Summary Statements - 19 of X - Views of Christianity vs Science
There are various views of the relationship between Christianity & Science. The following views were taken from Hummel’s book “The Galileo Connection” pgs. 256-266.
Other references? Want clear explanation for this … see A. McGrath “Science & Religion” pgs. 44-50][Add creation resources to key references]
Warfare view – This view was popularized by Andrew White's “A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology” book in 1896. At times scathing and sarcastic, White's book became a classic. The “warfare” model prevailed during the first half of the 1900's and continues to be popular. Even though the concept of science and Christianity has been discredited, it continues to appear in both scholarly and popular writing. [see Hummel, Creation or Evolution, pgs. 8-10]
Two-realms view - Theology & science have radically different spheres, jurisdictions or areas. Although the realms are defined in different ways, they inevitably raise the problem of territorial disputes.
Thomas Aquinas – Aristotle's natural science/reason & Christian theology/faith
This led to ”God-of-the-gaps” functioning only in unexplained natural events and eventually restricted largely to the arena of human relationships
Sometimes viewed as entirely different spheres – Schleiermacher/Ritschl/Barth/Brunner
The two-realms view, in its various versions, fails to do justice to the Biblical revelation and its teaching about the natural world. Theology and science need not be domiciled in adjacent territories with disputed boundaries, separated by a Berlin wall. They should not be assigned to unrelated realms. Theology and science do live in the same world and observe some of the same phenomena.
Concordistic view – Attempts to harmonize the Biblical and scientific explanations of nature on the same plane. It assumes that both produce pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that presents a picture of the natural world.
This approach has several significant flaws.... Since scientific explanation is subject to change [never achieving the truth], it periodically replaces its pieces of the puzzle with others which form a new picture. As a result, the current “Biblical” pieces no longer fit and must be reshaped if they are to contribute to that new picture.... The theological contribution (as long as it may be needed) constantly depends for its validity on the scientific setting.... The concordist model endeavors to show that the Bible is scientifically accurate.... A theology that weds the science of one generation is likely to find itself a widow in the next.
Partial-view model (Hummel's personal view) – The natural world can be viewed from many perspectives (Biblical, scientific, artistic, musical, etc.). Experts from various professions can view the same thing and describe it in different ways. Hummel's example includes Einstein, Gauguin, Beethoven, and King David attempting to describe, in their own medium, their perceptions of viewing a magnificent valley bathed in late afternoon sunlight as viewed from a hilltop. Which is the best description? The answer depends on the purpose of the inquirer. In this model, the Biblical and scientific descriptions are complementary perspectives. The two perspectives often overlap and interact with each other.
(See Hummel, p. 261. It is unclear how the mathematical equations of the scientific perspective “overlap” with the Scriptural view, except that by God's faithfulness the mathematical descriptions typically can be used to predict future events.)
Biblical theological view [this is PB's view, not discussed in Hummel's writings] – Only the Bible reveals truth, as known in our Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible gives a true account of the history of God's dealings with man. Any differences between the Biblical view and a scientific “theory” should be resolved by giving precedence to the Biblical view. The scientific view can never yield truth, but can offer useful operational theories which should be used for the good of the Church and mankind, as long as appropriate Biblical values are observed. Scientific theories dealing with “origins” science (Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Archaeology, etc.) should be consistent with a plain reading of Genesis 1-11 (vs theistic evolutionary theories). [Reference creation science resources]
Questions to be answered:
What are the various “standard” views of the relationship between Christianity & Science?
What is your view? Why?
Other questions ….
