Faith and Science

This is an excerpt from an email discussion I got in a few months back with some clever, well-intentioned skeptics, seekers, evangelicals, and stoic believers. I don't remember the entire context, but I remember the following question prompted my response.

If anyone wants to reply and get a discussion going, I'd be happy to jump in.

[How much faith is enough faith?]

To put it in context, the faith consistently linked with salvation is faith in Christ as he said he was. Struggling doubts about whether Jonah was really in a fish (or whatever) are not the real issue.

Although, I think all of it rests on an a priori decision as to God’s intervention in human history. If one can accept a theistic concept that allows supernatural intervention on the part of an omnipotent God, the resurrection, a man inside a fish, intelligent design, etc. pose no problem. However, when one makes an a priori decision about the impossibility of the miraculous, the reverse holds true. I keep using the term a priori b/c I see the decision made apart from science; in other words, science need not be an influential factor in the decision. An omni-whatever God isn’t limited by science, time, human logic, etc, (nor—and this is my point—our ability to logically combine them all).

If there’s an underlying assumption that science will eventually explain the then previously-assumed miraculous, then they never were miraculous and there be no need for theism. Empiricism and rationalism** then become the necessary (a priori) filters through which we force our entire worldview. The problem I have with the approach is that it makes no concession for the fact that empiricism/rationalism stands as the agnostic/deistic version of theism's faith.

Both worldviews require you to get behind (as in, before you contemplate) the issues and first decide what your test/criteria for truth is going to be. If today’s version of science or tomorrow’s new archaeological discovery “proves/disproves” my current assumptions, does that now make them wrong? Or, am I able to merge God’s divine intervention into a world he created with an explanation from the laws of physics that he created as well? Do I even have to do that? If I hold to the possibility of an omni-whatever God, could he assemble all of everything to appear as he would want it to be? Given Darwin’s (or pick your favorite agnostic/deist) concession that science can’t answer the question that faith says it can, where does empiricism/rationalism depart from faith? Either way, you’re still picking your First Cause.

-bill

**Don’t read this and assume I have a problem with the scientific method or things simply “making sense.” I simply recognize the limitations of science and human reasoning, and I find faith in these human faculties just as much a wager as my faith in the God of theism. Insert Pascal’s wager here.