It is very tempting I believe for religious believers to try to avoid the whole problem by asserting that science and religion cannot come into conflict, so why worry about it? Well, this answer can be seen to be unacceptable once we examine it closely. A double truth theory states that something can be scientifically false but theologically true, which we call complementarianism. The view that science and theology are two nonoverlapping domains (science tells us facts, and theology gives us value and meaning). But the double truth theory is incoherent, since there is objective truth about the way reality is.
If you say there is no objective truth and to assert a purportedly objective truth is self-refuting. If there is objective truth about the way the world is, it makes no sense to assert, for example, that while it is scientifically true that the universe is eternal and uncreated, nevertheless, it is theologically true that it had a beginning and was created.
As for complementarianism, this popular approach is all too often a thinly veiled excuse for disregarding religious truth claims
As evident in Freeman Dyson's candid remark:
When all is said and done, science is also unacceptable, because the Christian faith makes historical assertions, and history is epistemologically on a par with science, as is especially evident in such historical sciences as paleontology and cosmology.
Therefore, we can see one cannot avoid the possibility of conflicting truth claims in science and religion.
We can see also that this is admittedly risky for the Christian faith: It puts its truth on the line. But it also makes Christianity great because the same common world that makes conflicts possible also affords the possibility of verification of Christian theology's truth claims.
Author
Topic: Science and religion? (Read 1799 times)