Theology vs. the natural sciences
Newton, William Blake
Alexander van Dijk explores the complex relationship between religion and science.
Being a practicing Christian, one of my favourite pastimes is having theological discussions. Some of the best discussions of this kind, in my experience, are to be had with natural scientists. They challenge my belief system to its very foundations and prompt me to find credible justifications for my beliefs. Yet, I think, a lamentable aspect of such discussions is that natural scientists perceive science to be obviously superior to theology, for natural sciences methodologically ground themselves in evidence-based reasoning, while theology relies on faith, which is construed as a residue of a superstitious past. This article aims to offer some thoughts to the effect that these perceived differences in methodology are highly exaggerated, and that theology and natural sciences in fact have a lot in common methodologically. They are both premised on axioms accepted through faith, and they both use evidence-based reasoning to come to conclusions. Indeed, this reasoning would not be possible without faith in the axioms.
Faith plays an important role in both theology and the natural sciences. Granted, in theology more obviously so. Christian theology would not exist if it did not accept as objectively true that Jesus Christ existed and that he was the physical incarnation of the metaphysical God. Theologians have faith in the truth of this postulation and it acquires axiomatic status, upon which their system of thought is necessarily premised. For how can you discuss the precise nature of God, his relation to the world and humanity, the role of Christ in human salvation, without assuming Christ existed and was actually God? Holding certain things as objectively true allows questions to be asked, and answers to those questions to be given – in short, it is the necessary premise for reason, as reason continuously employs and refers to the axioms.
Faith plays a similarly crucial role in the natural sciences. A fundamental premise of science is that the physical world is intelligible; that humans have the intellectual ability to understand it. Without treating this assumption as axiomatic, the natural sciences have no reason to exist. How can you ask questions about the physical world if you do not assume that you can understand it? Another assumption of many natural scientists is that experimental methodology and mathematics are the most suitable tools for describing the physical universe. A natural scientist might disagree with the ‘assumptory’ nature of this statement and prove its truth by invoking successful experimental results or showing how well a mathematical formula describes a phenomenon. However, such ‘proofs’ are tautological; they justify the axioms with reference the axioms. Using experimental results or a mathematical formula as proof necessitates the assumption that the physical world can be conveyed through quantitative data. Therefore, such proofs are already examples of reason premised on truths which are believed, through faith, to be objective.
In both theology and the natural sciences, the reasoning that employs the axioms is evidence-based. In the natural sciences this is most obvious through experimental methodology – patterns in the physical world are confirmed through repeated observation. The evidence-based reasoning used in theology, however, is slightly different. In order to answer questions pertaining to, for example, the nature of Christ, why God manifested himself in Christ, God’s relation to humans, God’s relation to the physical world, the implications for humans of God’s incarnation through Christ, one cannot use repeated observations of the physical world, because God is axiomatically metaphysical. Hence, the theologians of the early church who grappled with topics such as the above, used the evidence that was applicable: the Hebrew Scriptures which constituted Christ’s intellectual environment, accounts of Jesus’ life by his disciples, and writings by important early Christians such as St Paul. Based on this evidence representatives of the early church convened at the fourth-century councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, and reasoned towards answers to these questions, formulating them in an expression of Christian theology now known as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Natural scientists and theologians use different types of evidence, but both come to conclusions using reasoning that is evidence-based.
Theology and the natural sciences, therefore, have a lot in common from a methodological point of view. They both rely on faith in certain assumptions which are treated as axiomatic, and both use evidence-based reasoning which constantly employs and refers to these axioms. Perhaps interdisciplinary dialogue can yield much more productive results if, with this knowledge in mind, theologians and natural scientists are aware of the methodological foundations and boundaries of their disciplines.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body - if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.