We shall begin with what we see as a
major obstacle to a productive relationship between
science and the Christian faith, and that is the general
perception of the role of "evidence." It is commonly
heard, and taught, that the Christian faith is a "blind
faith," that is, it is supposed to be "belief without
evidence." Blind faith is characterized by someone
telling you "Don’t ever ask any questions -- you’ve just
gotta believe!" It is also commonly heard, and taught,
that science is supposed to be "understanding
only on the basis of evidence." For example, if
something cannot be seen, heard, touched, or felt (i.e.
is not perceptible to the five senses), it is
incompatible with scientific investigation. In other
words, only empirical evidence is compatible with
scientific investigation. Further, if something is
observable, but non-repeatable (i.e. a one-time event),
it is also not subject to scientific investigation,
because the experiment cannot be subsequently verified
by others.
But how accurate are these notions about biblical
Christian faith and scientific inquiry? Simply put, they
are false. It is false that biblically-defined Christian
faith is a "blind faith" (i.e. "belief without
evidence"), and it is false that science is
"understanding only on the basis of evidence." Let's
examine what makes these things so.
Science and Evidence
We shall not at this point engage in a full-scale
investigation of the scientific method. Rather, at this
point we need only to examine the actual role of
evidence in the scientific method. As mentioned
previously, one outstanding belief is that "science is
understanding only on the basis of evidence." If that
were true, however, science as we know it now simply
would not exist. This is because none of the insights,
hunches, and fortuitous chance discoveries of science
could ever have occurred. The history of science and
scientific discovery is full of incidents where
understanding only on the basis of evidence did not
occur. We call this scientific "reasoning beyond the
evidence."
Here are just a few examples. The
discovery of penicillin was by chance, when a
scientist found some mold growing on his bacterial
cultures. As the evidence dictated, he at first
threw out the moldy plates of bacteria. When he later
just happened to retrieve some he noticed that the molds
had inhibited the growth of the bacteria around them, so
on a hunch he decided to investigate the molds
anyway. Thus, penicillin was discovered, but there was
no “evidence-based” reasoning involved in his pulling
the original spoiled experiment back out of the wash.
That was plain dumb luck, and his decision to
investigate the molds anyway was just plain curiosity.
No “evidence-based reasoning there,” and we are
tremendously grateful for those antibiotics today!
The discovery of radioactivity was
also by chance, when a scientist was in the midst
of investigating how light causes some minerals to glow
in the dark. Afflicted by a sunless day, he stored
some uranium salts in a drawer over some covered and
unexposed photographic plates to await the next day of
sunshine for further experiments. But a long stretch of
gloomy days ensued instead. Then, despite a complete
lack of evidence for doing so, he fetched the
uranium salts and decided to develop the photographic
plates anyway. He had no “scientific” reason to develop
them, for there was no visible evidence at all that the
photographic plates had been affected, and it must be
remembered that radioactivity is not detected by the
human senses. But he disregarded the lack of evidence,
and chose to act “unscientifically.” When he developed
the plates, he found that they had actually been exposed
by the uranium salts, through the light-proof covering.
By this, the phenomenon of radioactivity was discovered,
yet the discovery would never have happened without
plain dumb luck combined with a “scientifically
unsupportable” hunch.
An even less “scientific” discovery
involves the discovery of the chemical structure of the
benzene molecule. The scientist who ultimately
determined it was a ring-shaped structure of carbon did
so because he had a day “vision” or reverie about a
snake biting its tail and forming a ring. Then, when he
investigated whether a ring structure explained the
properties of benzene, he found it did, although he did
not publicly admit the inspiration for his discovery for
over twenty-five years! Here again, the crucial
discovery was neither obtained by evidence nor through
scientific reasoning. It was derived from a hyper-vivid
daydream of a legless reptile with a penchant for its
posterior; a singular example of beneficial “circular
reasoning” indeed!
There are many, many, many more examples of how
science is far more complex than just interpreting
evidence.
Science includes curiosity, guesswork, and basic
suppositions that are themselves not scientifically
provable or even scientifically testable(under
construction). Science is a very important way of
knowing, but it is by no means an exalted one. So
regardless of what some may think, or some may claim,
science is not ‘understanding only on the basis of
evidence.’
As for the claim that science does not address
observable but non-repeatable events, a moment's thought
will show this to be decidedly untrue. There are entire
scientific fields built around investigating the
beginnings of life and the origin of the universe, yet
both these are clearly non-repeatable events. Further,
forensic science deals exclusively with investigating
non-repeatable phenomena, such as crimes like murder.
Yet no one questions the scientific legitimacy of such
investigations. Thus, there is far more to science than
we think, and there is far less of it that is
"scientific" than we readily admit!
