Several years ago in a conversation with my pastor about evolution and the church, I explained science and theology as two content rings; each existing within us; each with their own set of rules and standards; thus it is up to each of us to determine our view based on both theology and science.
My pastor explained science and theology as overlapping content rings, which surprised me because I’ve never heard that viewpoint – thus I didn’t know how to respond.
What do you think?
A Frank Angle 
You are just bound and determined to make me sound like a broken record, aren’t you? (And what’s sadder? That half the Internet has no idea what that reference means! 😀 )
As I’ve said before, science does not have to exclude theology. In truth, and my experience, many scientists (especially in my favourite field, sub-atomic particle physics) view science as a way to understand how God put the universe together. (I won’t torture you with the Einstein quote I keep mauling! 😉 ) Many astronomers will state that they find the idea of all existence being a literal “crap shoot” inconceivable. While you can take several views on the always-thorny issue of extraterrestrial life, even this issue can be addressed via a combination of science and theology. As a quite “good ol’ boy” self-confessed Baptist said to me, “If Man was created by God to be without sin, yet sinned in the Garden of Eden, who is to say He didn’t try again? If YOU mess up something here, wouldn’t you go try to do it right over there?” A bit simplistic and “earthy”, but an intriguing concept nonetheless.
To reject science in the theological search leaves far too much information out of the search. To reject theology in any scientific search can lead to confusion and/or potential dead ends. A healthy mix can serve to answer many a question that either method in isolation would fail to.
LikeLike
John,
I see your point, but keep in mind the context of the situation. This was a conversation between my pastor and I – two people who do NOT see a conflict between science and theology – yet we had two different perspectives. Actually, (and to give you something to ponder and discussion with the goat), these are 2 (of 4) of the models that are generally presented. (Something else to discuss your with neighborly friend). Thanks for sharing!
LikeLike
Okay, how about this? You need a certain amount of faith to comprehend all science has to provide, especially at the far edge of high-energy physics. You also need a certain amount of science to understand faith – not that you MUST know science to understand faith, but that knowing some items of science, like the vastness of the universe or the complexity of evolution – can reinforce your belief in religion. Does that fit your set theory better? 😀
Oh, and I’ve been avoiding discussing Internet stuff with Blackjack lately. Melissa has been on a recent kick about … well … goat romance, we’ll say, and I most certainly don’t want to give ol’ Blackjack any ideas!! 😉
LikeLike
John,
Did Blackjack give you that idea? 😉
Well, I’m not sure that one needs a certain amount of science to understand faith. Why? Simply convinced that faith and soul are measurable. However, the way to understand how the two integrate within a person, that person should have a sound understanding of what science is (and is not), how it works, conceptual knowledge of the topic at hand (evolution, nuclear energy, genetics, etc), and an understanding of the theological view of science. Now that I look at this, does this make any sense?
LikeLike
Actually, I’m overdue for a Blackjack visit. Maybe once I’m done here – the dog could probably use a walk, too….
Now now, I didn’t say NEED. I said it HELPS! 🙂 Seriously, I don’t mean that you have to have any kind of science background for your faith. Some would say the sheer definition of faith excludes science – if you can’t prove it, you have to take it on faith. What I was clumsily trying to say is that a knowledge of science (or scientific things) like astronomy – and the sheer scale of the universe – can help you experience religion. (“God created the heavens – big deal, some sky over the Earth, right? What? Billions of galaxies with billions of stars? Wow – that IS impressive!”) Likewise with science, you can go nuts thinking about protons, leptons, gluons, quarks, and the whole menagerie, but it seems a lot less – random, disorganised, choose your term – with the knowledge that it was created for a reason.
And now that we’ve spent a few hours and a whole lot of bandwidth confusing the heck out of each other (and ourselves), I think I need to go talk to Blackjack! 😀
LikeLike
John,
I’m glad I’ve got you thinking. 🙂 … Reading my reply to Spinny may give you some additional insight.
Then again, I could (put won’t) challenge you to provide a theological support for your points. 😉
BTW …. tomorrow’s post has a WW II tie (probably posted later tonight) … and you did say “need”. 🙂
Great stuff John … many thanks.
LikeLike
D’Oh! I WROTE “need”, but I didn’t MEAN “need”. 😦
Y’know, Blackjack never gives me this kinda grief! 😉
LikeLike
John, Oh well … blaming it on Blackjack is a good reason … he doesn’t find out. Anyway, as I well know, typos happen.
LikeLike
I just realised who you are, Frank. You’re one of those annoying teachers I had in high school, who always wanted me to “prove my work”. I always HATED those teachers. Not that I COULDN’T prove my work, but because it was too tedious. No wonder I got into sci-fi – leaps of faith and all that. (How about that one for a topic? Compare/contrast the layman’s term “leap of faith” like for Star Trek’s warp drive, with the theologian’s “leap of faith” like for Christ’s resurrection on Easter Sunday. And SHOW YOUR WORK!!) 😀
LikeLike
John,
I wouldn’t say I’m the prove-it type … but maybe the fully-explain type. Meanwhile, I’m practicing my patience with adults by not jumping in with “answers” … but also keeping the discussion moving forward.
Meanwhile, sci-fi and faith have interesting common ground. I recall a Star Trek episode (I think Next Generation) where two where discussing opposing views of the creation of the universe. Interestingly, it was the current battle that was put into the sci-fi setting. I imagine you may even recall the episode! 😉
LikeLike
I am of the belief that God ‘created’ evolution,
I like the movie Oh God, in it, God, played by George Burns says I created all of this now it is up to you (People of Earth) to make it work,
He also said he does not do many miracles, The last one he did was the 69 Mets.
