Some years ago a microbiologist friend asked me how can I believe in God when scientists say that the belief in God is untenable. My friend is not a Christian, and she is not the only one who holds that view. I have met people from various backgrounds who are as curious as Christians when it comes to the relationship between faith and science. Therefore I decided to have one session on this topic for STEP's interns.
It seems to me that the best approach to understand the relationship between Christianity and science is to ask what do we mean by 'science'? The enterprise that we call science today is relatively vague. For example, is neuroscience a form of science? To many, it is very obvious that the discipline is science. After all, it is neuro-science, right?
Yet, neuroscience runs on faith. Much of the assumption in neuroscience is built on unproven beliefs. As the Director of the University of California's Social Cognitive Neuroscience laboratory, Matthew Lieberman writes,
Besides Lieberman's pointing the faith dimension of science, the debate in the 20th century among philosophers of science (Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyerabend) has shown that we still lack a definite criteria for scientific progress and knowledge. As Geoffrey Gorham notes, "[T]here may be no single criterion for demarcating science from non-science or capturing the proper scientific attitude." (Philosophy of Science: A Beginner's Guide [UK: Oneworld, 2009], 40.)
As STEP's interns emerge as church lay or pastoral leaders, they will encounter question from their church members or challenging situation they face in university or workplace. I hope the session on science and Christianity will inspire and facilitate them to think through this issue so that they can lead the church in an informed manner.
Pr. Joshua Woo
Yet, neuroscience runs on faith. Much of the assumption in neuroscience is built on unproven beliefs. As the Director of the University of California's Social Cognitive Neuroscience laboratory, Matthew Lieberman writes,
I am a neuroscientist and so 99% of the time I behave like a materialist, acknowledging that the mind is real but fully dependent on the brain. But we don’t actually know this. We really don’t. We assume our sense of will is a causal result of the neurochemical processes in our brain, but this is a leap of faith. (Emphasis added)If much of a scientific discipline such as neuroscience is based on faith, then is science really that different from Christianity? This is not to deny that they are different, yet are they so far apart from each other with science as the discipline which is based only on facts while Christianity only on faith? I doubt so.
Besides Lieberman's pointing the faith dimension of science, the debate in the 20th century among philosophers of science (Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyerabend) has shown that we still lack a definite criteria for scientific progress and knowledge. As Geoffrey Gorham notes, "[T]here may be no single criterion for demarcating science from non-science or capturing the proper scientific attitude." (Philosophy of Science: A Beginner's Guide [UK: Oneworld, 2009], 40.)
As STEP's interns emerge as church lay or pastoral leaders, they will encounter question from their church members or challenging situation they face in university or workplace. I hope the session on science and Christianity will inspire and facilitate them to think through this issue so that they can lead the church in an informed manner.
Pr. Joshua Woo
Chairman of STEP 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment