I am Christian, a rigorously thinking Christian and nonetheless, a practicing Christian.

That is to say, I’m engaged and inspired by, empowered by, what we call God and Jesus Christ as a possibility. The particulars of proof, or argument, or dogma about all of what actually happened are peripheral for me, not core for me in my participation in Christianity (or any of my spiritual practices).

Why do I subscribe to Christian faith?

Because it empowers me to live life.

By empower I mean:

• Engage
• Inspire
• Equip
• Hold to account

My acid test is: does participating in the conversation called Christianity empower me – inspire, engage, equip me and hold me to account?

Yes.

And – I am also a scientist – a graduate school trained social scientist and more generally, a man who is committed to, and accountable to, the disciplines of logic and evidence.

Science, as we know it, may not be everything, and that said, it is very, very good at enabling one to assess what is “out there” in the world distinct from me (maybe not separate from me but distinct from me).

Can I hold all that is said (asserted) in the Old and New Testament to account as scientifically provable?

No.

No, I cannot. It is conceivable and imaginable that snakes speak in some kind of language (certainly they do interact with … ‘communicate’ with … their environment,) and it is conceivably possible that somebody walks on water. But, it is highly, highly unlikely and my scientific mind is disturbed by that, unwilling to rely on those statements.

So, while any thing is actually possible (by the very definition of possibility which means any thing is at least possible, conceivable, imaginable), yet at any given moment in time, not all things are real, actual, material.

For verifying the structure and, function … the actual, material existence of things … science is very, very good. If one looks to our proven scientific statements to reliably predict reality, science is a very good companion, guide, compass. 

Do note that one of the great expressions of human intelligence is its ability to invent, engage in, learn from, discover and benefit from inquiry, including and in particular, scientific inquiry.

Discovery underlies inquiry which underlies all knowledge.

The very existence of orderly knowledge, of scientific laws, is a powerful, essentially irrefutable argument for some ordering of the universe which order required something (or someone?) to design the order to order the order, i.e., the Universe is observably not merely a random, buzzing blur. The Universe is ordered by demonstrable, natural “laws.”  

Note that science seemingly can itself sometimes be misused, misunderstood, and misrepresented (so-called “scientism” as with any statement that “looks” to be scientific yet does not hold up under rigorous scrutiny). As well, our everyday media daily makes statements as if they are assertions of fact and in fact, that may not be or are not the case, or fully the case, when examined under more rigorous scrutiny. It goes without saying that our politicians generalize and misrepresent reality, daily. (Our president traffics daily in false assertions. i.e., generalizations that are distorted, deleted or incomplete).

Science, in testing any given statement, asks: would a given statement, in a given specific situation, really operate the way the statement says (asserts) or not? Predictably? Reliably? Is any particular statement robust, i.e., will it hold up under all conditions or will it fail under some conditions? (i.e., asserting that water is a solid substance is demonstrable, provable, observable but only under conditions of temperature below 32 degrees F).

Let’s look at the seemingly less rigorous science, social science, and its statements. Let’s take some guy called “Ralph.” “Ralph” is observable by his friends as a ‘good guy’ with a ‘nice’ demeanor except when’s he’s irritated or, he’s rushed. Then he is seen as a ‘jerk’. Under what conditions does the statement (in this case does the assertion, specifically, a generalization about Ralph being a “good guy”) break down and is not the case? When and where does the assertion not hold true?

So what does the robustness or provable rigor of scientific statements have to do with faith?

Interestingly, spiritual faiths start exactly where science did and new science does: as a declaration of possibility.

In spiritual faith, one takes the declaration of a whole world of possibility (the possibility we call God) and turns that world of possibility into a story/narrative world guided by, demanded by, incorporated into, the original texts of that faith. These texts are intended to articulate what historically gave birth to that faith: its narrative story and its principles.  

The test of a spiritual faith’s value or even usefulness is not scientific rigor though it is not without rigor. Spiritual faith asserts that if one lives by certain statements (its doctrine, The Bible, for example; its practices, all of which are in fact a series of statements) then life will go a certain way, a better way – such as, you will be better related to yourself, to others, to the world and to what religion calls, God. If you hold these religious statements to be the case (the “truth”) and you were to shape your life and behavior by them, religion asserts: you will benefit.

In fact, just as with science, these religious statements (or promises) can be tested in actual practice through social science: life itself. Faith assertions (and social science) are not as precisely measurable as physics, mathematics, and chemistry, but measurable nonetheless as are all social science observations and assertions.

Sample test: Can I observe and measure what happens in life with people whose behavior violates the 10 “Commandments?” Can I study … observe, aggregate and calculate … what happens when persons observe the commandments and when persons break the commandments? That observing, measuring, concluding would be social science. Note that a commandment is simply a kind of speech act called a demand).

Verification of the effectiveness of religious teachings requires observing and measuring behaviors taken in accord with the religious/spiritual teachings: what are the behavioral and life consequences of following religious principles?

Social science, therefore, may be the most appropriate science bridge to observing the efficacy/effectiveness of religious/spiritual faith.

Faith, is itself, a declaration of possibility. It says something like: there is a being we call God that is at the source of the universe, the transcendent source of all things, that connects all things, that is and always will be, and that this presence of (transcendent) source is know-able, accessible in some way. Perhaps know-able scientifically, perhaps know-able religiously.

In fact, scientists who are also Christians (as was the recent head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins) see how both domains of science and spiritual faith can work, to empower human beings from each discipline’s own distinct perspective.

