- Readings
- On-Line Resources
- Pre-Cursors
- The Received Tradition
- Our View of the Nature of Science and Faith (An Introduction)
- Faith and Reason (Our View)
Storm Coming Over the High Plains
Photo: JAC
For starters, since the "Galileo affair" questions about the fallibility of the Bible and interpretations of it were increasingly raised. Some indeed think of this time as the beginning of a more public and long running antagonism between religion (historically understood mainly as Christian faith) and science. Science, it is alleged, has come to be understood by certain people and institutions as the paradigm of Reason and our main inheritance from the Enlightenment.
Especially from the Enlightenment of the 18th century on there has been a lingering sense that science, however that is exactly understood, is objective (independent of how our minds order the world), whereas religion (historically read Christianity) is subjective and thus dependent in important ways on how our minds order the world. Further, the question needs to be raised as to whether this understanding is facile and whether it is sustainable under close scrutiny.
In forming an answer to this question we will want to look at the philosophic pre-cursors to this debate and reflect on the received historical tradition of the debate. We will also want to look at ways science has been characterized by philosophers and historians of science including: forms of constructivism and realism. And we will want to explore the nature of Christianity. It, too, can and is construed differently by different individuals and sects of Christianity, but what we will be focused on orthodox version of the Christian faith. And finally, we will explore the received tradition regarding the fact/value (or fact/opinion) distinction that played an important role in this on how this discussion moved forward.
The force of this question is that it strongly suggests or intimates that science is an intellectual discipline that attempts to understand things by means and methods such that we end up knowing things as they are (objectively). At the same time it is alleged a critical analysis of the methods and claims of the Christian faith does not lead us to knowing things as they are, but rather leads us to conclusions that are fatally flawed by historical accident, subjective taste, subjective preference or even prejudice.
The way we think these lines of argument can be “attacked" is to first analyze what counts as science, whether the scientific method has produced unassailable and unbiased results and ask does the philosophy of science and history of science present an argument to the contrary? We think the last allegation does provide an argument for the contrary, even though we hold that it is not fatally flawed if we think of science as being built on the foundation of Christian metaphysics.
At the 
same time when we consider whether Christian faith is entirely a matter of subjective taste, historical accident, or prejudice, we want to ask, are there features of it that commend it to have a more robust credibility? We think it has a case for more robust credibility even while we hold that not everything in Scripture is meant to be taken literally or is easily interpreted.
The resources in this section will also suggest there are credible construals of science that are instrumentalist rather than realist. That is, the analysis implies that science, per se, is not closing in on the “truth” (thus a non-realist or irrealist conception), which suggests that scientific “truth” is more or less coherent theories (considered to be empirically adequate) that allow us to predict other and future states of affairs (egs. predict solar eclipses, etc. and sufficiently robust to allow us to make technological advancements), but not necessarily closing in on metaphysical or ontological truth. If these arguments from the history and philosophy of science are persuasive, it may mean that science despite its glorious track record, in fact, may not be closing in on the “truth” as is typically thought. (That isn’t to diminish science to alchemy, but rather to diminish it somewhat from pretentious and exaggerated claims, for instance, the claims of logical positivism—sometimes called logical empiricism—and scientism.)
And why should we think that Christian faith is merely subjective? How strong are the Humean, Kantian and et al. arguments that assert it to be so? Are those arguments sound? Are there counter arguments to be made and what would a positive argument for warranted Christian belief look like? Resources on this part of the site should help you think through these issues.
Following up from the preface on the previous page, we also want to say a few introductory things about 1a) what sort of understanding should we have about precursors to the science/religion debate as well as 1b) the received tradition for the history of the science/religion debate; 2) how is one to think about the nature of science and the various ways it can be construed; and 3) how is one to think about the nature of Christian beliefs. Additional resources will be given in this section of the site to help you explore and form your own views.