Faith and Evidence
Now let’s talk about biblically-approved faith. Is
the Christian faith really supposed to be ‘belief
without evidence’? Is the Christian faith really
supposed to be a "blind faith"? The answer is "Absolutely,
positively No!" There is nothing in the Bible that
supports the idea that Christian faith is supposed to be
"belief without evidence." There is nothing in the Bible
that supports the idea that Christian faith is supposed
to be "blind faith." It is true that the New Testament
teaches that Christians are to walk by faith, not by
sight.1 But "to walk by faith not by sight"
simply means that we are to trust God for what is to
come, on the basis of what He has already
done. Blind faith would be accepting the word of a
complete stranger, of sudden appearance, from an unknown
land, who provides no reason to receive such trust. But
God instructs us first -- to recount all that He has
done, and second -- to understand Him according to what
He has already revealed about Himself to us, and then,
on the basis of that evidence, third -- He calls
us to trust Him when He then tasks us to do something,
whose end we cannot see.
God gives us evidence that we can see, then
calls for obedience for what we cannot see. We
walk by faith and not by sight in that we follow God’s
leading even when we cannot see the end to which He is
taking us. Biblical faith, therefore is hope in the
unseen, it is not hope in the unknown.
In fact, you’ll find in the New Testament where the
Apostle Paul explicitly confirms that we have to know
what we hope in, even if we have not seen it yet with
our own eyes.2 In that particular case, Paul
is speaking of the redemption of the body in the final
resurrection, which the Bible teaches is coming, but
which has not yet been seen.
So, we shall say it again, At no time in the biblical
accounts does God require His people to believe without
evidence. On the contrary, whenever God calls people to
step out in faith, He calls them to do so on the basis
of what He has already shown He has done. All throughout
the Bible, one reads of such things as God saying "I am
the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob." In so doing, the hearer or reader is reminded of
God's activities as portrayed in Genesis. Many, many
times one reads "I am the God who with mighty wonders
led your fathers out of the land of Egypt," thus
reminding the hearer or reader of God's activities as
portrayed in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Again, one
reads "I am the God who delivered your enemies into your
hands," thus reminding the readers or hearers of His
activities as portrayed in Deuteronomy and Joshua. God
always calls us to trust Him on the basis of what He has
already revealed of Himself to us. This is not
"blind faith"!
The one possible exception to this would be the call
of Abraham, whom the Bible describes as the father of
all our faith. But when God called him to leave his
ancestral home for the Promised Land, God Himself
supernaturally spoke directly to Abraham, an event that
is arguably evidential in nature. If a vastly more
powerful and superior being started talking to you and
started giving you orders, it would seem to be in your
best interests to obey, regardless of how you felt about
the matter! That Abraham’s faith needed to grow was
evident in how he repeatedly lied to various kings about
his wife Sara, by telling them she was his sister.
Abraham lied about his wife because he was in fear for
his life, which is hardly an act of tremendous faith.
God's response was to "chew out" Abraham for both his
falsity and this lack of faith. Interestingly enough,
God did so through the pagan kings themselves.
Eventually, Abraham grew to trust God greatly. But it is
evident that the growth in Abraham's faith was at least
partly because he could see God’s work in his
life.
So, if biblical faith is belief with evidence,
where does this then lead us? It leads us directly to
the historical
reliability of the Bible (under construction). In
truth, the Bible itself is a vast mountain of evidence;
a combination of historical and theological narratives
that testify to the activity of God in human history.
When Jesus would scold people for their lack of faith,
it was because they were refusing to believe Him
despite the evidence, and not because they
were refusing to believe Him for lack of
evidence. Jesus did not scold people about
failing to have blind faith!
Further, the evidence Jesus referred to was not only
the miracles He performed, but was also the record of
evidence God provided to a religious community which had
been specifically prepared by Him to receive Jesus’
message. We call this evidence the Old Testament. But if
you want to hear Jesus’ attitude towards blind faith,
this is what He has to say in the book of Matthew: that
"if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into
a pit!"3 Where is there room for blind faith
in that? There is no such room.
The false teaching of "blind faith" is one of the
primary reasons there are so many problems rampant in
the institutional church today. Simply put, if the
shepherd is blind to the biblical truth about evidence
and faith, the sheep will be ten times blind to it. If
the leaders preach blind faith, the followers will be
ten times susceptible to it. If the church is ruled by
blind faith, it will invariably fall into the pit of
unreasonable and irrational religiosity. The genuine
Christian faith is NOT an unthinking faith!
In fact, blind faith leaves the church open to every
false teaching, every false teacher, every false
prophet, every false leader, every false pastor, and
every other vicious wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing who comes
around. These are those who are committed to keeping
Christian minds closed, Christian mouths shut, and
Christian wallets open! These are those who know the
truth, and despise it anyway. And, unfortunately, the
credibility of all Christians suffers at the hands of
these false teachers, who try to make the Christian
faith into a blind faith.
All right then, if we do not have a blind faith, but
a knowing faith, this means that we have evidence-based
faith. What is then the basis for our knowledge, what do
we have faith in? Let’s take a look at the Bible,
and its relationship to history. What does the
evidence say about the
reliability of the Bible? (under construction)
1 Please see 2 Corinthians 5:7; also
Romans 8:24-25 and Hebrews 11:1.
2 Please see Romans 8:24-25.
3 Please see Matthew 15:14.
Feedback/Comments/Questions |