# Christians working in "Anti-Christian" Scientific Fields



## Afterthought (May 21, 2014)

Is it morally permissible and logically consistent for Christians to work in scientific fields that blatantly contradict Scripture? Say, as an evolutionary biologist or a cosmologist (I'm thinking big bang theory, inflation, galactic and stellar formation of our own habitation, multiverse stuff, etc.) or natural scientist or geologist? Or some other scientific field that intersects with the "absolute" (mostly "historical" scientific fields that re-construct past events, since "history" must be absolute, not relative)?

If it is morally permissible and logically consistent, is it wise? Especially considering that advances in these fields will likely contribute towards unbelievers having their beliefs satisfied that Scripture is not necessary and God does not exist because the universe can be explained without them (i.e., further hardening them in their unbelief by having more advanced, consistent, and better constructions and explanations of the past)?

Is it beneficial, considering that what is discovered is not true?


I have my own opinions, but I would be interested in seeing others.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (May 22, 2014)

As a Christian beginning a PhD in Neuroscience in the fall, I am admittedly biased in my answer: Your question is a loaded question that assumes without demonstration that certain scientific fields are "anti-Christian" or contradict scripture. I would argue that (1) science does not contradict scripture and (2) it is morally permissible and logically consistent for Christians to work in all of the sciences. To go further, I would argue that not only is it permissible, but that we need Christians in these scientific fields. I think Calvin states it well in his commentary on Genesis 1:16 (emphasis added):



> I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. *Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.* Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God.



In Christ,


----------



## Afterthought (May 22, 2014)

ChristianHedonist said:


> As a Christian beginning a PhD in Neuroscience in the fall, I am admittedly biased in my answer:


Congratulations!



ChristianHedonist said:


> Your question is a loaded question that assumes without demonstration that certain scientific fields are "anti-Christian" or contradict scripture.


One can only demonstrate so many things in a single thread, I suppose. I'm sure those who disagree with the assumptions will view the question as loaded. To clarify, the OP explains all I meant by a scientific field being "anti-Christian," which leaves open the question of whether a scientific field really is anti-Christian or whether a Christian use can be made of it such that a Christian can work in it.

I happen to agree with the OP's assumptions, but it seems to me the ethical and logical dilemma still occurs with the same force even if one disagrees. To use evolution as an example (since most here would reject it), one may say it is false science or not science at all. The question of the OP would then simply get rid of the adjective "scientific" that precedes "field" to simply ask about Christians working in the field of evolutionary biology. If one thinks evolutionary biology has something unique about it, then there are other fields the question can be asked about (such as cosmology, mentioned in the OP, or fields in which one constructs an ancient history of the earth or measures the earth's age as ancient). I guess one could disagree even with the assumptions here to the point that the only logical alternative is Creation science, but let's see where this goes.



ChristianHedonist said:


> I would argue that (1) science does not contradict scripture and (2) it is morally permissible and logically consistent for Christians to work in all of the sciences.


Given the modification of the problem for accommodating those who hold to (1) that I just discussed (the original problem in the OP can be addressed to those who agree with the OP's assumptions), why is the corresponding modification of (2) the case?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 22, 2014)

ChristianHedonist said:


> I would argue that (1) science does not contradict scripture and (2) it is morally permissible and logically consistent for Christians to work in all of the sciences. To go further, I would argue that not only is it permissible, but that we need Christians in these scientific fields.



What about eugenics? or secular Psychology which deny the reality of sin?


----------



## Toasty (May 22, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Is it morally permissible and logically consistent for Christians to work in scientific fields that blatantly contradict Scripture? Say, as an evolutionary biologist or a cosmologist (I'm thinking big bang theory, inflation, galactic and stellar formation of our own habitation, multiverse stuff, etc.) or natural scientist or geologist? Or some other scientific field that intersects with the "absolute" (mostly "historical" scientific fields that re-construct past events, since "history" must be absolute, not relative)?
> 
> If it is morally permissible and logically consistent, is it wise? Especially considering that advances in these fields will likely contribute towards unbelievers having their beliefs satisfied that Scripture is not necessary and God does not exist because the universe can be explained without them (i.e., further hardening them in their unbelief by having more advanced, consistent, and better constructions and explanations of the past)?
> 
> ...



A Christian can work in a scientific field without accepting the theories that contradict the Scripture. Being a biologist, a geologist, or a cosmologist does not mean that one has to accept certain theories that contradict Scripture.


----------



## jwithnell (May 22, 2014)

The science itself is no problem; as believers we are the most free to ask the tough questions because we believe truth is possible and that we live in an orderly universe designed by an amazing creator. Western science is based in these premises. Problems occur when confronting outright falsehood that seems to be happening more frequently now that our society moves past it's Christian base, or when science pushes policy that infringes on propery rights and individual freedoms like we're seeing with climate change.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (May 22, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Congratulations!



Thanks, Raymond!

I'm not sure I entirely understand your response, probably due to a lack of clarity on my part in my first response to you. To clarify, I was not stating that the fields you mentioned (i.e. evolutionary biology, cosmology) did not qualify as _scientific_. I was stating that I don't think those scientific fields are _anti-Christian_. I think they are legitimately scientific, and I think a Christian can work in the fields of evolutionary biology and cosmology.

As I understand your modification, you are asking why it is morally permissible and logically consistent for a Christian to work, specifically, in the fields of evolutionary biology and cosmology (among some others you question in the OP). Am I understanding you correctly? 

I will attempt an answer. Firstly, Christians may work in these fields because their Christianity will influence their philosophy of science, allowing them to separate questions of legitimate scientific inquiry from the philosophies of materialism, naturalism, or scientism. Scientist Christians can shine a light on what is truly scientific against a backdrop of anti-Christian ideas that are often couched in scientific terminology but in reality are an extension of science beyond its own authority. Secondly, Christians can work in these fields to scientifically identify limitations or incorrect theories and to develop better theories. Thirdly, it is better to advance these fields with a Christian worldview than to abandon them entirely to materialists.

Finally, I say all this with the assumption on my part (and here we may differ) that the fields you mention don't necessarily or entirely contradict scripture, though they may challenge certain _interpretations_. However, if one believes the entire field of cosmology, for example, contradicts scripture, I still think it would be beneficial for a Christian to study it for the sake of understanding it and debunking it with better science informed by a Christian worldview.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (May 22, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> What about eugenics? or secular Psychology which deny the reality of sin?



Etienne,

Eugenics is not science. It is a destructive and immoral social philosophy that abuses the legitimate science of genetics.

"Secular Psychology" is not strictly science, either. It's the combination of a philosophy (secular) with a science (psychology), so it's logically impossible for a Christian to be a "secular psychologist." However, A Christian could certainly be a psychologist, incorporating his/her understanding of Christian truth (such as sin) into his/her study of psychology (without, of course, turning sin into a scientific hypothesis).

In Christ,


----------



## Afterthought (May 22, 2014)

ChristianHedonist said:


> I'm not sure I entirely understand your response, probably due to a lack of clarity on my part in my first response to you. To clarify, I was not stating that the fields you mentioned (i.e. evolutionary biology, cosmology) did not qualify as scientific. I was stating that I don't think those scientific fields are anti-Christian. I think they are legitimately scientific, and I think a Christian can work in the fields of evolutionary biology and cosmology.


Ah, I see. I wasn't sure what your opinion was on that matter, but past encounters with people who respond as you did usually end with a distinction between "true science," "false science," and "non-science." So I responded accordingly in order to anticipate the distinction. I'll note for the future to add the reason why I add such a sentence whenever I'm in this sort of conversation. 



ChristianHedonist said:


> As I understand your modification, you are asking why it is morally permissible and logically consistent for a Christian to work, specifically, in the fields of evolutionary biology and cosmology (among some others you question in the OP). Am I understanding you correctly?


Yes, and by "work" I mean "advancing the field by the usual rules of the field." So it is not merely gaining an understanding or knowledge of the field, but positively working to expand it. I wish I could be more specific, but it is difficult to do so because what PBers think science gets correct and does not can vary quite widely at the level of detail I would need to create an example.

To appreciate and illustrate the problem, consider some scientific field that is currently dominated by a theory you personally believe contradicts Scripture (and if you believe there are no such fields, pretend you know someone who believes that sort of field exists). Might a Christian work in that field? Working in the field sometimes involves challenging the established theory, but it also can involve working to make the established theory better. And when one proposes a new theory, it usually involves making the theories within an accepted construct. And when one is a graduate student, one doesn't usually have the option or ability to challenge theories, but must work on advancing what is already accepted as established.

So what of this graduate student or the everyday scientist working to advance a theory believed to contradict Scripture? Say the theory is inflationary theory. There are many problems yet to be solved concerning inflation (e.g., What is its mechanism? How did it start? How did it stop?). What of the Christian working in the field on one of those problems? If I knew more about neuroscience, I'd provide an example from there, but I'd imagine that most fields have the same sort of thing going on: there's some established theory within which there are unsolved problems, and the everyday scientist or graduate student might work on contributing to the solution to those unsolved problems. Now what happens if that established theory is believed by the Christian to be false on Scriptural grounds?

I hope that clarifies, but I'll be happy to make another attempt if needed. Most of your response covers the question I was asking, anyway. I think only the last paragraph may not quite get at the question because there is a difference between learning and understanding a field on the one hand and working in the field on the other hand.





Toasty said:


> A Christian can work in a scientific field without accepting the theories that contradict the Scripture. Being a biologist, a geologist, or a cosmologist does not mean that one has to accept certain theories that contradict Scripture.


To summarize, a Christian can work in the field without personally believing the theories, correct? Why and how does this allow a Christian to work in these fields?




jwithnell said:


> The science itself is no problem; as believers we are the most free to ask the tough questions because we believe truth is possible and that we live in an orderly universe designed by an amazing creator. Western science is based in these premises. Problems occur when confronting outright falsehood that seems to be happening more frequently now that our society moves past it's Christian base, or when science pushes policy that infringes on property rights and individual freedoms like we're seeing with climate change.


If I'm understanding you correctly, you would say the believer in the scientific field that contains theories believed to contradict Scripture may work in the field because the Christian is free to ask questions? How is this logically consistent and morally permissible, considering the answer in whole or in part is believed to contradict Scripture and yet is being personally developed by the Christian?


----------



## Toasty (May 22, 2014)

> And when one is a graduate student, one doesn't usually have the option or ability to challenge theories, but must work on advancing what is already accepted as established.



He doesn't have to advance what is accepted by the majority. He can say that he doesn't accept the theories; he can find a way to challenge those theories. 



> To summarize, a Christian can work in the field without personally believing the theories, correct? Why and how does this allow a Christian to work in these fields?



He works in the field to gain an understanding of the natural world. He doesn't need to accept the majority opinion.


----------



## Toasty (May 22, 2014)

> If I'm understanding you correctly, you would say the believer in the scientific field that contains theories believed to contradict Scripture may work in the field because the Christian is free to ask questions? How is this logically consistent and morally permissible, considering the answer in whole or in part is believed to contradict Scripture and yet is being personally developed by the Christian?



It is not necessary for fields such as chemistry and physics to contain theories that contradict the Bible. There are no practices, methods, or assumptions in those fields that say that there has to be theories that contradict the Bible.


----------



## Afterthought (May 22, 2014)

Toasty said:


> He works in the field to gain an understanding of the natural world. He doesn't need to accept the majority opinion.


But does this reason (gaining an understanding of the natural world) work when advancing the field means contradicting Scriptural truth? If so, how?



Toasty said:


> He doesn't have to advance what is accepted by the majority. He can say that he doesn't accept the theories; he can find a way to challenge those theories.


So basically you are saying it is not logically consistent or morally permissible for someone to work in that field (i.e., advancing those theories) unless it is done by challenging those theories?


----------



## ChristianHedonist (May 23, 2014)

Raymond,

Now I understand the dilemma your question raises. Let's take the example of cosmic inflation. If a Christian cosmologist held that cosmic inflation theory was fundamentally and irrevocably opposed to his or her interpretation of scripture, that certainly raises a significant difficulty if he or she is working to advance cosmic inflation theory. I can think of three possible approaches: (1) The scientist could work on cosmic inflation with an openness to objectively following the evidence and a willingness to reconsider his or her interpretation of scripture; (2) the scientist could work on cosmic inflation if he or she thought the theory had scientific merit and consistency while (as a human scientific theory) lacking the authority to establish absolute truth - the scientist could hold that only scripture as he or she interpreted it was authoritative with respect to absolute truth and that science, while being useful or internally consistent, was not ultimately authoritative; (3) the scientist could work on inflationary theory as a graduate student, if required, if his or her long term goal as a professional scientist was to advance opposing theories that did not conflict with his or her interpretation, and he or she needed to first gain expertise in the widely accepted theories only possible by working in the field and not simply studying the theory. However, these approaches seem somewhat untenable. If a Christian scientist held that cosmic inflation was both absolutely opposed to scripture and completely lacking of scientific validity or consistency, then I don't see how he or she could work in advancing the field with either integrity as a Christian or with scientific integrity.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 23, 2014)

ChristianHedonist said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > What about eugenics? or secular Psychology which deny the reality of sin?
> ...



Thanks for the clarification, I agree with this statement, I just wanted to make sure we agree that we do need a definition and a guide on what we can properly consider science. What is accepted as "science" is different for many people based on their world view. If somebody agrees with evolutionary biology then eugenics could certainly be considered a science. What you accept as a valid science will be based on your view on epistemology. Therefore as a christian you can't really separate science and religious philosophy (at least when dealing with theoretical science) meaning many so called "sciences" today would not be acceptable for Christians since the are based on philosophies contrary to the tenets of Christianity. I see from your following posts that you seem to agree with this.


----------



## ChristianHedonist (May 24, 2014)

Fogetaboutit said:


> If somebody agrees with evolutionary biology then eugenics could certainly be considered a science.



Etienne,

I generally agree with you, except I would qualify the quoted sentence. Evolutionary biology contains legitimate science that does not lead to eugenics. That said, evolutionary biology does get heavily entangled with a materialist philosophy, and aspects of this anti-theist philosophy can lead to ideas such as eugenics.


----------



## kvanlaan (May 25, 2014)

And yet eugenics is only considered a pseudo-science now (and only because it is socially unacceptable; evolutionary 'facts' still support much of it). In the early 1900s, it was science proper; it should still be considered a science and has many links with evolutionary science.


----------



## Toasty (May 25, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > He works in the field to gain an understanding of the natural world. He doesn't need to accept the majority opinion.
> ...



We should never contradict the Bible. 

There is a difference between a field itself and theories that contradict the Bible. There might be non-Christian scientists in field X who come up with theories that contradict the Bible, but that does not mean that field X itself is anti-Christian. There are some biological theories that contradict the Bible, but that does not mean that biology itself is anti-Christian. The field of biology does not have to contain theories that contradict the Bible.


----------



## Afterthought (May 28, 2014)

Toasty said:


> We should never contradict the Bible.
> 
> There is a difference between a field itself and theories that contradict the Bible. There might be non-Christian scientists in field X who come up with theories that contradict the Bible, but that does not mean that field X itself is anti-Christian. There are some biological theories that contradict the Bible, but that does not mean that biology itself is anti-Christian. The field of biology does not have to contain theories that contradict the Bible.


Thanks. I was thinking of "Field" and "Theory" as the same when used to speak of an area that holds unsolved problems, but to correspond your terms to my meaning, it would seem your answer is "no" to the OP, and the reason is that we should never contradict the Bible. Can you show how the Christian is contradicting the Bible by behaving in this manner and so show that the Christian is actually contradicting it?


----------

