Nature is God’s 24-hours-a-day, 3D, multimedia, stereophonic revelation of Himself. It requires no paid subscriptions, no streaming devices, and is everywhere and always accessible (Ps. 19:1). For this reason, an appeal to ignorance for not knowing and following God will be inadmissible in the final evaluation (Rom. 1:18–20). The arts, as well, to the degree that they reflect beauty and/or truth, can be a source for seeing God and reflecting on His character.
Biology, physics, and the other branches of science are rigorous and effective tools for understanding different aspects of God’s creation. But they often stumble with regard to origins. For example, it has been said that there are only two things for certain in this world: death and taxes. But we know that this was not always the case. Though death is such a natural and guaranteed part of our lives now, it was a nonexistent condition originally (no taxes, either). The physical world was affected by a moral/spiritual decision (Rom. 5:12). Biological science, as it currently stands, does not permit this information, and, therefore, its model for the origin of life is often misleading.
God has so masterfully written and organized the laws of the universe, on both a macro and a micro level, that it is understandable why science can effectively study and manipulate the natural world for its purpose without acknowledgment or recourse to God. In a sense, God made the system so well and seemingly independent of Himself that people use the system as evidence against His existence. A Christian education and worldview does not make that mistake but sees nature as both evidence of, and insight into, God.
Part II: Commentary
Science in Perspective
The history of science shows a piling up of stupendous gains and insights, both theoretical and technological. From medical advances to information technology, we are indebted to the scientific community for its indefatigable efforts to improve modern life. Those advances, however, ride on a veritable ocean of mistakes, discarded theories, and outdated paradigms that were retained past their prime due to many variables, including what all disciplines are susceptible to: prejudice and bias. In light of this history, why should it not be considered eminently reasonable to take scientific “truths” with reserve instead of jumping in with all fours onto the next scientific theory, which may slip into the scientific dustbin in a generation? This perspective is not popular because science is not in the business of advertising its mistakes. It also has a way of absolving itself from its errors or carefully concealing them.
Here are two examples: the first, in which science should have taken a bow to the church but didn’t, and the second, in which the church was the scapegoat for a more general mistake. (The following two examples are taken in part from John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? [Oxford: Lion, 2009], pp. 24, 68.)
(1) Early Christian thinkers (Augustine, Irenaeus, Aquinas), relying on the biblical account, agreed that the universe had a beginning and that God created it. However, for much of the modern scientific era, the consensus was that the universe was infinite in both age and extent. When atheists debated Christians on the existence of God, apologists would use the origin of the universe as evidence of God’s existence. The atheists responded with the “fact” that the universe was infinite, thereby undermining that argument. Fast forward to the late twentieth century, and the consensus among scientists is that the universe indeed did have a beginning. But some were reluctant to admit it. Why? Because it gave Christians a justification for their creationist beliefs. Let that sink in for a moment. The scientific evidence, such as red shift in the light from distant galaxies and background microwave radiation, supports the theory that the universe had a beginning. This supposition aligns with the biblical account. But scientists were resistant to this conclusion because it gave too much ground to religion. Wouldn’t it be nice for the scientific community to play fair and simply say, “We blew it, but those Bible-believing creationist Christians got it right”?
(2) The “conflict thesis” that says that religion and science are fundamentally at loggerheads with each other gets much of its popular steam from stories such as Galileo’s. That such stories are given dramatic headlines only reinforces the thesis, headlines such as: “Galileo, Secular Scientist Extraordinaire Versus the Church, the Institutional Incarnation of Unscientific Religious Dogma.” Of course, Galileo was right about heliocentrism, and the medieval church was wrong, but the narrative is skewed that this was a clear-cut case of science vs. religion and that science won. The fact is, Galileo believed in God and the Bible and did so for all of his life. His initial trouble was not with the church but with the academy. In a letter in 1615, he claims that the academic professors who opposed him tried to influence Roman Catholic Church authorities to speak out against him. Galileo’s scientific arguments were a threat to the reigning Aristotelianism of the academy. Rome aligned itself with a worldview that was supported by the Italian philosophers and professors. This understanding doesn’t absolve the Roman Catholic Church of its treatment of Galileo, but it does show that Rome was simply in harmony with the reigning academic paradigm of the day. To use Galileo as an illustration of science’s victory over religion is to scapegoat the medieval church and distort history.
