Christianity: Belief & Science Revision

AREA 1: METHODS OF ARRIVING AT HUMAN UNDERSTANDING Revelation of God’s Nature: God showing who he is by what he does through: Scripture General Revelation Special Revelation Traditions of the Church Religious Experience Order & Design

Revelation of God through Scripture (Bible, Old & New Testaments) Divinely inspired or guided Literal, symbolic or a mixture of both Can be read by anyone and if taken literally you don’t have to guess at what God wants Is a complicated text and has been written by human hands that may have influenced meanings

General Revelation Can be seen through: Creation Deliverance from suffering e.g. Exodus of Jews Awareness of his presence, conscience? Only have to look around at beauty & order and the power that must have created it Doesn’t have had to have been ‘God’ There is a lot of violence in existence

Special Revelation God becoming human in form of Jesus Visions, dreams, appearances, miracles etc. Jesus was ultimate revelation with God’s message Miracles etc. point to power over laws of physics What other explanation can there be? Jesus was simply a good man – there is no proof he was God; maybe he only thought he was Miracles etc. are just exaggerated stories or things that were misunderstood at the time due to lack of scientific knowledge People hear voices all the time – it doesn’t have to point to God

Revelation through the Traditions of the Church Beliefs and practices of a particular branch of Christianity The Church has kept its traditions for 2000 years The people in the Church have been ‘called’ to represent God The Church has changed over time and leadership has never been stable; it is mixed up with politics & culture of history The people in Church are only ‘human’

Revelation through Religious Experience People have claimed to experience numinous; either sudden flash or slow realisation People have found meaning in major life events Claims of seeing visions, angels or having messages delivered in dreams; or just the feeling of an awareness The experiences are life-changing People describe them as very real Happen unexpectedly There is a history of them happening Peoples lives change all the time, doesn’t mean its due to God Some experiences have led to negative things e.g. cults Why are they random and relatively few? Illness, drugs or a heightened state of emotion alters the chemistry of the brain producing strange reactions

Revelation through Order and Design Universe is just right for its purpose Universe is ordered and has regularity The vastness and complexity of the world points to a designer – God The beauty & order points to a loving God Why does the universe need a creator and if so why did it have to be God? Who created him if this is the case? Nature is full of violence and suffering e.g. natural disasters & animals having to kill to survive

Why is Revelation Important in Christianity? We cannot understand our purpose in life if we don’t understand God’s message This not only affects us now but also in the afterlife God doesn’t need to reveal himself but we are obviously important to him He always has and always will reveal himself All arguments are open to debate & interpretation The ‘evidence’ is not very strong – why isn’t he more direct? How much is true and how much has been edited by human hands?

Sources of Human Understanding: Scientific Method Experiment Observation Hypothesis Research Verification or falsification Generalisation Prediction Theory or law Paradigm All should allow replication Uses inductive method: observations  theories  laws Theories are never proven only supported.

Scientific method (cont.) It does not ‘hold on’ to beliefs but welcomes new evidence whether it supports or rejects previously held laws or paradigms It changes theories to fit the evidence – not changing the evidence to fit the theory. Takes into account all possibilities Other people can test and verify or falsify hypotheses Leads to laws/theories that cover similar occurrences We can never be sure we have covered all possibilities Exact replication may not be possible and findings are always open to interpretation Every apparently similar occurrence may not be covered

The scientific method is a way to test our ‘common sense’ understanding of things. This is done using the deductive method i.e. what we see usually leads to assumptions. E.g. people believed the world was flat; science showed it wasn’t. complexity & wonder of nature shows that God designed it; science gives an alternative theory The Full Moon Effect (people’s behaviour changes); science has found no evidence to support this Common sense based on actual experience Deductive reasoning can save us ‘reinventing the wheel’ Common sense approaches are often not up to date People are not always open to common sense being challenged Deductive reasoning only works if your assumptions are correct so not as effective as inductive reasoning

Scientific Method is open to verification & falsification. Laws have been changed over time and will continue to do so as more evidence is uncovered Science can only verify or falsify things within its scope Verification is based on proper scientific enquiry Suitable scientific tests are devised to test hypotheses It gives reliable ways to understand the universe Evidence is open to interpretation Some things are outwith scientific scope Some would argue we need mystery in our lives

Scientific Models Science uses models to understand difficult concepts They can predict results in the absence of hard evidence Can lead to tried and tested paradigms on which further testing can be based However good a model is it is not the real thing Predictions are always open to interpretations Some scientists find it hard to accept challenges to cherished paradigms

Scientific Objectivity Scientists are objective meaning their views are based on solid evidence Objectivity safeguards against scientists ‘twisting’ evidence Evidence is always open to interpretation It is extremely difficult to remain 100% objective. Some great scientists have followed their ‘gut feelings’ with success.

Scientific Method Summarised It is based on rigorous, methodical approach where the ‘truth’ is based on best evidence available Evidence always remains open to challenge and change if necessary It is the most reliable way of explaining the world around us It has flaws which could mean unreliable or misinterpreted theories Can lead to competing claims and scientists are not as open to change as they might think It is limited in what it can explain

Some Christian responses to the Scientific Method Ordinary people can’t always understand scientific theory The meaning of life comes from our own actions Science is anti-religion Science provides power & knowledge that is too much for humans to handle It makes humans think they are God Scientific method is full of flaws so we should be wary Scientists’ own beliefs affect their results A lot of scientific evidence is circumstantial not ‘real’ Science involves interpretations, assumptions and leaps of logic and this weakens the scientific method.

Some Scientific Materialist Responses to Religious Belief Religion is a dangerous delusion It holds humanity back Religion relies on blind faith Religion is not open to questions and challenges The contradictions and illogical things in the Bible point to it just being a story Religious belief is extremely subjective especially religious experiences which cannot be tested Revelation is confusing, unclear, contradicts itself and is not consistent, making it unreliable

Acceptance of Both Revelation and Scientific Enquiry Religion and science do not need to try and contradict each other; they are just different ways of understanding (NOMA) Belief in God requires faith not evidence; not blind faith but faith supported by reason and teachings Religion doesn’t have to be tested just accepted Some people believe that religion lets them understand spiritual questions and science physical ones (NOMA) Not everything can be tested so belief/faith fills that gap There is evidence for religious claims if you are prepared to accept it but it doesn’t necessarily mean a scientific explanation is wrong. Maybe God ‘does’ science too so the theories can complement each other rather than contradict.

Area 2: God Created the Universe Literal Understanding God is the creator of everything As in Genesis 1 If its in the Bible it is true God has special powers The Bible is a book of faith not science Requires only faith to understand Can be accepted as it is with no need of interpretation or analysing Doesn’t take into account scientific evidence that contradicts it It is so simple it rejects the intelligence God gave man If Genesis is to be taken literally then so should everything else in the Bible some of which isn’t acceptable today

Symbolic Interpretation It may be true but in a symbolic way God’s special powers are portrayed in ways we can understand By matching the religious claims with that of science it can still be a book of faith God is the creator but the ‘story’ is symbolism & myth Allows explanation of things in a more believable way Allows the use of God-given intelligence Accepting some of scientific explanations prevents getting to a point where faith & science clash

Aquinas’s Cosmological (First Cause) Argument Thomas Aquinas (1224 – 1274) argued Everything has a cause Every cause has a cause This cannot go back forever There must have been an uncaused cause to start the chain That can only be God Therefore God must have been the First Cause Everything is contingent (relies on something else) God isn’t contingent, God is a necessary being God created everything out of nothing (ex nihilo)

Accepting the First Cause Argument It is a matter of faith Does away with the need that everything goes back in time infinitely The Argument fits in with what most Christians already believe God is a special case so he doesn’t need a cause

Rejecting the First Cause Argument You can’t say everything needs a cause except God. If that is the case why can’t you say the universe doesn’t need a cause? Quantum physics has shown some things do appear without a cause; this would do away with the need for an uncaused cause i.e. God By saying God is the cause of all causes means there is an even bigger creator than him which makes the problem worse Even if the universe was created why does if have to be the Christian idea of God? Maybe it was God but what’s to say he is still around?

Religious Explanations of the Origin of the Universe Summary It is based on ‘evidence’ from the creator himself Gives a simple & understandable account of universe’s origins Gives a meaning & purpose to life Suggests a creator that cares for us Its based on belief only, with no scientific support Uses texts and philosophical arguments that are open to interpretations

The Big Bang Explains the Origin of the Universe At this instant, matter, time, energy and space were created It does not require a creator – it ‘created’ itself It has evidence to support the theory: Expanding Universe which implies an explosive beginning Cosmic Background Radiation; the radioactive ‘heat’ is what scientists would expect to find from this type of ‘explosion’ Relative Abundance of the Elements: the materials present and the quantities they are in are also what scientists would expect to find The search for the ‘initial conditions’ still continue

There is strong evidence to support the theory from a variety of scientific fields It offers a balanced & reasoned explanation for something that happened when no-one was around to witness it Much of the evidence is circumstantial (inferred) not empirical It is so complex it is difficult for ordinary people to understand Gives no explanation of purpose & meaning of life

Some Christian views on the Big Bang The Big Bang theory is wrong; there is no mention of it in the Bible It is based on assumptions & interpretations which might be wrong There is contradictory evidence in science Supporters of Intelligent Design argue there is scientific support for the belief in creation by God