LikeLike
Larry,
Although evolution was the backdrop for the discussion between my pastor and I, but we were talking about the why science and theology interact within a person … thus two models … and both supporting evolution. Just something for you to consider.
“Oh God” was a fun movie … an George Burns was perfect for the part. I recall his ’69 Mets comment. 🙂 Thanks for commenting and rekindling a movie memory. Here’s a clip for you.
LikeLike
i don’t know what the answer is, but what pops into to my mind is, does it matter? for those who are believers, why burst the bubble if it gives them peace to think that there is a higher power pulling the strings? as for the nonbelievers, let them enjoy the wonders of science. if someone believes that they can believe in both religion and science, more power to them. me? i’m on the fence, and i don’t really dwell on it. life is too short to worry about things for which we’ll never have the right answer.
p.s. the ’69 mets really was a miracle! 🙂
LikeLike
Nonnie,
I’m sure Larry appreciates your reference to the ’69 Mets!
The conversation was between two believers who don’t see a conflict between science and theology. Yet, two different interpretations of that relationship. The first model is more as two magnets coming together, yet two magnets. Those who feel that science and theology are in opposition to each other would be illustrated another way. After all, I didn’t want to spill too many beans! 🙂 Thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
GOOD Morning, Frank!
Yet another one of your thought-provoking post I see.
Our esteemed fellow bloggers Larry, Nonnie’ and John make good & valid points. Personally, I have always believed both entities/rings are created of the same Higher-Power, who smiles when you and others care enough to investigate/research both realms further…
Have a blessed (Theology) & openminded (Science) day my distnguished Ohioan friend. Hat Tip, Frank!
LikeLike
Al,
Keep in mind that the conversation was between two believers and two who do not see a conflict between science and theology. Thus the drawing illustrate 2 ways of their interaction … but not the only ways. Ah ha … you now have insight to future posts! Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
You’re welcome, Frank! Always a pleasure to stop over here and learn some more. Appreciate the way you pour your energy/talents into creating fascinating and worthwhile topics. Hat Tip…back next week to catch up on some more good reading.
LikeLike
Al,
Many thanks not only for the kind words, but for visits and comments here …. as well as 2012.
LikeLike
I’ve never heard that theory either. I like to see them as separate. In science, you’re researching the natural world. In theology, you’re delving into issues of faith, religion, and the spiritual.
LikeLike
Spinny,
Ah ha – You got my point – possibly the dialogue above helped. So here’s a tidbit more of the story.
The conversation with my pastor was in early 2009. Since that time, I have read a lot on the topic … books, articles, and essays by theologians and scientists. Even listened to a few lectures on line. To my credit, I’ve been reading the leaders in the field. Heck, even had some email correspondence with some. So, much of what I write in this area is very thought out. Interestingly, I know have a much greater understanding and appreciation for what my pastor meant.
Thanks for commenting.
LikeLike
Hmm. I don’t know if I got your point. I’m confused (not the first time) haha. Dissecting a fetal pig is different than dissecting the Gospel of John. Well, maybe not. You’re trying to see what’s in it, how things are connected, etc. I don’t know. I’m confusing myself now. Hahaha.
LikeLike
Spinny,
You actually gave me on idea for a Wednesday post (possibly next Wednesday). Actually an intro into the different models. Many thanks!
LikeLike
Well yay! 🙂
LikeLike
Spinny, I think you, Frank, and I need to find a common meeting place, and sit down and discuss this over dinner. With alcohol. LOTS of alcohol! 😀
LikeLike
Unfortunately I’m a sleepy drunk, so you’d be talking to each other. 😉
LikeLike
John and Spinny,
OK … John and I get the alcohol so Spinny stays alert. 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe the alcohol ain’t such a good idea – I get WAY too morose. Philosophical, but morose. My college friends even gave me an “intervention”, said I was too depressing drunk, and WAY more fun sober. (Take that for what it’s worth.)
So let’s see – that’s coffee for Spinny – some JD for Frank – and ice tea and Vicodin for me.
For the rest of the patrons, INFINITE PATIENCE!! 😀
LikeLike
John,
Not JD as I’m a red wine guy …. but I love our story about the “intervention”!
LikeLike
Oh no a crying drunk! Haha.
No coffee. I’ll have sweet tea and some Tylenol for the headache I’ll get from discusssing things way over my head. 😛
LikeLike
Spinny,
Hang with me on this! Meanwhile, instead of a discussion, I envision listening … more like an episode of “John Erickson Uncut”.
LikeLike
Me too. I envision myself saying, “I don’t get it” a lot. Haha
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
I’ve never understood why so many people of faith think they have to set their faith as an alternative to science. Forcing such a conflict seems foolish to me.
LikeLike
Bruce,
Welcome to a first-time commenter and I appreciate your visit!
Your point is a great one. In my opinion, it many due to education. First, science education about evolution is (as a whole) questionable – (and it’s not to say that good education about evolution doesn’t exist because it does). Secondly, education within the church about science and theology (especially in terms of evolution) may be even worse. One thing for sure, the anti-evolution denominations are schooling their flock, but the opposing churches are basically sitting on their hands. This not only is injustice to the flock, but also reinforces that people have to make a choice between atheism and God on the subject because these are the opponents on the ends of the continuum that get media coverage. Hope this makes sense.
BTW, this is my topic typically on Wednesdays. Once again, thanks for taking the time to visit and comment.
LikeLike
FYI to all: Today (May 5th) is the anniversary of John Scopes’ arrest in 1925. Here’s an interesting post.
http://billtammeus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/05/5-5-11.html
LikeLike