Science Vs. Religion

I've decided that instead of jumping back into my series on the Doctrines of Grace, I'm going to be making a post or two about more general Christian issues and maybe Creationism. You know, to add a little variety, since I've been harping solely on Calvinism for the last ten posts or so. I hate postponing it farther than it already has been, but I figured you guys are kind of getting tired Reformed posts.

Anyway, in this post I'll be tackling a common argument (usually used in defense of the theory of Evolution) that I've seen in a lot of places, primarily online. The topic? Science Vs. Religion.

It's a trap!
The first thing you need to realize when someone starts talking about "Science vs. Religion" is that basically, it's a trap. Don't fall for it. I did in several debates, and it made things a lot harder for me.

So how is it a trap? It's simple. By agreeing to debate "Science Vs. Religion," you basically put yourself in a position where you have to defend all religions, as whole. Which is impossible, and not something a Christian should be doing anyway.

Richard Dawkins takes advantage of this trick in his book The God Delusion.

"... To forestall an inevitable retort to the book, one that would otherwise -- as sure as night follows day -- turn up in a review: 'The God that Dawkins doesn't believe in is a God that I don't believe in either'... I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented"

In essence, you'd have to defend all gods (and the religions built upon them) to reply to Dawkins.
By letting him (or whoever) decree the terms of the debate, you allow yourself to be put in an indefensible position. Unless you're up against an incompetent opponent (which, when I fell for this trap, I was), then you will lose such a debate. The key is to redefine the debate so that you're not defending all religions, but rather, just Christianity.

Faith Vs. Facts
Usually the people pushing this argument will point out that, among other numerous differences, Science is built on facts while Religion is built on (usually blind) faith.

Again, the first thing to do is to redefine the terms of the debate so that you're defending just Christianity. Because in reality, some if not most other religions are built solely on blind faith, with no factual backing... Unlike Christianity.

Christianity is actually built upon lots of facts. Archeology, time and time again, has affirmed the Bible. I won't go over any examples, since you should already know them (though I will probably go over them in future posts, eventually).

Science, on the other hand, relies heavily on faith. Evolution has never been witnessed, all we can do is look at the fossil record and other sources and have faith that all living organisms evolved from a common ancestor. This is the case with all theories: we look at the evidence, and then come to a conclusion based on it. We're not 100% sure that our conclusion is a correct one, but we have faith that it is.

So in reality, Science and Christianity both deal with facts, and both require faith.

So What?
People claiming "Science Vs. Religion" in the Evolution/Creation debate will often do their best to point out all the differences between science and religion. The previous point (faith vs. facts) is a example of this.

But so what if science and religion are different? Math and history are different too, but does that mean we should keep one and do away with the other? Of course not! Both are important. And in the case of science and religion, we can have both.

Now, I'm not saying we should combine science and religion, any more than I think we should combine math and history into one subject. But they should be and are connected, just like math and history. Where would history, with all its important dates and figures, be without math? Similar to how math and history work together, science and religion (should) work together. If scientific evidence points to the existence of a God (which I believe it does), we shouldn't dismiss such evidence as being outside of the realm of science and inside the realm of religion. The two work together, and flow into each other.

In any case, just because science and religion are different, doesn't mean we should discard one of the two. Which brings us to the main problem of the "Science vs. Religion" topic.

Logically Fallacious
Why am I suddenly craving Lucky Charms? Never mind.
The main problem with "Science vs. Religion" is that it's a logical fallacy. Specifically, the "false dilemma" AKA "either-or" fallacy, which fools us into thinking that we have to choose between (usually) two things. When in reality, there may be more options to choose from, including "neither" or "both." And, as mentioned above, my position is that we can have both. In fact, we do have both (or at least, I and many others do).

"Science vs. Religion" is a fallacy. We don't have to choose one or the other: we can have both.

So that's the problem with "Science vs. Religion." It's a tricky argument meant to trap believers, and it's logically unsound to boot.

But that's not the end of the story! All we've done is defended from the attack. You can, if you want to, switch from defensive to offensive mode and turn the tables on your opponent. That's what we'll be doing in the next few points.

Who's the Bad Guy Here?
This first one also comes in handy when going up against the "Religion is violent because the Crusades/Inquisition/HitlerWasAChristian" argument.
Vox Day uses this argument in his book The Irrational Atheist:

"The five major religions of the world…have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. Despite 116 centuries filled with hundreds, if not thousands, of diverse religions, all competing for mindshare, resources, and dominance, the species has not merely survived, it has thrived…In the last sixty years, science has provided a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste…"

In essence: between science and religion, science (if anyone) is the bad guy. However, you need to be careful not to go off the deep end and become anti-science. Science and religion are both amoral. It's when bad people use them for immoral purposes that they become forces for evil ("Religion/Science doesn't kill people; people do!").

Where Would You Be Without Me?
One thing you can point out is that, believe it or not, modern-day science owes its existence to Christianity. Indeed, most of the great founders of science as we know it, such as Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Isaac Newton were Christians! Even Charles Darwin was a practicing Christian (though he later renounced his faith).

But that's not all. Dr. Melvin Calvin, a no-religious scientist and a winner of the Nobel Prize for his explanation of Calvin Cycle "dark reactions," says:

"The fundamental conviction that the universe is ordered is the first and strongest tenet [of science]. As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation of modern science"

As Nuclear Physicist and Creationist Dr. Jay L. Wile puts it:

"...early Christians understood that the world was created by a single God who is a Lawgiver, it made sense to them that the universe should run according to specific laws, and those laws should be the same everywhere in the universe. In addition, because they believed they had been given the image of God, they thought it was possible to understand those laws. That’s what prompted the revolution that produced science as we know it today."

So science owes religion. Big time!


So there you have it. "Science vs. Religion." Well, this post has gone on long enough! If you didn't already, you now have the proper tools to counter the "Science vs. Religion" fallacy.

Just remember: the purpose of a debate like this is not to "win" or to be right. You are not trying to destroy the other person. You are trying to convert them, to "give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15), and to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). They are not our enemy.

Author's note: Jonny has never actually craved lucky Charms in his lifetime. Ever.