Faith

SCIENCE RIGHTLY SOCALLED

by Morris Inch
02/01/17
Free to Share

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

SCIENCE RIGHTLY SO-CALLED

I am reminded of a young woman who enthusiastically affirmed, "I believe in science!" Interpreted differently, I might have agreed with her. But we had something quite different in mind. In her case, she thought that science has the final word in a comprehensive view of life. Whereas, I view science as dealing with that which can be empirically verified.

Initially, it should be recognized that science functions within the context of some tentative system of thought, often referred to as a paradigm. Moreover, that the paradigm can shift from time to time. Thus to better accommodate the increase of knowledge. For instance, as with the advent of quantum physics, which deals with small pieces of matter.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (Heb. 11:1). Consequently, science per se appears not to qualify as a faith, if it strictly deals with what can be seen. Conversely, it should be considered as an aspect of reasoning faith.

Everyone believes something. As alternatively expressed, that which serves as a religion is for all practical purposes a religion. As viewed in terms of one’s ultimate concern. In this regard, Jesus cautioned: "No one can serve two masters. Either he will the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money" (Matt. 6:24).

If one serves God, then understood as the source and means of sustaining life. Thus deserving of our recognition, appreciation, and cooperation. In terms of a realistic faith, a legitimate hope, and an enduring love.

If an alternative, then some aspect of creation. This is in keeping with thesis that God created humans, and humans created gods. Then as a means of furthering their own agenda. Regardless of its adverse effects on themselves and others.

Having served in higher education most of my adult life, I have been impressed with what appears to be a more ready response to the gospel from those engaged in the natural sciences as set over against those in the social sciences. Why? Perhaps because the natural sciences better serve as a reminder of the limitations within which we reason.

For instance, C. S. Lewis recommended that we read one book from the past along with one from more recent times. Otherwise, we are inclined to accept as valid that which is more descriptive of the times in which we live. This, along with other pertinent considerations, gives rise to the admonition: learn from the past, live toward the future, and engage in the present.

This line of reasoning promotes an awareness of the extraordinary within the ordinary. Whereas we are more disposed to draw attention to some seemingly unusual event. Only to find out that someone meant to deceive us, or that it could be explained on more natural grounds. Accordingly, we fail to recognize the truly astonishing character of life.

Thus are we reminded of general revelation. Buy way of illustration, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is not speech or language where their voice is not heard" (Psa. 19:1-33).

Moreover, there is special revelation. As pertains to the patriarchs, prophets, and Jesus and the apostles. This amounts to a divine initiative to clarify his intent, document his enablement, and set our course for the celestial city.

Meanwhile, we are encouraged to learn by whatever means is available. Thus elevating science to a sacred endeavor. Meant to be employed as a means of glorifying God, and serving others. As was God’s righteous intent.