These two examples show that the battle between faith and science is a straw man in many respects. The idea that Big Bang cosmology is a de facto concession that creationists were right in the first place is virtually unknown today. Now, the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe is used against believers as an argument against the existence of God. Many lay creationists don’t realize that their victory trophy (i.e., that the universe does have a beginning) has been snatched out of their hand and is being used to figuratively clobber them again.
One positive that has come from our postmodern era is that it has caused us to ’fess up to the fact that scientists are in the same boat as any other academics working in their fields, and that all the science that hits the public marketplace has passed through the human sieve of subjectivity, fallibility, bias, ethical conflict, and more. Modern secularists often look at science through rose-colored glasses and are probably unaware that science has not come close to disproving the existence of God or the reliability of religious belief. But don’t take a Christian’s word for it; listen to agnostic physicist David Berlinsky’s critique of the pretentions of his own field (The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretentions, https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1639458-the-devil-s-delusion-atheism-and-its-scientific-pretensions):
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
This short critique and perspective should serve to show that Christians need not retreat from the study of science as though it were something inherently antagonistic to theism or the Bible. On the contrary, it was the belief in God and an orderly, purposeful, and planned Creation that motivated some of the greatest scientific minds of history to pursue scientific inquiry into the physical world.
On Beauty
Traditionally, there have been five branches of philosophy. Those branches and their objects of study are:
Logic: ideal thinking.
Ethics: ideal behavior.
Politics: ideal social organization.
Metaphysics: ultimate reality.
Aesthetics: ideal form/beauty.
Though many of these subjects can be heard by turning on the radio, reflections on beauty have become rare. Primarily because of the cultural and moral relativism of our age, beauty is considered simply a subjective preference. Deep down, though, we know that this assertion cannot be true. In fact, just as we know that there are bedrock concepts of the “good” that are not relative to time, culture, or place, “beauty” is the same. As one philosopher put it, “Beauty is goodness made manifest to the senses.”
Part III: Life Application
Turn on the news and people are using arguments and counterarguments (logic) to say how people should or should not behave (ethics) or whether politicians are governing properly (politics). But when was the last discussion you heard on the subject of beauty? Discuss these questions in class:
In what way do you think “beauty” is understood from a Christian worldview rather than a secular one?
The role the arts play in our lives may not seem a priority, but when one thinks of how media and the arts are affecting the morality of our nation (think of your own), the significance becomes clear. Andrew Fletcher went so far as to say, “Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” Why did he say that? What kind of contributions can Adventists make in music, art, and literature that can be a witness for God?
Society is saturated with clichés about science and religion. Unfortunately, the clichés usually favor science and mock religion. What sort of preparation is needed for Adventist students who enter scientific fields to maintain the credibility of both the Bible and the Christian worldview?
Not all Adventist youth go to Adventist schools. How can churches become “the schools” for these youth in order to reinforce their faith at secular universities?
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Nature is God’s 24-hours-a-day, 3D, multimedia, stereophonic revelation of Himself. It requires no paid subscriptions, no streaming devices, and is everywhere and always accessible (Ps. 19:1). For this reason, an appeal to ignorance for not knowing and following God will be inadmissible in the final evaluation (Rom. 1:18–20). The arts, as well, to the degree that they reflect beauty and/or truth, can be a source for seeing God and reflecting on His character.
Biology, physics, and the other branches of science are rigorous and effective tools for understanding different aspects of God’s creation. But they often stumble with regard to origins. For example, it has been said that there are only two things for certain in this world: death and taxes. But we know that this was not always the case. Though death is such a natural and guaranteed part of our lives now, it was a nonexistent condition originally (no taxes, either). The physical world was affected by a moral/spiritual decision (Rom. 5:12). Biological science, as it currently stands, does not permit this information, and, therefore, its model for the origin of life is often misleading.
God has so masterfully written and organized the laws of the universe, on both a macro and a micro level, that it is understandable why science can effectively study and manipulate the natural world for its purpose without acknowledgment or recourse to God. In a sense, God made the system so well and seemingly independent of Himself that people use the system as evidence against His existence. A Christian education and worldview does not make that mistake but sees nature as both evidence of, and insight into, God.
Part II: Commentary
Science in Perspective
The history of science shows a piling up of stupendous gains and insights, both theoretical and technological. From medical advances to information technology, we are indebted to the scientific community for its indefatigable efforts to improve modern life. Those advances, however, ride on a veritable ocean of mistakes, discarded theories, and outdated paradigms that were retained past their prime due to many variables, including what all disciplines are susceptible to: prejudice and bias. In light of this history, why should it not be considered eminently reasonable to take scientific “truths” with reserve instead of jumping in with all fours onto the next scientific theory, which may slip into the scientific dustbin in a generation? This perspective is not popular because science is not in the business of advertising its mistakes. It also has a way of absolving itself from its errors or carefully concealing them.
Here are two examples: the first, in which science should have taken a bow to the church but didn’t, and the second, in which the church was the scapegoat for a more general mistake. (The following two examples are taken in part from John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? [Oxford: Lion, 2009], pp. 24, 68.)
(1) Early Christian thinkers (Augustine, Irenaeus, Aquinas), relying on the biblical account, agreed that the universe had a beginning and that God created it. However, for much of the modern scientific era, the consensus was that the universe was infinite in both age and extent. When atheists debated Christians on the existence of God, apologists would use the origin of the universe as evidence of God’s existence. The atheists responded with the “fact” that the universe was infinite, thereby undermining that argument. Fast forward to the late twentieth century, and the consensus among scientists is that the universe indeed did have a beginning. But some were reluctant to admit it. Why? Because it gave Christians a justification for their creationist beliefs. Let that sink in for a moment. The scientific evidence, such as red shift in the light from distant galaxies and background microwave radiation, supports the theory that the universe had a beginning. This supposition aligns with the biblical account. But scientists were resistant to this conclusion because it gave too much ground to religion. Wouldn’t it be nice for the scientific community to play fair and simply say, “We blew it, but those Bible-believing creationist Christians got it right”? (2) The “conflict thesis” that says that religion and science are fundamentally at loggerheads with each other gets much of its popular steam from stories such as Galileo’s. That such stories are given dramatic headlines only reinforces the thesis, headlines such as: “Galileo, Secular Scientist Extraordinaire Versus the Church, the Institutional Incarnation of Unscientific Religious Dogma.” Of course, Galileo was right about heliocentrism, and the medieval church was wrong, but the narrative is skewed that this was a clear-cut case of science vs. religion and that science won. The fact is, Galileo believed in God and the Bible and did so for all of his life. His initial trouble was not with the church but with the academy. In a letter in 1615, he claims that the academic professors who opposed him tried to influence Roman Catholic Church authorities to speak out against him. Galileo’s scientific arguments were a threat to the reigning Aristotelianism of the academy. Rome aligned itself with a worldview that was supported by the Italian philosophers and professors. This understanding doesn’t absolve the Roman Catholic Church of its treatment of Galileo, but it does show that Rome was simply in harmony with the reigning academic paradigm of the day. To use Galileo as an illustration of science’s victory over religion is to scapegoat the medieval church and distort history.
These two examples show that the battle between faith and science is a straw man in many respects. The idea that Big Bang cosmology is a de facto concession that creationists were right in the first place is virtually unknown today. Now, the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe is used against believers as an argument against the existence of God. Many lay creationists don’t realize that their victory trophy (i.e., that the universe does have a beginning) has been snatched out of their hand and is being used to figuratively clobber them again.
One positive that has come from our postmodern era is that it has caused us to ’fess up to the fact that scientists are in the same boat as any other academics working in their fields, and that all the science that hits the public marketplace has passed through the human sieve of subjectivity, fallibility, bias, ethical conflict, and more. Modern secularists often look at science through rose-colored glasses and are probably unaware that science has not come close to disproving the existence of God or the reliability of religious belief. But don’t take a Christian’s word for it; listen to agnostic physicist David Berlinsky’s critique of the pretentions of his own field (The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretentions, https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1639458-the-devil-s-delusion-atheism-and-its-scientific-pretensions):
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
This short critique and perspective should serve to show that Christians need not retreat from the study of science as though it were something inherently antagonistic to theism or the Bible. On the contrary, it was the belief in God and an orderly, purposeful, and planned Creation that motivated some of the greatest scientific minds of history to pursue scientific inquiry into the physical world.
On Beauty
Traditionally, there have been five branches of philosophy. Those branches and their objects of study are:
Though many of these subjects can be heard by turning on the radio, reflections on beauty have become rare. Primarily because of the cultural and moral relativism of our age, beauty is considered simply a subjective preference. Deep down, though, we know that this assertion cannot be true. In fact, just as we know that there are bedrock concepts of the “good” that are not relative to time, culture, or place, “beauty” is the same. As one philosopher put it, “Beauty is goodness made manifest to the senses.”
Part III: Life Application
Turn on the news and people are using arguments and counterarguments (logic) to say how people should or should not behave (ethics) or whether politicians are governing properly (politics). But when was the last discussion you heard on the subject of beauty? Discuss these questions in class: