constraints on basic scientific research. Using science to prove or, for that matter, to disprove God as the creator and sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, distorts both science and religion because the methodologies intrinsic to each discipline differ in many respects. Numerous volumes have been written about this distinction but the crucial point relates to the collection and interpretation of data. Scientists utilize the scientific method(1) whereas for religion, non-rational (but not irrational) data serve as the initial foundation for the transition from unbelief to belief.

Despite the methodological differences, analogous “leaps of faith”(2) undergird Judeo-Christianity and science; hence, from first principles, both persuasive descriptions of reality can speak to each other without negative confrontations. The issue does not concern superiority but how Judeo-Christianity and science support and complement each other to give a more expansive and integrated explanation of God’s creation and continuing involvement in human affairs. Considerations of the comparative leaps of faith in the scientific and religious spheres apply only to Judeo-Christians. Atheists give no credence to Holy Scripture as an authoritative source. Absence this authority, conflicts between Judeo-Christianity and science obviously have no relevance, if for no other reason than issues of Biblical inerrancy need not be addressed.(3) I do not mean to imply that Judeo-Christians should refrain from witnessing to non-Judeo-Christians. Rather, the witness should first take place on grounds other than a discussion justifying both religion and science.

Uncertainty in Science

Two thought experiments may serve as an introduction to the leap of faith at the core of science. First, let us imagine we are about to toss a coin into the air and we ask, “What is the probability, or odds, that the coin will come to rest with the Heads side up?” If we discount the vanishingly small chance that the coin will land and stay on its edge, the probability of Heads showing at rest is 0.5 (i.e., 50%, 1:1, or even odds). We next visualize eight more legitimate tosses, each of which shows Heads at rest. After these nine consecutive Heads, we ask, “What is the probability that the tenth toss will show Heads?” The answer is still 0.5. Statistics instructs us that the random nature of results from a sufficiently large and even number of legitimate tosses ultimately will produce an equal number of Heads and Tails. Emphatically, no force operates in nature to pre-determine that the tenth toss is more likely to be Tails rather than Heads, despite the successive run of Heads. People who do not grasp this point gamble at their peril.

The second thought experiment addresses tossing a ball into the air. We ask, before the toss, “What will happen to the ball?” The answer is that the ball will rise to a height dependent upon the strength of the toss and then return to ground level. We have great confidence in this expectation. We have never observed anything different throughout human history: Objects projected into the air with accelerations insufficient to escape the Earth’s gravitational field or to go into a stable orbit have always returned to ground level.

What is the linkage between the first and second thought experiments? The former teaches us that nothing from the extensive previous observations of objects (e.g., our ball in the second experiment) propelled into the air predetermines that those objects will fall back to ground level. Some persons will immediately respond, “Gravity brings these objects back to earth.” More accurately, all these observations allowed the formulation of the Law of Gravity in its basic expression. Nevertheless, the best we can do is to expect, with a high probability approaching, but always less than 1.0, that the objects will come back down.

Scientific laws, therefore, do not rest upon absolute certainty but on events of extremely high statistical probability. Scientists make their leaps of faith across this inherent uncertainty because experience shows the universe operates with predictable reproducibility according to scientific laws we can discover and elucidate. Without this consistency, our lives would be intolerably chaotic with an untrustworthy creator. All the subsets of science (e.g., Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) can be built upon the framework laid down by the leap of faith from irrationality or chaos to high probability and reliable reproducibility but not to certainty.

From Unbelief (Doubt) to Belief (Faith) in God

Modern usage confuses belief and faith.(4) The New Testament meaning of belief indicated binding loyalty to a person (i.e., Christ) through promise or duty. The Greek word translated as faith in the New Testament meant trust, loyalty, engagement, commitment to Christ through practically living out the Gospel message (e.g., feeding Christ’s sheep). Faith for Judeo-Christians should not be considered equivalent to belief in human-made opinions. We moderns probably would benefit from thinking trust or commitment when we read or hear belief and faith in the context of Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture compels us, in the words of St. Augustine, to first believe and then to know.(5) We come into the Community of Believers through belief in God as the supreme power in the universe. We cannot know as opposed to know about God unless we first believe in God. If scientific experiments were able to demonstrate that God created and rules, belief would be irrelevant. Jesus always called his disciples and others who heard him to enter the Kingdom of God through belief or, more properly, trust and commitment.

