Science and
the Virtue of Mystery
Colossians
1:15-20
Put your thinking caps on, folks! Today I expect that 90% of you will like this sermon. I also expect that 90% of you will dislike this sermon. I suspect that half of you will agree with what I have to say, half will disagree with what I have to say and half will not understand what I have to say. Now if you think that I am practicing “fuzzy math,” you are mistaken. It is not my math that is a dilemma here but my subject matter, for I will be discussing the contentious and confounding, the exhilarating and exasperating world of modern science.
*****
Some of you may wonder why I would delve into science as part of a sermon series on contemporary social issues. “Isn’t science about verifiable results, about experimentally and methodologically defined processes for gaining knowledge of the physical world? How is that a social issue,” you might wonder? Yes, it is true that “science” is a way of thinking more than a social issue; it is a process by which humankind seeks to perceive the world in an orderly, systematic fashion. However, the results of scientific analysis and the significance of these results are social issues, for they create questions about the nature and meaning of the universe upon which people in our culture disagree with great vigor. Consider the following quotes as an example of the tumult scientific results create and the firestorm of controversy that follows regarding the significance of these results:
· “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” (Albert Einstein)
· “The universe is a put up job.” (Fred Hoyle, discoverer of nuclear reactions in stars)
· “Better to change one’s belief to fit the truth than to change the truth to fit one’s belief.”
· “If Genesis and science differ, Genesis trumps science.”
· “Both profane and religious realities have their origin in the same God” (John Paul II)
· “Genesis is not compatible with evolution.”
· “I am not interested in the survival of the fittest but in the arrival of the fittest. (Hugo DeVries, early twentieth century evolutionary scientist)
As this all too brief list of quotes indicates, people’s reactions to the results and significance of scientific analyses expresses a variety of philosophical world-views. Yet, the debate between “science and religion” often is trivialized into a short-hand that expresses every issue into a dichotomy: creationism versus evolution, science versus superstition, intelligent design versus natural selection. This reductionism into dichotomies expresses a kind of “thinking as marketing” mentality more familiar to a political campaign and not worthy of faithful discourse. The reality is there are more than two positions in the conversation between science and religion; indeed, the interplay between one’s faith based perspective and one’s understanding of science is far more complicated, as Table 1 demonstrates.
|
Creationist only |
Creationist / blended |
Evolutionist together |
|
Evolutionist only |
|
|
6 day creation (young earth) |
Intelligent design (old earth) |
Theistic evolution |
Self-organizing principles |
Multi-verse perspective |
Darwinian natural selection |
|
Faith but not science |
Faith over science |
Science over faith |
Science |
but not |
faith |
Table 1
As Table 1 makes clear, dichotomous thinking is incomplete when discussing the origins of life, and this is only one of many scientific topics on which this is true. The reality of the intellectual debate is more complex than dichotomous thinking allows, with a spectrum of religious and scientific views that range from faith exclusive to science exclusive. What is interesting to me is the middle row of the table in which we see that neither faith oriented approaches nor science oriented approaches are monolithic but both have multiple perspectives on how life originated. Anselm’s famous saying, “faith seeking understanding,” can be modified to say “science seeking understanding,” with the operative word in both phrases being “seeking.”
John Polkinghorne, a former physics professor at Cambridge University, Templeton Award winner for contributions to the dialogue between Religion and Science, and now an Anglican priest, divides the different philosophical positions into four groups (Science and the Trinity, Yale University Press, 2004, pp.1-32):
· Deistic: Those who understand that there are philosophical questions that arise due to scientific exploration but who believe the answers to those questions require a move outside of science per se, science and faith in separate realms.
· Theistic: Those who work from within a religious tradition and who seek to interpret scientific phenomenon from within that religious tradition, faith over science.
· Revisionistic: Those who acknowledge a religious tradition but who are willing to adapt the religious tradition to new scientific insights, science over faith.
· Developmental: Those who seek a continuous exploration of – and dialogue between – both science and faith, science and faith in conversation.
As the above summaries of the kinds of discussions science and religion are having, it is apparent that there is a renaissance of interest seeking to understand God and humanity, as well as the meaning and purpose of our lives, by integrating rather than segregating the best of human knowledge and wisdom. Our culture bears witness to the human compulsion to grasp, to explore, to seek that which is good, just, beautiful and true. Our culture bears witness that both science and religion are required conversation partners in such a quest.
*****
The Bible also bears witness to the elegant blend of natural and special revelation as complementary instruments in helping humanity discern truth about God. The Wonders of God (natural revelation) and the Word of God (special revelation) both are necessary if one is to move deeper into relationship with God.
Some theologians have argued against the above statement. In a well-known (in theological circles) debate about the value of natural revelation, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, two European theologians of the early twentieth century, went back and forth about the place and value of natural revelation, with Barth thundering, “Nein!” to Brunner’s suggestion that one can learn of God from the created order. Barth’s contention was that only special revelation, the revealed word of God, the Bible, that bears witness to the living Word of God, Jesus Christ, was sufficient to lead one into a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Both Barth and Brunner were correct in their own way. Saving knowledge of God is revealed through special revelation; however, Scripture is consistent and clear that some knowledge of God is revealed through nature, for as the Psalmist rejoices, “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).
Even a cursory examination of how Scripture views nature illustrates a pervasive interest in the creation as a reflection of God as Creator. Consider the following verses:
· Genesis 1: the most significant chapter on the creation in Scripture, Genesis 1 is a reflection on how the ancient Israelites viewed God as Creator and the nature of the creation. In contrast with similar cosmologies (creation stories) of the ancient Near East, the creation is viewed as good, orderly and purposeful rather than chaotic and capricious. God is viewed as one who creates out of love, desiring relationship, and humanity is seen as a reflection of the divine image so highly exalted as to be God’s steward, God’s trusted “right hand,” rather than a slavish vessel of the gods’ wrath.
· Psalm 8: a hymn of praise that celebrates the glory and majesty of the natural order, but also highlights the glory and majesty of humankind within that order. Psalm 8 suggests that God’s majesty can be perceived “in all the earth!”
· Proverbs 8: an essay on the role of wisdom in forming the creation, suggesting that nature is not only a reflection of God’s majesty but an expression of God’s wisdom.
· John 1: a theological reflection on the place of Jesus, the Word made flesh, in creation. John 1 declares that “all things were made through him and without him was not anything made that has been made.”
· Colossians 1: an ancient, Christian hymn that expresses the deep mystery that Christ “holds all things together,” that Christ is the warp and the weft that weaves together the whole fabric of creation.
· Revelation 21: an ecstatic vision of the new creation in which all is restored to its original order and purpose, a vision of hope that in God’s good time all things will be made new.
Even this cursory review of Scripture demonstrates at least two things: first, the creation (nature) has a sacramental quality to it. Nature is not a sacrament and the study of it (science) is not another means of doing theology; however, nature is sacramental in its ability to point beyond itself to something or someone greater, an artist whose creation it is. Second, the debate between Barth and Brunner is yet another example of our human tendency to create false dichotomies. That is, rather than debate whether natural revelation or special revelation is the means to knowledge of God, what these Scriptures suggest is that there is a commingling of natural and special revelation. Jesus, the Christ of God, in whom and by whom all things were created and are held together, is both the substance of special revelation but also finds expression through the created order! Therefore, while it is not really true that one can “worship God just as well on the golf course,” it is true that through the study of nature, in combination with theological reflection upon that study (Polkinghorne’s developmental perspective, science and faith in conversation), one is led toward a deeper experience and appreciation of God.
*****
Here, briefly, are some examples of finding the sacramental quality of the creation through science and faith in conversation. I am using examples from the world of quantum physics taken from Polkinghorne’s Science and the Trinity; I am using quantum examples rather than the more common examples taken from creationists and evolutionists because I find their debates to be tired and overwrought. I confess that I do not understand most of what I am about to say, but part of the fun of the conversation is in the learning!
· Quarks and Gluons: Physicists theorize that atoms are not the basic structure of the physical universe but that atoms are made up of quarks and gluons, which cannot be seen but only hypothesized. However, the conjecture of quarks and gluons makes possible the rational explanation of other physical realities. In a similar way, it strikes me that God cannot be seen but belief in him helps make sense of much of human existence, including awe, beauty and music.
· Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: The uncertainty principle demonstrates that one cannot know both where a particle is and where it is going at the same time. You can either know its location or its momentum but not both; the act of choosing to look at one thing precludes seeing the other. In a similar way, it strikes me that Christian theology posits a God who is both one and three: one God whose unity is never compromised, in three persons who are always distinct but never separate. Well, which is it? One or three? The act of choosing to look at one thing precludes seeing the other.
· Chance and Necessity: Many physicists suggest that the universe is the way it is because of a blend of chance and necessity; that is, we have what we have because the universe must function a certain way (necessity) but also because the universe happened to evolve one way rather than another (chance). In a similar way, it strikes me that theology has always struggled to reconcile the relationship between free will (chance) and providence (necessity) and between God’s perfect creation (necessity) and the existence of evil (chance).
· The Universe as an Orderly yet Open Process: Those physicists exploring so-called chaos theory are finding that there is a dynamic tension between stability and chaos in nature. They conclude the universe has an orderly yet open process to its growth and expression, to its becoming, such that it is neither so rigid that nothing new can come about nor so haphazard that nothing new can persist. It strikes me that this tension between order and openness is what the Christian Church has struggled to maintain between Word (order, foundation) and Spirit (openness, fresh wind) in understanding life, faith and ethics.
· Quantum Entanglement: This is my favorite. Also called the EPR Effect, quantum entanglement is something Einstein thought was just “spooky” (his word). Quantum entanglement occurs whenever two entities, such as particles, interact with one another. Once two entities interact with one another they remain forever mutually entangled and distance has no effect on their entanglement. If one particle is spinning clockwise around the dark side of the moon, the other particle will spin counter-clockwise back here on earth. Physicists talk about quantum entanglement under the rubric of field theory. We all know about gravitational theory (apples fall down from the tree) and electromagnetic theory (lightning will be attracted to a three iron at the top of the back swing). Well, field theory, hypothesize physicists, is an invisible, non-material field that connects everything, what Polkinghorne calls a “web like character of interconnected integrity” (ibid., 74). Interesting, don’t you think? An invisible, non-material field that connects everything. Paul put it this way: “in him (Christ) all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). It strikes me that field theory and quantum entanglement help us to understand how it can be that a mother can “know” when her child is at risk even if the child is in another place; or how it can be that twins separated at birth can have incredibly similar personal experiences; or why a change in geography, such as moving across the country, does not change the psychology of needing to come to a sense of peace about one’s parents; or why the Christian faith puts such a premium on the need to forgive seven times seventy; or how we can be called the Body of Christ even though we hold such different views about theology, mission, worship and ethics.
*****
As I conclude our discussion of the contentious and confounding, the exhilarating and exasperating world of modern science, let me lift up to you the virtue of mystery. The prophet Isaiah, admittedly in a different context, spoke words we need to embrace: “‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts’” (55:8-9). We will never understand everything about the universe; even more will we fall short of full knowledge of God. If anyone thinks he or she knows everything about God, then they are not talking about the Lord God, Creator of all that is seen and unseen, so an appreciation of mystery serves one’s faith well. We do not yet know all things, and even as science advances our knowledge beyond our wildest dreams and imaginings, there will be that which remains unknown. It is only in the fullness of time that the mystery will be unveiled completely and science and faith will converge into a common hymn of praise celebrating the truth that though this “world contains sacraments, [the new creation] will be wholly sacramental” (ibid., 165).
Return to Sermons Menu