So far I have explored what science is as a discipline, and commented on the way that school science lessons typically only deal with some aspects of what the scientific method consists of. I've described the way in which Science is a search for knowledge about the natural world that gathers all its data from our human senses, enhanced by scientific instruments, and tried to make the case that there could be some real features of the cosmos that might not show up in this way. I then gave some critical consideration to what we mean by scientific law, and why we need to consider that there could be phenomena that could, in principle, be real, but might be hard or impossible for scientists to investigate and describe in 'lawful' terms. To exclaim sceptically, "That isn't scientific!," is simply to misunderstand what the discipline of Science is really able to do.
I rather hope that I won't have lost any of my professional colleagues so far in this journey, whether you agree that science could have a constructive relationship with religion or not. At this point in my discussion it should be straightforward to agree that a good understanding of Science would make it possible to consider the claims of one religion or another and, after investigation, finally rule them out as being a complete fantasy. (Teachers will be challenged in this case to decide how to show respect to students, their families and their communities without being as blunt/offensive as I've just been. This situation must surely apply to me too, as, presumably, I in fact do think that the religious claims made by believers of other religions than my own are false and therefore fantastical. Let's keep this for another time.)
Since I am a Christian and a teacher at Secondary level (mostly in Science), I now need to move on to deal with the more challenging and interesting case: I propose that Christianity does make claims that are partly about the real world, life and the universe in which we find it, even as recognised by Science. The reason for this website/ blog is because my experience has been that many of the 'contributions' made in this area of culture over more than the last century have more often been arguments about inadequately communicated opinions rather than reasoned investigations into fields of study that have different standards for facts and the findings that follow from them. As the judge might say to the lawyer, 'I find that your argument generates more heat than light!' (Now this statement itself warrants examination- hold that thought!)
So having composed four posts on Science, it is time to move on to examine key claims of the Judeo-Christian religion in a similar manner. There are many of these, so as in every educational setting, we must be selective. Sometimes the curriculum helps with this, but in the science and religion dialogue, there is little guidance in the specifications, so teachers &/or their students may well make reference to textbooks or other materials that give an ill-informed and unfair perspective. We should listen to proper specialists and experts who will tell us if that selectivity is biased in a way that misrepresents. [This is also a common debating strategy, called the straw man argument. Instead of taking the opposition seriously, the debater makes up a distorted version that their opponent doesn't believe either. Let me sum up an aggressive position against Christians like this: 'Christians don't use reason or take notice of Science; they just believe the unproven opinions of their priests, having blind faith in their teachers and 'holy' texts made up before we were blessed with Science.'] (I would argue, in general, that there is insufficient attention given to these matters in the curriculum, and that giving scanty coverage to important culturally sensitive questions is itself a bias. I will extend that idea in a later post.)
One of the few areas of science where the scope for a dialogue with religious (Christian, in this case) views comes up is the place of the Earth in the Solar System. A school textbook is likely to deal with this topic in just a few words, which necessarily means that the treatment will be brief and, most likely, blunt. Typically, they say things like this: In the time of the Old Testament (say 800BC) the Jews believed the scriptural statements that said that the Earth does not move. In 1615 Galileo presented evidence to the Catholic Church that showed that this was not true, just as Copernicus had suggested with his heliocentric theory, that the Earth orbits the Sun, and not the other way around. The textbook author might then close with a statement that suggests that Galileo the scientist should be judged as victorious over the blind dogma of the Church.
[I intend to illustrate this section with accurate quotations from recent textbooks.]
Such a statement is of poor academic quality and certainly does not make for good education, as it doesn't do justice to the position of science or religion. It certainly does not give teachers appropriate guidance in showing respect for students and their religious viewpoints.
As I said above, this sort of oversimplified account amounts to a straw man argument (especially as I've not yet quoted primary sources!). A full specialist treatment of the Galileo affair would not fit in the secondary school curriculum, though I will indicate in a later article what more could usefully be said about it beyond the remarks below.
