It has become customary in some circles today to think of true theories as some expression of natural or general revelation, but this represents an extraordinarily troubling mistake, even though the indentification of the two often stems from a sincere desire to affirm both science and the Bible. But here lies a significant problem which one can determine with a few well pointed questions.
1. What is natural revelation? Answer: Natural revelation refers to God's SELF-disclosure to all men by means of the image of himself He has left as an imprint on the created order.
2. What are the sciences? "Science" (shorthand for the sciences) refers to the man-made effort to subdue the earth, control his environment, and improve the lives of all through observation, induction, dedcution, theorizing, simulations (models) and algorithmic solutions to questions about nature and the behaviors of its elements (both biological and inanimate). Now one could surely add more to these definitions.
They are not comprehensive definitions, but they are sufficiently accurate for today's quick study. First, only God can reveal. No man (except for Christ) can offer genuinely revelation from God as its source, any more than a man might redeem himself or his friends. Not gonna happen. But the sciences display faithful efforts on the part of men to fulfill what Christians sometimes call the "dominion mandate."
In other words, natural revelation originates with God, while scientific theories (true, false or ugly) find their source in the human mind. The attributes of natural revelation are those consistent with God's word, and those of the sciences with the words of men. Theories can be false (and usually are). God's word -- both in nature and written down (inscripturated) remains infallible -- here are a few words to look up -- also infrangible, irrefragable ("cannot be broken"), necessarily (not contingently) true, universally known (for natural revelation but not written), legal and ethical in its contents, certain (not probable), inerrant, perspicuous (sufficiently clear), untestable (it says, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test"), unfalsifiable, transcendent, etc., etc.
None of the above attributes applies properly to scientific theories, which are fallible, falsifiable (some are anyway), immanent (not transcendent), uncertain, sometimes false, errant, limited in scope, not known universally (few understand Einsteins general theory of relativity), descriptive of nature (not having the goal to describe God), sometimes they are opaque (less than clear), contingently true only (no theory is necessarily true, or it would not be theoretical by definition), etc. etc.
Conclusion: natural revelation is not theoretical. No revelation is theoretical. God never theorizes. He KNOWS and declares with authority what we must believe and do. Einstein? not so much. Logic-speak for "mutally exclusive" -- requires us to say that revelation (natural and special) on the one hand, and the sciences on the other, belong to "complementary classes."
Therefore, referring to theories -- now matter how good they might be and even if proven true -- as natural revelation is a form of idolatry to be avoided under the second commandment. This is idolatry of an epistemic kind. Thus we must carefully avoid it to remain faithful in our thinking --- faithful to God and to the task of dominion He has given to us.
Both the Bible and the sciences are good. God commands men to interact with both. But we must think of each in light of what the Word of God tells us if we are to do either well. Here's today "moment of Zen" (A funny I found on the internet).
Recently scientists decided to assess the possible global impact of an asteroid collision with earth. Judging from their most recent test results, simulations involving a watermelon and a sledge hammer, it's going to be pretty bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment