Science and Religion--Conflict or Concord?

This past week our group discussed the often-used argument against God that “Science has disproved Christianity.” …that science has shown through evolution how we have come about through purely mechanistic means …that we have gone past the “dark ages” of religious mythology and miracles and have entered an “enlightened” age of science.

Are miracles possible? Keller argues in his book that miracles can exist, if one believes that God exists, which is an article of faith either way – believing or not believing. That’s about all for that subject, as he simply appeals to his general theme of “faith either way.” Which is a good point.

So what about the “enlightenment”? Are science and religion compatible? Keller doesn’t really answer this, but rather spends most of his time presenting a description of the wide spectrum of thought on the matter of creation/evolution. What do you think? Are they compatible?

I have spent much time thinking about this subject. My thoughts have evolved over time and are bound to change in the future. However, I come at it with this viewpoint: I have many reasons to believe in the existence of God and in Christianity and the good news it presents. I also admire the scientific method and believe evolution to be an extremely solid and believable explanation, at least if you don’t believe in the supernatural. To some extent I have lived in two worlds. However, I have always desired to bring them together somehow. In order to do this, I need to resolve areas in which both systems do not mesh. Here are two of my questions (and some possible answers) regarding both creation and evolution:

Creation – while one can always appeal to the “we will never understand everything, God could have done it that way, just have faith in a literal reading” argument, a rational mind must ask questions. 1) the order of Creation in Genesis 1 has never made sense to me. How does light come before the sun/stars/moon? How were the stars created 6000 years ago if they are hundreds of thousands of light years away based on current science? I have found an explanation for this that satifies me. It can be found here: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332 . Basically, this states that Genesis 1 is mythology with one goal – to present a monotheistic creator God. The order of creation is presented as such, because it is arranged in two sets of three days, with the second set populating the first (e.g. stars (day4) populating light and dark (day1). I find this a fascinating explanation.

Evolution – my big beef with theistic evolution is this: If Jesus came to redeem and restore, etc, etc, things back to its original condition, how is that original condition different than now if death through natural selection was the norm of the day in God’s “perfect” creation. I just did an internet search and found some retorts to this problem of mine… (e.g. http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html) the major one being that God created only humans to live forever, through eating of the tree of life, and that they were familiar with the concept of death all around them… that Jesus came to redeem and restore mankind only, not plants and animals. Interesting ideas.

These are thoughts that I will ponder, while my science friends consider me a fool for even wasting my time, and my church friends consider me a heretic for even wasting my time :). What do you think?

The Wrath of God?

As Keller points out, many people have an adverse reaction to the idea that God judges people. Such an understanding of God seems to contradict the idea that God loves everyone and leads inevitably to human violence in the name of God.

Keller responds to these objections with two quotes:

"Think how we feel when we someone we love ravaged by unwise actions or relationships. Do we respond with benign tolerance as we might toward strangers? Far from it...Anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference...God's wrath is not a cranky explosion, but his settled opposition to the cancer...which is eating out the insides of the human race he loves with his whole being."

~ B. Pippert

"If God were not angry at injustice and deception and did not make a final end to violence--that God would not be worthy of worship...The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God...My thesis that the practice of non-violence requires a believe in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many...in the West...[But] it takes the quiet of a suburban home for the birth of the thesis that human non-violence [results from the belief in] God's refusal to judge. In a sun-scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die...[with] other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind."

~ M. Volf

Do you agree? Especially with Volf's claim in the sentence (in bold) above?

So...Are you fanatical enough?

This past weekend, we talked about Keller's distinction between nominal and fanatical Christians. One of the criticisms of Christianity is that, like all religions, it leads to fanatical behavior and attempts to impose our views on others, restricting their freedoms and individuality.

And, we talked about 'cheap gracers' who think, "I want to be "free" and "Christ will forgive anything, so I can do what I want."

And, at the other end of the spectrum, there are the legalists who are busy following rules and trying to be perfect. Is this fanaticism? We Adventists have been accused of this, and sometimes the shoe fits (painfully). What about that person -- you know who I'm talking about -- who drinks iced coffee and brings it to CHURCH!? And they eat an occasional ham sandwich (They're smart enough not to bring this to church, but you know the type).

Some people have a huge problem and get focused on this. Others look at the people who have the problem and call them the "F" word--fanatic!

Adventists have been called fanatics about all sorts of things. According to Keller, however, Christians in general (including Adventists) aren't fanatical enough! Religious people, in general, are not passionate about the issues that Jesus was passionate about and, therefore, aren't really free.

"The tendency of religious people...is to use spiritual and ethical observance as a lever to gain power over others and over God, appeasing him through ritual and good works. This leads to both an emphasis on external forms as well as greed, materialism, and oppression in social arrangements. Those who believe they have pleased God by the quality of their devotion and moral goodness naturally feel that they and their group deserve deference and power over others...In Jesus' and the prophets' critique, self-righteous religion is always marked by insensitivity to issues of social justice, while true faith is marked by profound concern for the poor and marginalized" (59-60).

What do you think about Keller's assessment? Are we fanatical enough or fanatical about the right things? What would Saturdays look like if we were?