The existence of scientific order itself is irrefutable evidence that the universe has order, has laws, and that some kind of being/existence/presence/design is/must be in the mix for this to exist as created, ordered and sustained. If you are scientific, you attribute this order to impersonal, chemical, physical forces of energy and mass (the Big Bang as one candidate). If you are religious, you attribute the Universe to a being usually referred to as “God” (or equally, abstractly, an energy or a space of possibility or an originating design) that allows for all the physical manifestations of the Universe but is transcendent to it. It is virtually impossible to absolutely prove or disprove “God,” or ultimate transcendent source, one way or the other; at best people can draw intelligent inferences and interim conclusions. In other words, scientific order, in and of itself, demonstrates that the Universe is not a random, buzzing blur; it is in fact ordered, or, “designed.”

So, one can be a Christian who says, “I declare (I stand for) the possibility of God, Jesus, the teachings and the historical narrative” without requiring the evidence of scientific proof to live from, and explore the world from. One can stand for the declaration that, God and Jesus are possible and that declaration and exploration does not require comprehensive scientific proof asserting that Jesus, or the Bible, are actual, factual truths … as scientific assertions do.   

In other words, I’m saying that in this era, seeing Christianity as a domain of possibility, rather than simply its historical narrative, its historical set of facts, or simply as an “argument” counter to science, allows the heart of, the intent of, Christianity to be alive and well in the face of anything, including science itself … as a declaration of possibility, not necessarily an assertion of fact.  

Note: that often we don’t make distinctions in language regarding how all reality and possibility gets formulated in, perceived through language so we may miss this following observation on this phrase: “I believe.”

Consider this phrase from both science and faith contexts (perspectives): “I believe” can be two very different speech acts.

1. “I believe,” as a declaration, simply says something is possible, conceivable, imaginable, and I can engage with and explore that possibility without or prior to, proof, with the only real direct laboratory I have: my life on Earth.
2. “I believe” can ALSO be an assertion, which is a very different speech act than a declaration. A declaration does not require evidence to allow it; an assertion does require evidence to allow it.

An assertion says X is true, and I am committed to and I am able to provide the evidence and logic to support its actuality, its “truth”, its “fact.”

“I believe,” as an assertion of a verifiable truth, requires evidence to back it up. The quality of, the rigor of, that evidence can be challenged and an assertion (like science itself) is only as good as (as valid as) the quality of the evidence and logic it has to “back it up.”

Do note: that the facts of science are discovered, at their origin, through creating a declaration, the declaration of a possibility (or a domain of possibility). The declaration that discovery itself is possible, even essential, gets the ball rolling for all scientific endeavor. Science says X is possible (or likely or true), what we would call a hypothesis, and then science tests that hypothesis, to see if it holds up in actual material/physical reality. Interestingly, an hypothesis blends elements of both a declaration (stating something is possible) and an assertion (that something is allowed by, and not contradicted by, actual, factual, reality).

However, do note that both science and faith are, in fact, inquiries flowing from a declaration of possibility; that’s worth noting because as declarations, and inquiries, fact and science need not be hostile to each other.

Both science and faith arise in language, are identifiable in and through some form of language. Both originate as declarations and both engage in assertions, and both engage in inquiry. The difference is that religious faith suspends the insistent, every moment scrutiny of asserting and proving something as demonstrable, tangible, material, scientific … (“what is”) … in contrast to declaration of faith – (what “might be”). In contrast to faith, this incessant demand for what we call “objective” proof is at the heart of science.

A note along the way: There is a very wry saying that says, “A scientist is a person who has an answer for every question except the first one.”

Will we ever be able to prove where it all came from? Given our cause-effect notions of science … that everything does and must have a prior cause … the notions of creation (i.e., to create is to bring forth something from nothing) don’t make sense or seem possible or real. That could leave us in a bit of a quandary.

The usual questions of everyday, material reality– How? Who? When? What? – seem less relevant or useful when you’re attempting to look at the absolute origin, source and design of the entire, endless Universe. From the perspective of the whole of an unending/endless universe, there seems to be no fixed, locatable beginning, middle and end. There is no “where” for infinite space that defines it conclusively, as some location; similarly, there is no particular “when” for infinite time. As infinite time and infinite space, one cannot assign particular “where’s” and “what’s” and “how’s” as to when, then where and how they start and stop. And if you posit that the Universe is not infinite, where does it stop? And if it stops, then what’s on “the other side?”

These “infinite” kinds of questions are difficult to get nice, neat, fixed answers to because we’re dealing with limitless possibility, the infinite; we’re dealing in a different domain with different qualities than specific examples of finite, specific time, and measurable things.

The long and short of it is that both faith and science originate with declarations of possibility; both engage in assertions albeit at very different levels of rigor, demand, materiality, and cause and effect; and both engage in inquiries from which one can live and look.

A key actual practice comes down to this: when someone says “I believe,” do they mean it either as a statement of faith, like a declaration of possibility, that something could be; or might be;

OR: when someone says “I believe,” do they mean it as an assertion: that something is true, is the case, is material, is real, operational, like an assertion of a fact.

Assertions express and represent current reality, what we have or know now, in the present, from the past; declarations create and express domains of possibility, what we do not have now, the future. Being unclear that the words “I believe” have 2 very different meanings and frameworks leads to, and have led to, many misunderstandings, conflicts and much painful mischief.  

And so, a distinction to make in daily practice that expresses the key difference between religion and science is: when I say “I believe” x (like I choose to declare or construct a belief in x) as a realm of possibility, I am speaking a declaration of possibility; or, if I am speaking an assertion that x exists, there, in material, physical reality, I am speaking “I believe” as an assertion. There’s room in the Universe for both, declarations and assertions, properly distinguished, as there is for both rigorous science and spiritual faith.   

One does not, and need not, negate the other.

References & Resources:

“Promise-Based Management” by Donald Sull and Charles Spinosa. Harvard Business Review, April 2007

© Tony Smith