The Harmony Between Christianity and Science

Anti-Christian skeptics frequently make claims that belief in the supernatural, and Christianity specifically, is fundamentally contrary to science. In this previous post, I have responded to some of these claims, pointing out that the methodological naturalism of science in no way necessitates metaphysical naturalism, the belief that nothing supernatural exists. In this post, I will expand upon this and make some further arguments for the fundamental harmony between science and Christianity.

Science vs. Scientism

It is important to distinguish between science and scientism. Science is a method for systematically studying and gaining knowledge about the workings of the natural world. Scientism is the philosophical belief that only science can give us true knowledge and that only the material universe exists. The problem with scientism, of course, is that scientism itself is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical assumption. If only science can give us true knowledge, then scientism itself cannot be true. Thus, scientism is a self-referentially incoherent claim.

Recognizing this, some proponents of scientism retreat to the position of weak scientism: the belief that science is the most reliable path to knowledge, though other sources of knowledge do exist. Science, they argue, is superior to theology, since science has a consistent method for gaining knowledge, while theology has no consistent method. 

It is true that there is widespread disagreement about theological method among different Christian traditions and denominations, as well as a great diversity of theological beliefs. However, across the major Christian traditions, there is widespread agreement about some basics of theological method (e.g., the authority of the Bible) and the central, fundamental basics of Christian theology (e.g., the Nicene Creed). There may be some aspects of Christian theological discussion which are speculative, but that does not mean that theology is per se an unreliable source of knowledge. 

I am willing to acknowledge that science is often more reliable in gaining firm knowledge than theology is, but this in no way implies any kind of conflict between science and theology. It is merely a result of science and theology studying different subject matters. Answering questions about the working of matter that can be carefully controlled in a laboratory is often easier than answering big-picture metaphysical questions. But this does not mean that these big-picture metaphysical questions should or even can be avoided, or that we cannot arrive at firm answers to at least some of them. 

Some proponents of scientific materialism try to argue that, although we cannot just assume scientism to be true, the history of scientific progress points strongly in that direction, making it the most reasonable position to take. Science operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism, and has been remarkably successful, so, they argue, the history of science shows that only nature and matter exist. In the past, Christians have often made “god of the gaps” arguments that tried to prove supernatural activity based on gaps in human knowledge of how the natural world works. But, scientific progress has closed many of these gaps. For example, what we now know to be the medical condition of epilepsy, ancient superstitious people called demonic possession. So, they argue, we should just assume that in the future science will close all gaps, and we will be able to explain everything naturalistically. 

It is true that some “god of the gaps” arguments made in the past have been rendered obsolete by the gaps being filled with scientific knowledge. However, there are many “gaps” that have not been filled, and, as scientific progress has advanced, even more unexplained “gaps” have actually been discovered. We cannot just assume that all of these gaps will eventually be filled with naturalistic explanations. As for the example of demonic possession, it is true that in the past some people may have been misdiagnosed as possessed who were actually just suffering from medical or psychological problems. But it is also likely that some demonically possessed people in the modern period have been misdiagnosed as having medical or psychological problems. Modern Christians are quite aware of the difference between demonic possession and these other problems, and are careful to make sure a person really is possessed before diagnosing their condition as such.

Science studies the natural world, so by definition it can not tell us anything one way or the other about the existence and activities of supernatural agents. These questions simply fall outside the scope of its field of study. As I argue in this previous post, there is a lot of good evidence of miraculous events in the modern period, so it is quite simply false to assert that modern progress has made belief in the supernatural obsolete. 

When faced with good evidence of miracles, atheists argue that a person must already assume the existence of God in order to believe these events to be Divine miracles, and that, even if we have no other explanation for these events, we should just assume that there is some naturalistic explanation which we have not discovered yet. But this just expresses blind faith in the religious perspective of metaphysical naturalism. A person does not need to assume Christianity to be true in order to point to miraculous events as evidence that it is true. They just need to make a convincing argument that the Christian worldview provides a more plausible interpretive framework for explaining these events than the atheist worldview, which severely lacks explanatory power regarding this evidence.

Christianity and Science in History

In addition to making a (failed) argument that Christianity and science are inherently in conflict, atheists often claim that the Church has historically been an enemy of science. However, this claim is quite simply false. The fact is, modern science was developed by Christian thinkers of the late Medieval and Renaissance period, during which time the Church was a great patron and supporter of scientific investigation. Rather than being an enemy of science, the Church was, in fact, actually responsible for the development of modern science. 

Anti-Christian authors frequently point to the case of the Catholic Church putting Galileo on trial for advocating a heliocentric view of the solar system as an example of how Christianity has hindered scientific progress. But this was actually an exceptional case. At the time, Galileo did not yet have proof of his heliocentric theory, and, since this was a controversial subject, the Catholic Church asked Galileo to not publish works advocating his theory until more conclusive proof could be shown. When Galileo did so anyway, the Catholic Church required him to recant and then placed him under a mild house arrest. This was an unfortunate incident, but it is certainly not an example of a supposed war between science and the Church in history. 

Science is based on the belief in the uniformity of natural laws throughout the universe. Based on a relatively tiny number of experiments, the scientist believes by faith that they have discovered firm conclusions about how the laws of nature operate throughout the universe. Such faith only makes sense within a monotheistic framework, in which it is believed that a Supreme Intelligence created the universe. Polytheists believe that the universe is fundamentally chaotic, a conflict between various gods. Eastern religions believe that the universe is just an illusion. Monotheists believe that the universe is fundamentally uniform, harmonious, intelligible, and rational. But atheists have no basis for believing this; their faith in science is derived from Christianity. As Alfred North Whitehead wrote in his classic book, Science and the Modern World, “faith in the possibility of science. . . is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.”^[1]Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Free Press, 1953), 13.

When faced with this truth about the relationship between Christianity and science, atheists try to argue that science developed in Western Europe in spite of Christianity, not because of it. In support of this, they point out that science did not develop during the Middle Ages, and never developed in Eastern Europe, in spite of its Christianity. But the claim is not that Christianity was the only historical force leading to the development of science. Obviously, other social and economic factors were necessary as well, which did not exist during the chaotic early Middle Ages or in Eastern Europe. It took more than just mere Christianity to produce the development of modern science. But the primary and fundamental philosophical basis for the development of modern science was provided by Christianity. 

While there have been and continue to be some isolated points of conflict between some Christians and some scientific theories (e.g., contemporary controversies regarding creation and evolution), these are not representative of the historical relationship between the Church and science throughout history. Both philosophically and historically, there is no conflict between Christianity and science.