Grindelwald was glorying in its profusion of professors: scholars in physics, mathematics, zoology, economics and all manner of research abounded.
The scientists had invited me as a chaplain to their conference. Why a chaplain? Because this profusion of scientists was also Christian!
The theme of the Conference of Science and Christianity (COSAC 2011) was Disenchantment: Faith and Science in a Secular World. The description read ‘From the time of the Enlightenment, Western society has become progressively disenchanted, as a sense of the transcendent and of spiritual forces, which pervaded mediaeval life, was lost, even repudiated…’
Is this true? Is science doing away with God, awe and wonder?
Perhaps so. Apologist and mathematician John Lennox in his book From God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? quotes chemist and atheist, Peter Atkins, ‘Science has no need of purpose… all the extraordinary, wonderful richness of the world can be expressed as growth from the dunghill of purposeless interconnected corruption.’
But the COSAC description had a challenge: ‘Are we now disenchanted with disenchantment? How do Christians who are scientists speak into this world?’
Materialists only find awe and wonder in themselves, or that which is in the limit of their observation. Anglican minister and columnist Chris Mulherin observes on the ABC Religion website, ‘At last year’s Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, Dawkins encouraged his followers to give thanks for the ‘gift’ of life, while recognising that some find incongruity in ‘giving thanks in a vacuum.”
I find this fascinating. This is the beginnings of a description that begins to shape around God, and his glory, but it stops at himself. How sad is this truncation!
I want to shout, ‘Dawkins, keep going! Push on to curiosity, to the wonder of something beyond. You are a scientist; let your inquisitive juices flow to poetry, music, art, love, sacrifice, joy and beauty.’
I say this because, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.’ (Psalm 19:1)
I remember as a teenager climbing the Grampian Mountains and sensing the magnitude and the splendour of God. I remember seeing my mother ironing at 3am: a love that sacrificed for a son. I remember as a father being transfixed by a crib holding our own son – how could this be but a magnet of affection?
Science is based on that which can be measured and marked in repeated experiments. Science has its limits. Love, however, has no end. Hence the inscription on my Bishop’s ring, ‘God’s love is like a circle – it has no end!’
We can boldly assert what God has revealed to us in sending His Son. We proclaim, ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.’ (John 1:14)
And returning to science: is love not ‘evidence’? As John Lennox asks, ‘…where is the evidence that religious faith is not based on evidence? …faith is a response to evidence not a rejoicing in the absence of evidence …’
In turning to Christ, we turn, in awe and wonder, to the true glory in awe. In the miracle of divine transformation we are transformed: a healthy church … transforming life:
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. (2 Cor. 3:18)
See, Reflected Glory and further articles in the October 2011 Tasmanian Anglican.
Also, “Being Sure of Our Ground” (COSAC Devotion #4).
On a side note, Dawkins is just an outspoken atheist in his own field doing his own thing, and summarizing a lot of atheistic thought in an accessible manner.
To be accurate Dawkins at the convention said we should be thankful for the gift of life, in regards the realisation of just how wonderful it is an a privilege to experience.
You say to push on to curiosity, but this comes from someone that claims to have the answers. Curiosity is what drives the scientific method and has improved and added to society in so many tangible ways. I would say those that claim the answers by saying ‘goddidit’ and settle at that, lack curiosity.
‘Science has its limits’
Please explain what these limits are. Science is a methodology of working toward the facts. What methodology do you propose for working out the truth of things? For example whether a claim is one with or without sufficient evidence to be accepted as valid? Consider this for instance in the field of medicine.
The problem is you just seem to be making claims that you have the answer, therefore you are correct, which is the same as anyone just saying they have the answer to something, therefore those that say they don’t as yet are somehow inferior. Enter the snake oil salesmen.
Hi Davo,
As the person quoted in the blog post, the Bishop sent me the comment and asked me if I wanted to reply. I don’t know if I’m reading you correctly but you seem to think there’s a separation between science and faith and that religious people “claim answers by saying ‘goddidit’ and settle at that, lack curiosity.”
I was at the conference in Tassie too and the remarkable thing was to be with a bunch of committed scientists, absolutely curious about the natural world but who also thought that at the most foundational level ‘God did it’ is also part of the answer. There’s simply no conflict, and there are a host of world leading scientists who will testify to that lack of conflict. Google the ‘Test of Faith’ website if you want more.
Also you asked about the limits of science and I think you suggest that the ‘snake oil salesmen’ are the religious people who claim to have answers.
It doesn’t really matter what field you talk about – science, history, religion, literature – people make claims and try and back them up with appropriate sorts of reasons. Literature has its limits: it can’t tell you about physics. Science has its limits: it can’t tell you if Mozart is better than Madonna.
Now some people would say, “well there’s no answer to that question because neither Madonna nor Mozart are better.” But then of course they are making another truth claim that science can’t answer.
So everyone makes claims… that is, they claim to ‘have answers’. But that shouldn’t be the end of the conversation, it should only promote a conversation. I think next time you meet a Christian who is a scientist you should ask them why they think it’s reasonable to believe in both science and Jesus. I’ll bet they’ll offer you evidence for both.
Cheers,
Chris Mulherin