Is it fair to state that the Hebrew texts assert that the Earth does not move? This seems a reasonable judgement to reach. It is a commonplace argument to say that Jews and Christians take the biblical texts as being authoritative and the main source of revelation from God to His people, considered as both Jews and as Christians. For many believers, if one scriptural text makes an assertion, it is taken seriously, but if two texts say the same thing, then this is like underlining, or using luminous yellow highlighter. Well here are seven examples, from the Old Testament books of 1 Samuel, 1 Chronicles, Job and four more from various Psalms:
- 1 Chronicles 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.
- Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure.
- Psalm 96:10 Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity.
- Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
- Job 9:6 He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.
- Psalm 75:3 When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm
- 1 Samuel 2:8 “For the foundations (translated pillars in the ESV) of the earth are the LORD’s; on them he has set the world.
It seems pretty clear then that the claim that the Bible teaches that the earth/ world does not move, that is, that it is fixed in place, rests on firm scriptural foundations!
It should not be surprising therefore that intelligent people who were born before the eras of sailing around the world, or flying round the world, or orbiting in a spacecraft, might mistakenly think that the earth doesn't move through space. Our everyday experience of day and night is just the same as it was for the people who wrote the biblical texts about 2000-3000 years ago: we don't see the sun at night, but rather the wheeling stars, while on a cloudless day the sun appears to move in an elegant and steady arc across the sky from east to west. We have no sensation of movement when we look up at the sky. Rather, it seems that the stars above are moving around us, and that the Sun is what is in motion, not the solid ground we are standing on, during the daytime. So expecting a modern astronomically accurate description is unreasonable. We should perhaps be content that the Bible is repeatedly giving a poetically conceived view of the earth and the heavens, and attributing this steady state of affairs to the might of God.
A further criticism could be levelled at the Hebrew texts. The talk of 'foundations' and 'pillars' seems to make it plain that the biblical authors had adopted the world picture of their near neighbours in the Ancient Near East. So the descriptions indicate that the ancient Hebrews thought that the world that God sovereignly maintains looks something like this:
So the problem could be stated like this. Jews and Christians claim that the Bible is authoritative in all important respects, and the scriptures that both hold with great seriousness to be the revelation of God (Who knows everything) baldly states in clear language that the earth that is the common home of us all through history does not move, and what is more, it is fixed on some sort of pillar-and-foundation system. Modern science now shows, even from as far back as Galileo's telescope observations, that the earth is not at all fixed at the centre of the universe. Therefore, two fatal conclusions must follow: the repeated claims in the biblical texts about the place of our planet in the solar system and the universe are demonstrably in error, both in terms of the shape and nature of our earth, and also in its motion around the Sun. Most significantly, the very claim that the scriptures are the inspired Word of an all-knowing Deity is shown to be ridiculous.
All at once therefore the science lesson presents the telescope observations that Galileo first made and have been repeated and extensively extended since achieving the twin ends of establishing the triumph of Science over the naïve and mistaken beliefs of such primitives; also over the religious obscurantism of human authorities that insisted on holding to such unreliable texts. It also, by the way, rubbishes the claim that God had originally inspired the texts, giving us 'God's eye view' of our true place in the cosmos, and what might happen to it in the future. All that the various Psalms and other texts had to say was really no different to the view of the world picture held by the Israelite's neighbours at the time the Hebrew Bible was conceived and written down. They clearly had no such access to a more reliable view of the world.
It might then be added that the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo had dogmatically adopted the Greek Ptolemaic theory of our solar system, that the earth is a sphere at the centre of our system, with the moon and other planets orbiting us, as the Sun also appears to do. So Galileo was fighting two considerable enemies- the false science of Ptolemy that the Church in Rome had accepted, along with the human-centred view of the cosmos as laid out in the Psalms and elsewhere in Holy Scripture.
By such references Galileo Galilei is made out to be the oppressed hero of Science, who cleverly assembled the technology of the telescope from manufactured optical lenses and then methodically collected vital observations to prove that Nicolas Copernicus' heliocentric theory gave a better fit with the astronomical evidence than Ptolemy's geocentric model. Further, Galileo heroically stands up to the bigotry of the Pope and the Church authorities, despite being placed under permanent arrest and confined to his house for teaching in the public marketplace that the earth really does move. But it is usually not mentioned that Galileo continued to confess his Christian faith, despite the treatment he received from the Church authorities.
