I love looking at pictures of space. One of my favorite things about childhood was in third grade when I wrote some letters to NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California and received some incredible hi-res (for the time) images from space. It was so awesome! (I’m pretty sure I’ve got them in a box somewhere. I’ll have to look for them sometime.)
Space has always intrigued for so many reasons, but maybe most, theologically. Now, we’ll get to that in a second. First, listen to this:
That’s the sound, as recorded by some technological equipment that I can’t begin to describe, of a black hole. Incredibly isn’t it? Sounds just like something off Doctor Who, right? Now, this is the sound of electron plasma something or others.
Incredible, right? Space is louder than I thought. (Yes, I’m aware that space is a vacuum, void of sound, and that these are recordings of electromagnetic waves/radiation/whatever that have been reinterpreted as sound waves.)
So, back to the theology and without going too deep, let’s look at small passage from Scripture:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
Psalm 19:1-4
Pretty awesome. It’s discoveries like this that make me wish I’d gone into science. Science, in so many ways, is the frontier of the cultural battle of faith.
This is why I think it’s so important that “church tech” transcend the sound booth. And please don’t misunderstand that. I ran sound for about eight years, and it’s a vital job in the local church. However, it’s the larger “Church” that is suffering from a lack of commitment, convinced Christians who are exploring the outer reaches of space, cosmology, and science in general.
If you’re a youth pastor or kids’ pastor or a parent, please encourage your charges to look at the deeper sciences as a potential career choice. That doesn’t mean that they should be pressured, but sometimes, I do feel like science is discouraged, besmirched by Christians as improper for a believer to pursue as a course of study. And even though Spurgeon called theology the “master science,” I think that the supposed “lesser sciences” could use with an infusion of Christians who have a strong grasp of and a willingness to intelligently apply their theology.
How can the Church increase her role in the scientific community?
[via CNET | Amazing planet earth image via blueforce4116 via Compfight cc]
Emily Kantner says
Great post! It does seem like sometimes there is such a separation between Christianity and science. But they don’t have to–and shouldn’t–be mutually exclusive.
Phil Schneider says
Thanks, Emily. I really appreciate the comment. They certainly aren’t mutually exclusive.
Adam Shields says
First we need the church as a whole to accept that science is a legitimate occupation and not one that is necessarily anti-God. Second we need the church to understand that evolution is not necessarily anti-God either, and that a real Christian faith can be held by someone that also believes that evolution is the best explanation for creation.
Until then we will repeat the type of out-lash that Gungor has felt and further push thinking scientists away from the church every time they hear prominent Christians says that evolution is incompatible with scripture and/or faith.
Phil Schneider says
While I certainly agree that we don’t need to attack people with differing views, I think that we need grace on the other side, as well. I think that accepting evolution as God’s means of creation is greatly out of character with what we say about God otherwise in Christianity. Evolution is a very bloody, cruel process wherein creatures survive at the expense of others. It’s a process that is “red in tooth and claw,” and I don’t think that is taken into account by many otherwise “thinking” Christians when they propose it.
Adam Shields says
I am not saying everyone has to believe in evolution. But I do think that to say ‘you can’t believe in evolution and be a christian’ is heard as ‘you can’t be a scientist and a christian’.
So you can encourage science as much as you want, but if you are also at the same time pushing out those that have actually become scientists, you are not accomplishing anything except frustration.
Peter Enns has a good post on the problems of higher education. He says he heard all the time growing up that we should embrace education and thinking and lots of people encouraged him to go to top schools. Then when he went to top schools they wanted him to come and teach at Evangelical schools because he had lots of credibility with his top tier education. Then he those same people wanted him to forget everything that he had learned and only teach standard line Evangelical theology. There are many that wanted him to go get the education, but not actually learn (or later teach) with the tools and skills he learned there.
The actual post by Enns seems to be gone, but here is a recap of the post from Scot McKnight http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/06/19/a-repeating-story/
Phil Schneider says
I totally understand the frustration angle. I’m experiencing a bit of that now as I’m having no luck in leader members of my denomination out of the quagmire of dispensational eschatology.
However, I have some fundamental issues with science, or rather, with the absolute credence that it receives from those within the field, Christian and not. Science has nothing verify it but itself, and many scientists adopt a viewpoint or belief without considering the philosophical (or theological, in a Christian’s case) ramifications. That’s not to say that we should suppress scientific findings, but we should be more careful in how we quickly we accept and urge others to accept them.
Chad Ferris says
The problem is not how we deal with differing ideals. The problem is the hubris of man to believe they have empirical data. The common thread between these two groups of people is that each has overstepped their bounds. We cannot know empirically how the world was built because we cannot observe it. Both the creation account and evolution theory require belief. The problem is we refuse to acknowledge this on both sides. It is odd how we can move away from intolerance yet still propagate it under the idea of academia. And as far as the followers of Christ are concerned this position should be championed by you. Further more on a long enough time line everyone will know the answer so maybe we should be teaching patience over theory anyway.
Critical thinking is much more valuable than the regurgitation of information. Both science and elision would grow leaps and bounds if we taught from this perspective and stopped building towers to heaven.
Chad Ferris says
stupid autocorrect.!! elision should be religion
Phil Schneider says
For clarification’s sake, are you commenting on the post in general or are you replying to Adam’s comment?
Chad Ferris says
More of just a general statement spurred on by what Adam was saying.
I do love the article.
We need Christ followers to be a part of science if we expect to fulfill the great commission. If Jesus was okay with drunks and liars I am pretty sure he is going to want to talk to the highly educated scientific community as well.
Phil Schneider says
I see. Well, I certainly agree with the statement that both religion and science require belief.
vanessa benoit says
maybe so, but evolution requires a lot less “belief” since it has a mountain of evidence that points toward it. Whereas, the data and evidence does not, in the very least, point toward a 6,000 year old earth. We cannot prove or disprove, however, that God didn’t poof things into existence or poof fossils into existence. People who are philosophically inclined might’ve heard of something called Last Thursdayism. It’s a thought experiment but in essence, you can’t prove that everything in the entire universe wasn’t made last Thursday….and that the entirety of your memories weren’t poofed into being last Thursday…and that everything that looks old in the universe wasn’t actually from last Thursday, but just made to look old. This is where occams razor comes into play, however. And occams razor doesn’t necessarily mean that something is the absolute truth. Maybe the truth is bizarre and unintuitive! But we tend to think that whatever requires less circular explanations upon explanations to explain itself…is the thing that is most likely true. long story short evolution is more likely true.
and it’s a fine line sometimes. Sometimes beliefs can run completely contrary to the facts. The best we can do is align ourselves with data that is available to us, taken with a grain of salt. It’s mentally strenuous I suppose, as you have to become comfortable with uncertainties. But when you cling to a belief despite evidence to the contrary, that’s not something churches should encourage but they do.
I wouldn’t mind going to a church, however, that has constituents who think otherwise…that evolution is more likely false. I do however take issue when it is taught from the pulpit that evolution is false and I’m supposed to fall in line. Until that stops happening, I won’t feel right being in a church worshipping the God I’ve chosen to have faith in…and also being a STEM major. Actually, let me clarify, I still go to church once in a while just to worship God anyway, but I won’t be a church regular or be at home in a church or an integral part of it…