Some scientific materialists views on religious belief of creation The Big Bang theory is right and will be backed up by further evidence in the future Interpretations of evidence are not ‘blind’; they use reason & logic The theory isn’t perfect but the best we have The Genesis account is not scientifically valid It removes the need for a creator

Both Can Contribute To Understanding Of Origins Of Universe The NOMA argument suggests you can believe in both Science explains the physical, religion the spiritual Creation by God is outside science’s scope Christians can accept the Big bang theory if they do not understand Genesis literally God may have started the Big Bang and science can explain it from there

God created Human Life As described in Genesis 1 & 2: Adam & Eve made in God’ likeness, disobeyed god & banished from Garden of Eden Literalists believe this word for word Therefore Earth is only a few thousand years old Liberalists believe it is a metaphor and allegory and only has symbolic meaning Therefore relates to spiritual not physical matters

Paley’s Teleological Argument or Design Argument Proposed by William Paley (1743 – 1805) As a watch is created by an intelligent designer so too must the whole universe The universe is too complex and complicated for it to have happened by chance (Anthropic Principle) That creator could only be God Therefore God must exist and he created the universe Intelligent Designer?

Accepting the Teleological ( or Design) Argument The conditions on earth are just right for life Such precise conditions are unlikely to have happened by chance It must have had a designer The logical conclusion is the designer is God

Rejecting the TeIeoIogical Argument Maybe it was designed but maybe it wasn’t the Christian God Maybe it was a team of ‘Gods’ It begs the question ‘Who designed God?’ Why did the universe need a cause if God didn’t? Maybe the laws of physics are ‘God’? The universe & earth are by no means perfect; sustainment of life requires the death of other plants and/or animals. How does this point to an intelligent designer? Luck rather than order seems to reign; there is no order in natural disasters. They are random acts causing suffering to innocent people. The anthropic principle says the conditions have been made perfect for life. It is the other way around - life is here because of the conditions.

Human Life Emerged as a Result of the Process of Evolution A living thing depends on fitting its environment to survive e.g. climate, food source Those which adapted survived (through random mutation) These adaptations were passed on through the genes to next generations to ensure survival Nature selects those fit for survival If the environment changes only those who can adapt to the change can survive to pass on the genes This is natural selection Darwin had a lot of evidence for this theory e.g. fossil evidence & geographical diversity (different environments showing different adaptions for survival) Everything that is alive today (10% of all known species) has adapted to environment as it is now – any changes to environment means these will have to adapt again to survive

Darwin’s theory was based on circumstantial evidence but has since been backed up by discoveries in DNA DNA mutates randomly; when this mutation is beneficial to a living thing it increases its chance of survival DNA is major driving force behind evolution DNA & natural selection is therefore a ‘blind’ process that doesn’t require a creator Life began in a primordial soup where inorganic elements somehow became organic Humans evolved through the same process meaning we share origins with other primates Therefore human life is just another life form

Darwin meticulously researched his theory using different disciplines such as biology & geology Provides a working explanation of what we can see such as biodiversity & similarities between species as well as explaining extinction Supported by recent discoveries such as DNA Since it is a ‘blind’ process there is no need for God and therefore an explanation for God’s origins Much of Darwin’s theory is circumstantial & inferred which leaves it open to interpretation There are gaps in the theory such as incomplete fossil records Doesn’t answer the meaning & purpose of life

Interpretation 1: The Bible’s Creation Story is Right The Bible creation story is true therefore humans didn’t evolve It is based on belief & faith and rejects science Some Christians accept Genesis as symbolic. It is not a scientific explanation but as a way to explain what human life is for It is clear – if the Bible says its true then it is true It gives answers to the meaning & purpose of life Uses the truth in the bible to back up the truth in the Bible – a circular argument open to debate Does not take any scientific evidence into account

Intelligent Design Supporters of Intelligent Design argue that there is scientific evidence supporting creation of human life by God, e.g. irreducible complexity. There is a strong scientific basis for Intelligent Design Does away with the need to use only the Bible to support God as the creator Suggests credible alternatives to the flaws in Darwinism Scientific argument is complex and could be beyond ordinary people including Christians Implies the Bible story is not enough Still doesn’t prove the Christian idea of God created life. Leads back to ‘who designed God?’ Schoolboy Objection

Interpretation 2: Evolutionary Theory (ET) is Right Scientific materialists (SM) argue that the evidence for ET is vast It’s the best explanation even if its not perfect SM reject theories of ID e.g. even if theory of ID are correct it doesn’t prove God was creator SM say ID is ‘bad science’ or science interpreted in a way to suit their theory i.e. one already based on a creator, God

Interpretation 3: Both Revelation & Theory of Evolution Contribute to Understanding of the Origin of Universe Some people accept both at the same time Evolution may be the mechanism God used to create & regulate life on earth ET can answer physical aspects & Revelation the meaning & purpose of life Both believe life is valuable and should be cherished