So how might a modern day Christian who takes science and history seriously deal with this situation? I suggest the following approach will assist in the design of a more satisfactory apologetic and a superior educational approach.
First, it must be conceded that it must be the case that Jews and Christians, in the past and even in the present day, did not and do not always hold rationally defensible positions on these topics. However, much in the account of science has changed even very recently, and this will continue to be the case. I've given examples in the earlier articles. Scientists (good ones anyway) do not ridicule those who held views that turn out now to be disproven. So it is shoddy for science teachers, science textbook authors or even practising scientists to ridicule others who had/have religious views that come under critique in the advance of scientific explanations and theories. It is easy to have perfect hindsight...
So what of the status of the Bible as a source of knowledge? Well, it depends what is implied by that sort of statement.
My fellow religionists are sometimes heard to make statements like the one above, or alternatives such as, 'The Bible speaks in every area, and in every area in which it speaks, it speaks the Truth.' You may care to read the essay by Matthew Barrett at the Gospel Coalition website (reference below) which explores this sort of position. But the crucial point is this: do the Bible's own claims about the revelatory insights provided by the inspired word of God, such as found in 1 Timothy 5, mean that we should expect the Bible to speak authoritatively about Science as well as our (potential) relationship with God and one another, as informed by the Christian religion? I once accepted that hypothesis in the affirmative, 'in good faith' as you might say, but do so no longer, as I found that it didn't work out- a sound outcome of the exercise of both faith and science, I would suggest. There is not agreement amongst Christians and their churches on this matter, but that is why I am writing this blog! Knowledge of all kinds is progressing, and at pace, so there need not be special reason for alarm here. Since matters of faith and values are at stake, we simply need to proceed with caution.
I would begin by saying that a sound position would be to accept that the biblical authors were very much informed by their 'everyday perspectives' on the world as they saw and lived in it. The earth is steady under our feet, as is the appearance of things that are the heavenly bodies: Sun, Moon and Stars (some of which we now understand as nearby planets in the same sort of orbit as we are) which all seem to be moving around us while we are not; as they had no other means of understanding them. The scriptural statements don't say differently as that would appear to be nonsense, not meaningful revelation. God accommodates to our human perspective. Now that we know better, we are expected to be wise enough to accept this, rather than to accuse God of unreliability, deception or incompetence. It is a regrettable fact that many believers in history past did not come to such a realisation, but that is not our concern. Galileo's example of grace (at least in this case) is to be applauded.
Further, we do not have to accuse the Hebrews or early Christians of intellectual incompetence in making statements that are now accepted as inspired and now inscripturated that, we now realise, are scientifically inaccurate, misleading, ie plain wrong! They certainly seem to have accepted the 'world picture' prevalent at the time that they shared with their cultural neighbours, and this is evidenced in the literary substance in which the scriptures are framed and formed. We do not need to commit to a view of scriptural revelation, reliability and meaning that claims inerrancy in matters of science as well as in (particular matters of) religion. Some may choose to, but this cannot be an acceptable basis for science teaching in the UK at this time. This author and this site aims to meet the requirements for better teaching and learning.
What is the positive position that can be adopted regarding the 'proof texts' quoted above? What is the inspired claim of scripture, of the word of God as claimed by Christians (as well as Jews, in this regard)? I suggest this: the world as we live on it has all the appearance of being fixed in the heavens. Why is that? And how did it come to be so? Will it continue to be so? Importantly and vitally:- because the God that the Bible says is the One True God created it to be so, and Who Providentially maintains it in such a state, for as long as the Deity deems it will continue to be so. The weight of scriptural authority does not, therefore, rest on the claims of an immovable earth in the midst of the cosmos (though Pope Urban VIII evidently thought it was), nor is scriptural authority endorsing the common world picture held for centuries and millennia by all in the Ancient Near East. What the scripture is asserting with all weight and seriousness is that our place in God's cosmos is assured by God, the God of covenant with God's created peoples. Our position at the centre of God's attention, says the Bible, now that we understand more science, is solely a function of God's choosing, not the nature of planetary orbits or the particular locus of the earth in the solar system, galaxy or universe.
