Science and Scripture
There was a time in the western world when the only authoritative history of the universe was the Bible. It is true that co-existent pagan religions also provided such histories but, as the Bible rose in authority, these alternative stories were relegated to the realm of myth. But now the wheel has turned and it is the Biblical accounts of the beginning of Creation that are most questioned, with science the ascendant authority on our origins.
Many, however, still hold to the accounts of Genesis in some respect or other. For example, it is still quite commonly believed that God made the world perfect and that man corrupted it through sin. But is it right to believe such things?
It is, of course, possible to believe anything but the question we should always ask ourselves, using the skills that God has given us, is how rational are our views? In some cases our beliefs can stand upon the authority of the authors in whom we trust. But in other areas, we may have the benefit of other knowledge to appraise them.
Where our religious beliefs concern events in Creation, science can help us to form a right view. For surely such beliefs should be consistent with what we understand about Creation through observation. Thus if, for example, someone prophesized that God would free the world of disease tomorrow and, when tomorrow came, medical scientists confirmed the continued existence of disease, surely we should then question the validity of that prophecy (and presumably the authority of the self proclaimed prophet as well).
And on the issue of the corruption of the world, I think that, when we reflect on Creation itself, with the benefit of scientific knowledge denied the ancients, we do come to a different view.
Science will never be able to see past that first instant of Creation but, after that, Creation falls well within its scope. And we have learned much from science about the work of the Creator's hand.
We now know that the universe is and, since its birth, always has been in the making. Effects propelled by prior cause join every aspect of Creation to that initial instant; the instant that was pregnant with the future. The universe never was perfect and corruption has not been introduced. Rather, change is the essence of what it was, is and is becoming.
Indeed, to understand Creation we no longer need the old simplistic theories of evil and corruption. The rise and fall of empires can instead be understood as the result of complex social, political and economic forces. Bad weather, earthquakes, eclipses, disease, war - all these things ride on complicated waves of cause and effect that tie us to the beginning of time.
This is not, of course, to deny any scope for Divine intervention. The Creator of space, time and everything in it can surely intervene (perhaps in ways always intended). But for the most part it seems that the universe, including our own infinitesimal world, is as it was always going to be. And so are we. For behind every human personality is a brain, a material organ constructed from the dust of long dead stars by forces that ripple through and are shaping this little corner of Creation.
And God has formed us to appreciate and understand these processes. It is something we get better at every day, though our search for these answers is as old as the hills. The account of the order of Creation provided in Genesis, for example, seems to be an early attempt to do just this. There are a few problems as we now know, e.g. the late arrival of the sun and moon, but if we think about the general order that is given: light; the Earth; plants; sea creatures; land creatures; man; then we see that it is in reasonable agreement with our modern understanding. We may not have arrived at the order through the same method but the ordering does seem to reveal a process of reflection by the ancients on interdependencies in the world.
However, standing on the shoulders of the past, we have since carried these inquiries further. Humanity has made great advances in understanding the causes of many kinds of effects; explanations of natural and social phenomena that are not confined to the present. Consequently, the Biblical creation myths, are no longer required. Increasingly, for example, we see that the best way to deal with what we once thought was evil, is to address the problems walking in our streets.
And this is not a criticism of the ancients. For it is not that our reason surpasses theirs, but rather that human reason now leverages off more knowledge.
Nor is this deference to science on matters relating to the wokings of Creation a radical view. Marching with the times, modern religion is, for example, clearly less inclined to attribute epileptic fits to demons than once it was. Nor does it represent a weakening of faith. Rather, we now have a much greater appreciation of how God's plan is being accomplished.
And this is why we should study new science as well as old scripture if we wish to make some practical sense of what God has created and intends for us.
However, I am not one who believes that we can know all. To appreciate a picture you must stand back; to appreciate the universe you must be God. And God's perspective is beyond the scope of science.
So, in what sense is the Bible (or other scripture) true? Well, truth is an alignment between a statement and a fact. So perhaps we should first ask ourselves: what are the important statements in the Bible (or other scripture)? To me, the important statements are the religious and moral ones, because these teach us how to live correctly under God's sky. I think the Bible is very reliable in that sense. It matters less whether there was an arc containing all the animals, marched in two by two, than that Noah should have listened to God (as in the story he did).
But we should also note that it takes a good reader to bring a book to life. If the Bible was intended by God to serve the spiritual needs of the future as well as the past, it would be written in the knowledge that the background experience of each generation would differ. From that point of view, the moral and religious truths also seem durable. But not completely so, because we need to appreciate that morality is relative to circumstance (though neither subjective nor arbitrary) and that religious truth, though not relative, unfolds over time. And the Bible itself provides evidence for this.
Turning first to morality, it is relative because morality comprises precepts that benefit us collectively. Thus, because complex communication is vital to human society, our moral codes banish the lie. There is not much relativity in it though because we are and always have been social beings. Consequently, the optimal moral fundamentals do not differ much between human societies and over time. Society generally suffers if people cannot be trusted to tell the truth, or if they feel morally free to murder, steal etc.
But, nevertheless, there is some relativity involved in our moral mantle. For example, harder rules are needed in the desert. And so the emphasis of the New Testament differs from the Old (shifting from hard justice towards more forgiveness), without rendering all the old precepts obsolete. Thus, if we think of moral truth as an alignment between a statement that some type of behaviour is right for us (according to God's command or what is socially healthy or both) and what actually is right for us, then what is true at one point may not be true at another. And that is something we must consider when reading ancient scriptures referring to moral precepts.
Turning now to religious truth, it seems that what we know about the underlying facts changes, rather than the key facts themselves (although new facts may also arise e.g. concerning Christ). The experience of the New Testament makes readers re-think the Old. The experience of two thousand years of discovery about the workings of Creation gives us a different perspective on both. But none of this overturns, say, our belief in God the Creator or the belief that God has a plan. So these central religious facts would not seem to be relative and the truth has not changed. Rather, it seems that some statements or our understandings of them are more accurate than others. But this is not to say that the less accurate aren't helpful at some point in time. People may be ready to progress to one stage of understanding but not to the next; a principle that seems to have wide application in educating the young and old today. And so, while religions generally consider that the last word in their scripture is the final one, we might be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
That there is scope for improved spiritual understanding arises both from the great mystery of God, whom we can only dimly know (from Scripture, observations of Creation, and personal experience), and from our own development.
Moreover, even if no further insight is admitted, it is doubtful that that the future reads old words in the same way as did the past. For the backgrounds of widely separated generations will be different, even to the extent of the language that they use. And, perhaps, some shift in the moral and religious messages of scripture, in ways unknown to us, might even have been intended by the Creator ,who would have surely been aware that the world and its readers were changing (according to plan).
But, speaking more generally now, we might say that the scriptures are an important source of wisdom. And then, recalling the scope of this inquiry, we might find it useful to distinguish between the roles of science and wisdom in our lives.
Wisdom and science do appear to have some general characteristics in common. Wisdom is both a skill and a set of principles obtained through the exercise of that skill. Similarly, science is both a method and a body of knowledge obtained via that method.
But science and wisdom differ in function. Whereas science provides us with information on the workings of Creation (information that can also lead to technological innovation), wisdom guides our decisions. It does this in two ways.
Firstly, wisdom helps us to avoid error. Some of this error is of the kind religion calls sin and some is simple folly (which in later life we are inclined to call "experience"). Secondly, wisdom can guide us to the best available choices, helping us to optimise our lives.
Both science and wisdom are needed to trace and interpret God's plan, but their role in this task differs. If we wish to see how God's plan is unfolding in Creation, then that would seem to be largely an empirical matter falling within the province of science. But if we wish to reflect on the web of cause and effect discovered in that process, perhaps with a view to guiding future action, then that would involve a call on wisdom, informed by science.
By way of illustration, science has revealed that asteroid collisions with the earth have played a significant part in God's plan to date. Science also identifies this as a future (but hopefully distant) risk. Reflecting on this, it would seem wise for governments to establish some long term contingency plans.
Unfortunately, humanity does not seem to have advanced as far in wisdom as it has in science. Thus, when we look at the environmental damage we are causing, to take but one example, we see that we are not doing a particularly good job of controlling the unruly horses that are pulling our chariot of knowledge.
An important issue therefore seems to be: how should we deal with this problem? What would the Creator have us do?
Undoing our understanding does not seem practical, no more than it was in the story of Eden. Rather we need to make better choices about the application of knowledge. We need to be wiser.
One set of worthwhile choices seems to relate to making the world a better place. Examples are: using technology to reduce environmental problems (e.g. in energy use); or funding more medical research to reduce suffering.
Other choices, however, might relate to our broader role in God's plan. Much of the scientific work of the ancients involved examining the heavens. We seem drawn to them. Now we explore them directly. Better a space than an arms race, perhaps (though , reflecting on the past, a more cooperative approach may be preferable now)?
In any case, it seems that science now grows exponentially and that while wisdom too, has doubtless advanced, its progress has been less rapid. And that is one of the reasons why scripture such as the Bible is still sought by presidents and paupers alike. And why Aristotle, one of the great founders of science, is today read more for philosophy.
Presumably, while other works are important, that is why my own principal reference on matters of wisdom is also the Bible. But I do not use it as my principal reference on matters falling within the scope of science (including the history of the Earth and of Creation more generally). For that, it seems to me, is not its real job.
Kristo
2003