Is scientific ignorance a necessary component of mystery?

[gluadys]

This question come out of a discussion following the viewing of a film called War on Science about the Dover trial re: ID being taught in science classes.

I don't think anyone in the room was a young earth creationist. Only one person was an avowed atheist. Several others seemed to be somewhat on the fence between theism and atheism, struggling to come to an answer that makes sense to them. So it was a lively and interesting discussion.

Of course, one of the concepts that came up was the notion of god-of-the-gaps i.e. that when we come up against something we cannot explain with current science, it is permissible to say "Goddidit."

And that led to the question: What if one day we do have a fully naturalistic explanation of all that exists in nature, including ourselves. What if we can detail, not only the biological evolution of our bodies, but also the evolution of our morality, our soul, even our awareness (or seeming awareness) of God. And coupled with a full awareness of our physical, mental, moral and spiritual evolution, we also have a full scientific explanation of the origin of the universe and all its contents, and of what the end of the universe will be, of life and death and all the things we do not currently have answers for.

Would such knowledge be incompatible with belief in God?

And that set me to thinking about the anti-intellectualism of so much creationism. The theological error of god-of-the-gaps thinking is that it makes knowledge dangerous. If the only place we can "see" God in relation to the natural world is in those places we do not understand the natural world, it follows that every time we learn something of nature, we have a smaller window through which to see God. We have to fight off knowledge to keep sight of God. This is such elementary logic that most Christians, including creationists, formally disavow god-of-the-gaps theology.

But I wonder how deep that goes. I wonder what the implications of a totally natural explanation of nature are, including, as I say, the mental, emotional, moral and spiritual aspects of human nature, even for TEs.

Is a measure of ignorance about nature a necessary component of belief in God? Must nature be to some degree opaque in order to be mysterious enough to reveal God? Or is God enough mystery in and of himself no matter how much we learn about his creation?

We see YECs again and again raise doubts over what scientists already claim to know about e.g. the age of the earth. They insist that we do not know, and that, in fact, we cannot know the age of the earth through scientific measurement--only through the revelation of scripture is the truth known. What is the source of this insistence? Is it really just honest skepticism about science? Or does it reflect a theological need to be and remain ignorant. Is it at bottom a deep-seated convinction that to let go of ignorance means one must also let go of God?

Personally, I can affirm that for me, there are no limits to what we can know of nature. It would make not the slightest difference to my faith if I were shown indisputable evidence that my soul as well as my body evolved and that my belief in God is the consequence of a genetic mutation. As far as I am concerned, if that is the way God chose to make a creature capable of communion with its Maker, so be it.

 

[laptoppop]

No, scientific ignorance is not required.

It *is* appropriate to place more faith in God's revealed message than in the theories of men, especially when the physical evidence is more consistent with the more direct revelation of God than the non-supernatural theory.

 

[gluadys]

No, scientific ignorance is not required.

It *is* appropriate to place more faith in God's revealed message than in the theories of men, especially when the physical evidence is more consistent with the more direct revelation of God than the non-supernatural theory.

Of course, you are assuming two things here:

1. That scripture is God's only revealed message, and
2. That no theories of men are required to interpret scripture.

I hold that creation is also a revelation from God, and while I admit that science is a human interpretation of nature, I hold that all interpretations of scripture are also human.

Therefore, I agree with you that it is appropriate to place faith in God's revealed message, but that includes the message of creation itself. And I disagree that scripture is a more direct revelation than creation. Both the revelation of scripture and the revelation of creation are mediated to us through human agents. Science is just as "direct" as theology and theology is just as "indirect" as science.

Finally I hold that the natural/supernatural distinction is irrelevant when it comes to science as God is the agent of both natural and supernatural events. Showing that an event in nature or natural history did not require a supernatural action is never a denial of God's role in the event. It is nothing more than an indication of how God chose to accomplish his purpose in this instance.

 

[shernren]

No, scientific ignorance is not required.

It *is* appropriate to place more faith in God's revealed message than in the theories of men, especially when the physical evidence is more consistent with the more direct revelation of God than the non-supernatural theory.

Suppose my wife tells me "I love you", and her doctor tells me "She is infertile".

If I were to ask you whether I should have "more faith in her than in her doctor", how would you answer? Would a question as strange as that deserve an answer at all?

In the same way expressions like "We should have more faith in God's revealed message than the theories of man" feel strange to the eyes. It is not so much the answer that is wrong, it is the question - namely, "which should I have more faith in?" Should I have more faith in science or Scripture? A question like that only makes sense if science and Scripture are directly contradictory or complementary, as if they were married.

Suppose I grant that the Bible was literally dictated in every single letter to faithful scribes. Suppose even that every now and then God rains down little black leatherbound KJVs from Heaven on the roads each Sunday to prove His point. That does not settle the central question: are science and Scripture commensurate? If science speaks of how nature works, and Scripture of who God is (even if written in His very handwriting - which of course looks exactly like Eras Light ITC, the one true perfect and unblemished font), why should they be brought to contradiction against each other?

It would be like telling me to choose between my wife and her doctor, when in fact there simply is no need for a choice at all, or asking me whether I put more faith in Albus Dumbledore or in Gandalf. It is the art of unnecessarily dichotomizing and making things face off against each other which was never necessary or beneficial - but which we are addicted to all the same.

 

[Assyrian]

Gandalf.

 

[busterdog]

Gandalf.

Well of course Gandalf. Duh.

But, Richard Harris should have played Gandalf and Ian McKellen should have been Dumbledore. McKellen was really confident Magneto, but he was a terrified almost bumbling Gandalf.

I would argue that lots of science should be ignored and mystery restored. But, I will settle at least for a recognition of where science is stumped, which only science is allowed to speak of. There is enough mystery in the latter to make for a serviceable understanding of where we are at.

 

[Mallon]

I would argue that lots of science should be ignored and mystery restored.

God doesn't feel that way:

Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings."

 

[Assyrian]

I would argue that lots of science should be ignored and mystery restored. But, I will settle at least for a recognition of where science is stumped, which only science is allowed to speak of. There is enough mystery in the latter to make for a serviceable understanding of where we are at.

No, because your mystery is left hiding in the gaps waiting for the next scientific breakthrough to evict it. We need to reclaim the whole of creation and the mystery of a God who fills all in all.

 

[gluadys]

I would argue that lots of science should be ignored and mystery restored.

So you are agreeing that scientific ignorance is a necessary component of mystery?

Why? Is God not mystery enough without nature being a mystery as well?

But, I will settle at least for a recognition of where science is stumped, which only science is allowed to speak of. There is enough mystery in the latter to make for a serviceable understanding of where we are at.

But what if the day comes when science is no longer stumped? That was the question that was posed. Would a complete scientific understanding of all of nature spell for you the death of God? Why?

In the thread "Of course evolutionists are going to...." you said in your post "Knowledge is a problem."

Can you expound on that a bit more? What makes knowledge a problem?

 

[Jadis40]

I don't believe that God wants us to remain ignorant of the workings of the natural world. If we had held to that mentality, we'd still be stuck in the Dark Ages like existed from 500 AD - 1500 AD, where the church leadership was extremely anti-science and anti-intellectual. If it weren't for the advance of scientific study after the Renaissance we might still believe that illnesses are caused by evil spirits. Koch, Lister and Pasteur, as I mentioned in another thread, were pioneers in germ theory. Turned out they were right. Through their research who knows how many lives have been saved through advances in medicine which can be directly traced back to their work.

The ancient Greeks figured out that the earth was a sphere through the work of Eratosthenes, and the heliocentric model was pioneered by Aristarchus. Heraclides, another Greek, was the first to explain the motion of the stars through the rotation of the earth. The church leadership, however, based on what the Bible seemed to teach regarding the earth insisted on a geocentric model, at least until Copernicus and Galileo came along. Yet again, the church leadership gave more weight to Ptolemy and Aristotle, because the fact that both Ptolemy and Aristotle believed in geocentricism, which the leadership of the church held to support geocentricism.

Then you have Newton and Kepler, pioneers in the realm of modern physics, including classical mechanics.

 

[Macrina]

First the disclaimer that I don't really think we can ever get to a point where we have everything all figured out, through science or any other means. But I understand the hypothetical, so...

The only thing that I can think of relevant to this point is that the people I have met who have been most in awe of the "mystery" of God's creation were the people most likely to be able to explain it: Particle physicists, molecular biologists, students of natural history... these are folks that would seem to have more answers than I would, in terms of scientific knowledge of "how God did it," but it seems that with their learning comes an ever-increasing awe of God's work.

So I try to extrapolate from that and think, what if they continued on their current trend and they figured it all out? Well, I think that the sort of people to whom I refer would simply experience greater wonder at the complexity of God's work. There are those who choose not to believe and are blind to the full beauty of God's creation, and they might take it as "proof" against God... but it wouldn't be.

 

[Melethiel]

That's an excellent point, Macrina. The higher I go in scientific studies, the more I am in awe of God and his creation. (The electron transport chain is a beautiful thing...)

 

[shernren]

Well of course Gandalf. Duh.

But, Richard Harris should have played Gandalf and Ian McKellen should have been Dumbledore. McKellen was really confident Magneto, but he was a terrified almost bumbling Gandalf.

I would argue that lots of science should be ignored and mystery restored. But, I will settle at least for a recognition of where science is stumped, which only science is allowed to speak of. There is enough mystery in the latter to make for a serviceable understanding of where we are at.

The irony is that fundamentalism and the various forms of literalism only make sense when proclaimed within a scientific culture with its repeated demands for proof defined in a specialized, scientific way*. The thing you consider your enemy has actually built your foundation for you!

*paraphrased from Philip Luscombe's Groundwork of Science and Religion, emphasis in original