So I disagree with the view adopted by Matthew Barrett and others, and hold rather more closely to the quotation above attributed to the US President, Ronald Reagan. But with the caveat that the 'problems' we should have in mind are those that the Bible should be properly understood to be addressing. As Galileo quoted another Catholic authority in his lifetime:
I invoked the judge in my introduction who tells off the lawyer for generating heat rather than light in his attempt to show that his view is superior. Why do we get 'hot under the collar' arguing about these things? Because the implications matter to us as people, as human beings who practise Science, and who are also motivated to form cogent views about our status as creatures in the cosmos, people whose lives and relations would have meaning. As our knowledge about the cosmos is increasing exponentially at this time, as our technological powers are blossoming and running away beyond our ability to control, even to the imperilling of our planet, we are still struggling to recalibrate our traditions and cultures of meaning. It is right that we should engage with emotion and spirit in our dialogues about our nature and place in the world, and seek to integrate our religious understandings with the perspectives afforded by science. There must be both heat and light- this is true enlightenment, a progress of human becoming, in which we can embrace difference and also educate with mutual respect.
In conclusion therefore, having carried out an analysis of Science and the Scientific Method, I have now started to consider how we should handle religious claims (specifically biblical, Judeo-Christian ones) that pertain to science-and-religion conversations. Others must decide if these points are more widely applicable. I have suggested that teachers and their students need to get better at describing and explaining what Science is and how it should be understood, because there is need for improvement. Now we have started the same process on the religion side of the dialogue, addressing some stereotypes and past bad practice, both by science authors/teachers and by many proponents of religion generally, and many Christians in particular. I am making the case that through these exercises we will become better teachers, handling boundary issues in science and religion with more accuracy and professionalism. I suggest that our cultures and communities will be enriched as future generations of students become so equipped.
PS. You may agree with me that we are still left with nagging questions about what the worldview of the Bible actually is. This would lie somewhat beyond the scope of teaching science and religious education in UK secondary schools, but you may be interested in further exploring my own views at common or garden theologian.
1. Image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/exploratorium/481758327 Heat Camera Exhibit (c) Exploratorium, www.exploratorium.edu Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) [Note that this technology can be life-saving, as testified by this woman who noticed the early signs of breast cancer when she visited this science museum exhibit: https://www.asiaone.com/world/woman-alerted-her-breast-cancer-museums-heat-cam-exhibit Yes kids, visiting museums can save your life!! Do read the article, and see if you can you spot an error in the story.]
2. https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/shakespeare-for-lawyers-more-heat-than-light
3. https://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/09/02/the-earth-is-fixed-and-the-sun-moves-real-christians-believe-it/
4. A P Dickin ANE world picture diagram at https://benbyerly.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/why-you-dont-really-read-the-bible-literally-the-cosmic-dome-and-contextualization/
5. Matthew Barrett's essay at https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/authority-inerrancy-scripture/
6. https://openclipart.org/detail/203633/geocentric-and-heliocentric-systems
7. https://www.siyavula.com/read/science/grade-7/relationship-of-the-sun-to-the-earth/18-relationship-of-the-sun-to-the-earth?id=toc-id-11
8. On accommodation: Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolution, Scripture and Nature Say Yes! (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016). p115
9. https://fourstringfarm.com/2013/02/12/the-path-of-the-sun/
10. Galileo Galilei in his letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Attributed to Cardinal Caesar Baronius. Mentioned, for example, here https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/heavens.htm
"He is also famous for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[3] This remark, which Baronius probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by the latter in his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" (1615)." found at https://religion.fandom.com/wiki/Caesar_Baronius Note 3 at this site references this pdf which says that there is no documentary evidence of the supposed conversation, but that it was never contested, https://www.oratoriosanfilippo.org/galileo-baronio-english.pdf 
