In today’s popular discourse, the Evangelical and scientific communities are often pitted against one another (this is, of course, an oversimplification, as Evangelicalism and science are not binaries), however, this has not always been the case. Both communities emerged from the same historical foundations, and though animosity exists between the groups today, they still utilize many of the same tools, and, in fact share a very fundamental worldview. Both the Evangelical and scientific communities rely on a 20th century Modernist worldview that emphasized progress and the triumph of empirical knowledge above all else. It is because of this shared belief system that the two groups oppose each other so vehemently, and, ultimately, why both may be forced to adapt or risk falling out of the public consciousness.
A predominant belief during the nascent Modern era was that science was a magic bullet. Not only could it be used to explain the natural world, but also the assumption was that science could be used to fix societal and moral problems, and bolster the claims of religion. Noll points out that preachers (Wesley, Witherspoon, and Whitefield) and academics (Timothy Dwight) held this view. It also calls to mind the work of Max Mueller, a devoted scholar of Eastern religion, who assumed that Modern science would ultimately prove that Christianity was the “correct” religion.
As time passed, and scientific knowledge grew, European ideas began to filter into the American consciousness, ideas that emphasized strict naturalism, dismissing the concept of revelation entirely. Darwin’s Origin of Species greatly challenged the Christian view of history. Many Evangelicals struggled to reconcile these new developments with existing ways of thinking about science and religion (particularly the weight and authority of the Bible).
As the mainstream scientific community drifted further from Christian orthodoxy, many Evangelicals reacted by turning the tools of scientific inquiry inward, attempting to use them to determine precisely what the Bible says about any given topic or to mold observations about the natural world into the history given by the Bible.
The most glaring schism between science and Evangelicalism occurred at the Scopes Monkey Trial, where science (as it has come to be understood today, as empirical naturalism) and its proponents made Evangelicals and their beliefs look ignorant and antiquated.
Since then, Evangelical thought has been largely marginalized within the scientific community. In turn, Evangelicals often cast aspersions on science, seeing it as a threat to their belief system, morality, and society in general. This is not to say that Evangelicals are anti-science, they are just dedicated to a very particular science – a science dedicated to reinforcing their worldview.
Noll ends this chapter with a rather lengthy discussion on the most prominent split between Evangelicals and the scientific community – the debate over evolution and creation. By doing away with the creation narrative (technically, narratives) found in Genesis, evolution is seen by some Evangelicals as a threat to the integrity and authority of the Bible. The pushback by these Evangelicals against evolution has a profound impact on the way that large swaths of the American public view secular science. In addition to the many attempts to impede the teaching of evolution in public schools, as well as attempts to promulgate the idea of creation or intelligent design, conservative Evangelicals have painted scientists in general as untrustworthy, and attempted to whitewash history by ascribing Evangelical ideals to key historical scientists.
In turn, some empiricists go to great lengths to disparage Evangelicals (and the religious in general). Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are at the forefront of a sort of evangelical Atheism, dedicated to tearing down religious beliefs. Dawkins takes great delight in exposing the way that Evangelicals often misinterpret the ostensibly religious writings of notable scientists.
Now, this tension makes some sense from a societal level. The academic community has rightly challenged evangelical meddling in school textbooks and curriculum. Evangelicals have every right to attempt to use science to prove their beliefs, and rejection of secular science may be a part of that. However, the animosity coming from anti-theists seems nonsensical. Why would they consider Evangelicals threatening enough to devote thousands of pages of literature to discrediting them?
The tension between the communities makes sense when one considers their shared origin. The Modernist ideal carries a normative charge. It assumes that with enough data or enough evidence, one can be proved “right.” For Josh McDowell, his collected evidence proves that Christianity is “right.” For Stephen Hawking, his collected evidence proves that secularism is “right.”
Even non-science minded Evangelicals have “proof” that their beliefs are right, the experiential nature of Evangelical piety. Of course, a strict empiricist would reject personal feeling as convincing evidence, so arguing with an Evangelical is likely a maddening experience.
The Modernist focus on “rightness” means that the chasm between the Evangelical and the empiricist is largely impassable in our current climate, but that may be changing. In the 12 years since the publication of this work, I believe that there has been a significant development in American thought that has further altered the relationship between science and Evangelicalism, and this development has made the squabble between the camps less consequential.
That development I speak of is the rise of Post-modern thought. The dream of the Modern age seems impossible. Humanity’s progress was illusory; science did not provide the solution that everyone thought it would.
The 20th century was the bloodiest in human history. Science failed to answer our deepest questions, and it failed to make us more moral. Modernism led to Hitler’s Europe, the development of the atomic bomb, and efficient subjugation of wage-slaves all over the world.
The very foundations of the naturalist worldview have been challenged. Quantum physics are forcing us to reassess Newton’s simplest laws, while the work of philosophers like Frank Jackson questions whether or not the experiential can be quickly disregarded by the empiricist.
So now, in the Post-modern era, the scientist and the Evangelical are once more entwined, as they were at the start of the Modern era. The naturalist attempts to use science to prove that God is an illusion, and that science can account for everything. The Evangelical attempts to use science to prove her orthodoxy. Each clings to antiquated notions, and the belief that any one thing can be objectively true. In the end, science (as it is popularly understood) and Evangelicalism are allies, united (either implicitly or explicitly) against the encroaching Post-modern era. The idea that nothing can ever really be known or really be true is a threat to both camps, and I believe that this is why both camps fight so vociferously for their respective turf.
No comments:
Post a Comment