I wonder how valid this notion is of strictly dichotomizing religion and science into two different ‘ways of knowing’: faith on the one hand, and scientific and rational knowledge on the other. Certainly the scienitific process of observation, hypothesizing, and falsification is a very particular means of empirical discovery. I think of it as a disciplined method of posing questions to ‘nature’ (and one that, as far as I can tell, is neither necessarily hindered by nor hindering to religious faith in the biblical God). But does the scientific process really entail a wholly different epistemology from that of religious thought? And what exactly is ‘religious thought’? How does one define “religion”? What is faith?

Contrary to popular opinion, according to the NT faith is NOT believing something apart from ‘reason’, a belief without warrant, or in the absence of any kind of verification. John, for example, is quite concerned in his gospel to provide proofs (i.e., ‘signs’) for the remarkable claims concerning Jesus of Nazareth, thereby giving warrant for faith in him (e.g., 20:30-31). Jesus likewise furnished his disciples with many “proofs” of his resurrection from the dead (e.g., Acts 1:3; cf. Jn.20:25-28). Similarly, Paul offered historical evidences for the resurrection he declared in his gospel (1Co.15:3-8). Faith then is not simply an existential leap into the dark. The things ‘not seen’, yet beheld by the eye of faith, refers not to the invisible realities of ‘the heavenly places’, so much as the things hoped for by those who trust in God’s promises (2Co.4:18; 5:7; Ro.8:24-25). Faith is trust, then - a warranted trust.

Obviously Jesus’ resurrection isn’t, at present, an observable phenomenon (of course, neither is the evolution and emergence of modern species); but certainly it is subjectable to critical historical investigation, just as it was for those to whom the apostles first preached.

From a biblical perspective, both the theologian and the scientist are students of divine revelation. For, according to Scripture, not only is the created order in toto revelatory of the Creator, but all knowledge of such phenomena is a matter of divine grace. Yet each has a different method of inquiry, and as is appropriate to the nature of their ‘texts’, so to speak, differing ‘hermeneutics’. Yet, the two are not entirely separate, and cannot be isolated from the other. As a result, scripture is most certainly open to ‘critical’ inquiry (whether historical or scientific), and likewise our critical theories are open to the critique of the sacred scriptures. After all, whether our subject be the Bible or nature, the Author is one and the same.

So when folks like Dawkins, et al, pit science against religion, they are not pitting faith against reason, or religious belief against scientific inquiry (no matter what they insist). The substance of their dichotomy is the pitting of modernistic (materialistic) atheism against biblical theism (or any worldview that challenges the idols of scientism). E.g., the Darwinian theory of evolution may well be true with regard to explaining the hypothetical process of speciation. Yet, it may still be false to propose that this process is the mechanism of primal genesis. The historical evidence for the origins of life is meager, to say the least. I would argue that Dawkin’s neo-Darwinian account for life’s origins is a conclusion weighed more from his theological (or a-theological) presuppositions than from the ‘hard data’ of any scientific inquiry. As usual, the question then comes down to this: whose got the best presuppositions (i.e., coherency, consistency, and comprehensiveness)?

…just some thoughts…