I went to the Ligonier Conference in Scottsdale, AZ, this last weekend. Ligonier has people that blogged it far better than I could, so I won't bother. I will, however, share some of what I saw over the next several of days.
The conference was from Sept. 26-27 and was titled, "Tough Questions Christians Face." We enjoyed three speakers: Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul. Oh, and the conference and the overflow were sold out weeks before the event, so it was full. I won't bore you with the details. Ligonier's bloggers offer a blow-by-blow account of each speaker and do it well. The link above is just to the summary and from there you can see detailed entries for each speaker and each question asked and answered. But I was interested in some things that I hadn't spent much time thinking about before (and some I had).
Ligon Duncan addressed the conflict between science and Christianity. Some argue today that science has eliminated our need for God. There are a few difficulties with this position. I see three most obvious areas.
First, science, by its nature, is always up for revision. That means that "the ultimate answers" will always be one step away. Even today, for instance, science is questioning the certainties of Newtonian physics. We were sure ... now we're not. So how does science actually answer life's ultimate questions? Well, by saying, "We're working on it" and never actually arriving. That's not a problem -- it is the nature of science -- but neither is it an answer.
Science is also quite sure that miracles cannot exist, an obvious conflict with Christianity. The problem here is that miracles have nothing to do with science. They are, by definition, outside of the natural. An illustration was used that I thought was perfect. At Christmastime, C.S. Lewis was in his office one day. Outside were carolers. A fellow professor stepped in to visit. The professor asked, "Aren't you glad to know that we're not as foolish as those carolers to think that someone can be born of a virgin?" Lewis asked, "Did you think that they didn't know that?" You see, miracles are not intended to be "scientific" and not intended to even be easily believable. Miracles and science don't mix -- by definition.
The third area that is so very obvious today is Evolution versus Creation. "Evolution," science tells us, "has disproved Creation." There are several problems with this idea. First -- and I hear this from as many Evolutionists as I do from Creationists -- Evolution has nothing to say about origins. Evolution is about how things got from "there to here," but it cannot answer how "there" got started. It doesn't even try. Science can't measure it. It's a matter of philosophy, not science. Second, try as it might, Evolution cannot account for things like personality or creativity. The vast gap between humans and the animal kingdom in matters of music, art, and so on doesn't correlate very well with "evolution". Finally, there is a faulty argument in there somewhere. The idea is that "if we can figure it out, it could not have happened by God's hand." In other words, rationality eliminates religion. What? The truth is that modern science owes its origins to ... religion. When the Reformation took hold, Christian intellectuals thought, "If God is rational, then His creation is rational and we should be able to study it." Indeed, if the universe is not designed, it would necessarily be "irrational" to some extent and science would expect to study chaos, not order.
The bottom line here is not that science and Christianity are at odds, however. The bottom line is that they are different. Science studies natural phenomenon. God is supernatural. The notion, for instance, of "Creation Science" is nonsense. A belief in Creation is a belief that "God created." Science cannot study that. Those who argue for "Creation Science" are fighting a losing battle. Think about it in terms we understand easily. A microphone does not pick up the light in the room and amplify it, does it? No, because a microphone is for sound. Your eyes do not see sound, do they? Of course not, because eyes see light. In the same way, science cannot say anything about God because science deals with the natural and God is outside the natural. Here's what Ligon Duncan said: "The nature of the object determines how it can be known." Or, as Christ said, "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
Science has not eliminated God. It doesn't have the capacity.
6 comments:
Good blog entry.
SocietyVs: The bottom line here is not that science and Christianity are at odds, however. The bottom line is that they are different. Science studies natural phenomenon. God is supernatural. [emphasis in original]
I think this is spot-on. I wish more Christians and a few scientists would understand this better.
SocietyVs: Finally, there is a faulty argument in there somewhere. The idea is that "if we can figure it out, it could not have happened by God's hand."
Not exactly. More of, “if we can figure it out, it no longer falls in the ‘miracle’ department.” As the speakers apparently indicated, miracles are rare. Or, as you indicate, miracles are not intended to be “scientific.”
At one time people thought earthquakes were a sign from God as indications of important events. Upon discovery of plate tectonics, we now realize they are natural phenomena. Or that disease was caused by demons. We have learned differently.
I am curious, though, on one thing. Why, then, disagree with evolution if science can live side-by-side with God? I would think this would tend to support theistic evolution, rather than insistence on either YEC, or even OEC.
One little note: I am not "SocietyVs." :)
The speakers (more than one because the question was also addressed in the Q&A period) leaned toward YEC but stated clearly that to them it was a non-issue. Agreeing with or disagreeing with Evolution was a non-issue. (Oh, and I always thought that "OEC" was "theistic evolution". But, since it's primarily a non-issue for me as well, I suppose I haven't kept up on them as well as others have.)
Stan
I profusely apologize for the name. Another discussion going on elsewhere.
I don’t often gaffe that, but when I do—I really screw up, eh? *grin*
I'm surprised to hear that it was a non-issue with John MacArthur. He's currently in the middle of broadcasting a sermon series on his radio program, Grace to You, on creation/evolution, and he seems to think its an issue in the highest regard.
Ryan,
By "non-issue" I mean "not a reason to separate." Someone asked "Would you consider anything but YEC heretical?" Sproul and MacArthur both said, "No, not heretical." They both said, "I have problems with anything but YEC, but I wouldn't consider someone who disagreed with it as 'unsaved' or 'out of the fold' in some way." Sproul used this phrase: "It's not the hill I choose to die on."
By "not an issue" I didn't mean to imply that they didn't have views or that they didn't have views that they even hold dearly. It was that it wasn't worth separating from Christians over.
Excellent post.
Post a Comment