Where Science & Faith Intersect
Essays, Featured — By Kristen Bennett Marble on October 10, 2012 at 5:15 am
Increasingly, faith and science are exploring ways they can learn from each other. Daniel Pink, in his book A Whole New Mind, shares an example of the Dalai Lama engaging with MIT scientists at the “Investigating the Mind” conference. Pink suggests the two seemingly divergent disciplines can actually inform one another. As humankind delves more deeply into seeking out life’s meaning and purpose, surprising developments can be observed as spirituality begins to be taken seriously.
Pink’s observations prompt several questions and observations. Can theology, faith and spirituality be informed by, and learn from, science? Is there any benefit to our theological understanding and spiritual practices when we engage with scientific research, molecular biologists, and neurophysiologists? While Pink’s statements are interesting by themselves, they also suggest a larger question: can not only science, but any other discipline, inform our theology? Should our theology be moldable by outside sources?
This question parallels an article I recently read, asking these very questions. Karl Barth and Paul Tillich drew two different conclusions about the influence and interaction between culture and theology. Whereas Barth concluded theology, as revealed by God, stands above cultural influence, Tillich saw their interaction quite differently, concluding culture and theology actually inform, influence and correlate, one with another.1 Pink’s observations of our current approach to science and faith coincide most closely with Tillich’s paradigm.
As Christians, even with ready access to the Word of God, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, we cannot presume our understanding and expression of not only God’s revelation, but God Himself, is perfectly complete. Science, and other disciplines, may inform and improve our understanding of God’s creation, and possibly even God Himself. Facing challenges of limited perception and limited expression of our theology, we must be humble enough to learn from those outside the church. Ultimately, wherever truth is found, be it in a research lab, on an MRI scan, or within the pews of a church, that truth is of God. Historically, sometimes the most prophetic and corrective voices have come from outsiders, not insiders.
While we should optimistically approach the intersection of faith and science, we must also do so cautiously. The god, for example, that the Dalai Lama seeks after and worships, is not the biblical God we preach. Scientific research cannot supplant divine revelation and personal faith. While the MRI scans of a Buddhist meditating and a Evangelical pastor praying may resemble one another, and may suggest identical activity physiologically, the vastly divergent eternal consequences of each cannot be overlooked. Certainly exhibiting a humble, inquisitive spirit offers us great potential for learning, as we allow science to support and inform our faith. However, prudent vigilance must also be practiced so that falsehood disguised as truth does not infect our theology.
Mankind’s desire and adamant search for meaning and purpose in life is a clarion call to the importance and need for God. As science begins to take spirituality seriously, researching and discovering truths about the physical and emotional benefits of spiritual practices, the Church also must respond. Firstly, we can accept that our theological understanding can be informed and influenced by scientific research. Ultimately these conclusions point to God, but may also form and mold our approach and conceptualization of faith and spirituality. Secondly, the Church must respond directly in relevant, meaningful ways to humankind’s unending search for meaning. Unlike many scientists searching for meaning and purpose in their research findings, we know that God is in fact the answer. After all, “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.” [Ecclesiastes 3:11, ESV]
What do you think? Can theology learn from science and research? Should it? Where have you seen science and faith intersect in your own life?
1 A.J. Swoboda. “Culture and Theology: Do They Learn From Each Other?”
Tags: Daniel Pink, faith and reason, MIT, Science, the Dalai Lama, Theology
4 Comments
Thank you for this piece. I appreciated your reference to Paul Tillich. I also appreciate the idea that we need to be careful about assuming our understanding of God through the Bible and the Holy Spirit is complete. I have found that my relationship with God, who is really bigger and more wild than I can even imagine (Tillich refers to Him as the very ‘ground of Being’) is hampered by my trying to be so certain about everything relating to Him. The time I spent at an Evangelical seminary only exasperated this problem. I have found that nothing deadens a relationship more quickly than systematizing everything.
Then I read your next paragraph, about the brain waves of Buddhists and Evangelicals being the same but the “vastly divergent eternal consequences” of each. I understand the Christian response – “no one comes to the Father but through Me” – and yet, I have a hard time being so certain about that. If there is a spiritual connection with a Being outside of ourselves, strong enough to have a physiological effect, will God penalize us for not using the right words? Which is better, to know the theology but never reach the point of spiritual connection (probably common in western churches) or to have a connection but use different words? And, perhaps what Christ meant was that He made it possible to have that connection.
I’m not sure if this flirting with universalism is a tangent from your point of external influences on theology or a logical consequence. Thanks for spurring me on to think this through (muddy as it may be). This is a process for me for which the writing on this site is helpful.
Calling the Christian Scriptures pre-scientific should not be an assault on them or a glowing endorsement for science. It’s merely a historical observation.
Since this is historically true we must allow science to inform Scripture as a natural consequence of human discovery and technological progress. I’ve never understood why science is seen as a threat. It should be a tool to better understand the physical world and an opportunity to reconsider metaphysical implications based upon our growing understanding of the universe.
“Facing challenges of limited perception and limited expression of our theology, we must be humble enough to learn from those outside the church.” Fantastic!
“sometimes the most prophetic and corrective voices have come from outsiders, not insiders.” Also, fantastic.
I appreciate this article. While I am not scientifically inclined, I would love to expand upon my faith’s expression and see how it can be influenced more by truth that is evident all around us, not just in a pew, from a pastor. I will have to think abou this more and ger back you, but I hope to read many other repsonses to this to help me broaden my horizons.
I don’t think science is a threat……true science will never be a threat to Christianity, as long as we understand what true science is, what it can do, and its limits….science & Christianity are completely compatible