We may use our rational and non-rational prowess to establish a basis for believing in the existence of God; but, regardless of the fervor and astuteness of our struggles, each of us must first cross from unbelief to belief without irrefutable scientific or rational proof. Some individuals, such as those born into and raised in the Community of Believers, will find a relatively narrow and shallow gap they must traverse. Other persons will come up against a wide and deep chasm, an abyss. Regardless of the distance and depth we face, the transit must be made by a leap of faith.

A devotional reading of Holy Scripture assists many persons in moving to belief. Individuals who hold fast to the doctrine of sola scriptura(6) may not worry about any perceived differences between scientific findings and Holy Scripture but will find belief by trusting that God will one day reconcile all such distinctions. Other Judeo-Christians with a more scientific orientation may negotiate the crossing with the realization that Holy Scripture was never intended to be a scientific textbook. The basis for the transit aside, once we cross from unbelief to belief, the entire edifice of Judeo-Christianity can be constructed. Theological arguments have led to somewhat modified structures, e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant, Baptist vs. Methodist, but the same pillar supports all variations of Judeo-Christianity: Belief in God manifest through the Holy Trinity,(7) and the witness and service of believers.

I have long struggled with the idea of how to convince persons outside a religious community about the concept of first believing in God as a prerequisite for knowing God exists and remains involved in human lives: My upbringing in the Community of Believers established the first basis for my belief years before I applied the full force of my intellect to the proposition of God’s existence. Once this application progressed through my fascination with science, I found no reason to disbelieve: I benefited from the witness of astute individuals who opened my mind to the fact that no actual conflict exists between the fundamental precepts of Judeo-Christianity and science. What, however, about persons outside Judeo-Christianity, how can they best be brought into this Community? I believe the way we Judeo-Christians live our lives, as exemplified by our profession, proclamation, witness, rejoicing, and service(8) reveals the appropriate answer.

Evaluation of Religious Truths

I dispute the claim that the Judeo-Christian religion, in contrast to science, necessitates abandonment of rationality in favor of irrationality. As a Judeo-Christian scientist, I can attest that equivalent mental acuity should be applied to both religion and science. Our God-given minds allow us to test and verify the “revelations” of religion and science.

How do we evaluate the truth and relevance of religious revelations in the absence of the objective data available to science? A common non-rational but real phenomenon, falling in love, furnishes an approach. Although science has made great strides in unmasking the biochemistry and physiology of why and how two humans fall in love with each other, no completely rational explanation of the process has been put forth. Genuine falling in love may transcend objectivity but our intellects must come into play once the full bloom of emotion or infatuation subside, in order to evaluate the possibility that we have succumbed to the spell of a powerful but transitory state of enchantment.

A “Damascus Road Experience” like the one that brought St. Paul to belief in Jesus Christ becomes a non-rational highlight of some peoples’ lives. Holy Scripture informs us about the power of St. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. St. Paul himself testifies that he was a Jewish scholar, and the epistles he authored show a fine mind at work. It would have been thoroughly in keeping with his training and character for St. Paul to have applied his intellect to differentiate between a nightmarish irrational occurrence and a non-rational but real event, even one outside the realm of objective rationality. Unless St. Paul was a lunatic, a supposition highly unlikely from the content and characteristics of his writings, we can be confident that his non-rational encounter withstood the test of his rational mind. I suspect the time St. Paul spent blinded allowed him an opportunity to assess what had happened. Additionally, St. Paul could not have undertaken his mission to the Gentiles if other Judeo-Christians had not quizzed him in detail about, and then agreed with, the truth of his “Damascus Road Experience”.

Once we make the initial leap of faith, all our religious convictions must withstand rigorous tests, as in science. We should apply our minds to even the fundamental aspects of our religious convictions. For example, we must disregard such bumper sticker concepts as, “God said it and that means it’s true.” Why? Holy Scripture contains many internal contradictions and does not always accord with what we have learned about the ancient and modern worlds.(9) We need to comprehend what Holy Scripture actually says before embracing the bumper sticker proclamation. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest Judeo-Christian theologians, spoke pertinently to the point: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic (i.e., Judeo-Christian) not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.(10)

As discussed above, science rests upon statistical design and control. Similarly, a type of statistical verification pertains to religion. Observations, a form of data, collected over the centuries show predictably favorable and often dramatic changes in lives after people transition from unbelief to belief, including genuine love for brothers and sisters, ministry to the poor and disenfranchised, and other aspects of feeding Christ’s sheep. Critics of this proposition may counter, “Yes, but often accompanied by, or even supplanted with, anticipated unfavorable changes such as intolerance and persecution of non-believers.” St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, among many others, equip us with the proper response to this criticism: People who advocate and follow these negative outcomes from the religious leap of faith do not understand what Holy Scripture actually means.(11,12)

The Critical Interaction

Science and religion may reason together about how to use scientific knowledge. The following equation, a summarization of one of Albert Einstein’s major contributions to our knowledge about God’s creation, presents a pertinent example:
E = mC2

Thus, a massive amount of energy (E) can be obtained from a small amount (mass or m) of a substance (e.g., Uranium 235 or Plutonium) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (where C = 299,792,458 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second).
This theoretical relationship first found a pragmatic utility in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. The awesome destructive power that can be unleashed from nuclear weapons and, as well, the tremendous potential benefits available from controlled nuclear power illustrate why science and religion must speak to each other to protect creation and enhance human life. We would be well served, therefore, by adhering to Albert Einstein’s cogent summarization: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.(13)

The great majority of scientists consider the unfettered right to follow all lines of scientific inquiry with the same passionate commitment as Judeo-Christians regard freedom to worship. All attempts to apply legislative or theological restrictions to research through coercion will ultimately fail. How, then, can Judeo-Christianity and science properly interact? By observing the following guideline: Judeo-Christianity legitimately provides a moral input for, and self-control of, scientists within the Judeo-Christianity community.(14) For example, Judeo-Christian scientists might of their own volition forego research on thermonuclear and biological weapons or into manipulation of the human genome for any purpose other than therapy to cure or prevent disease.

Admittedly, some Judeo-Christian scientists and many non-Judeo-Christian scientists will not ascribe any degree whatsoever of immorality to these and other areas of research but such potentially contentious topics mandate rational discussion from the viewpoints of science and religion. Application of scientific findings frequently generates more serious controversies than the original research topics. Judeo-Christianity, with its moral and ethical values, can serve at least to make us think about how we should utilize the fruits of scientific research. Judeo-Christians must engage in our prophetic mission, not to predict the future but to point out consequences.

When properly conducted, science expands our knowledge about God’s creation and constitutes a form of worship. Accordingly, the conversation between Judeo-Christianity and science ought to take place with mutual respect because Judeo-Christianity teaches us how to go to heaven and science teaches us how the heavens go.

References

1 Chapter 4

2 The term, leap of faith, is commonly attributed to Søren Kierkegaard, although he used leap to faith in his book, The Concept of Anxiety.

3 Chapter 1

4 Karen Armstrong, The Case for God.

5 Give reference.

6 Sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, refers to the doctrine that Holy Scripture provides the only authority, and contains all knowledge necessary for belief in God. Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

7 For the purposes of this discussion, the Judeo-Christian “religion” refers to the belief in God, revealed through the Holy Trinity, whereas Judeo-Christian “theology” applies to the many doctrines that have grown from this basic understanding, e.g., Predestination, Free Will, Transubstantiation within Holy Communion, and Papal Infallibility to name only a few. These differing theological interpretations contributed to the formation of our various Judeo-Christian denominations.

8 Chapter 3

9 Pertinent examples among many are: Which of the two contradictory Genesis creation stories is more correct; on what day did Jesus die; did Jesus go to his death calmly or in agony; did or did not Jesus himself claim to be the only Son of God; is the Holy Trinity explicitly defined in Holy Scripture or is this doctrine the result of tradition?

10 Give reference.

11 Give reference.

12 Give reference

13 Reference.

14 Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941.