I am working my way through a blog series in anticipation of my forthcoming book, Surviving Religion 101: Letters to a Christian Student on Keeping the Faith in College (Crossway, releases April 6, 2021). This new series will include 7 videos that tackle key intellectual questions about the Christian faith.
This sixth video deals with one of the most common challenges we face: “Hasn’t Science Disproven Key Parts of the Bible?”
In 2016, a revealing study about science and religion was released.[i] In many ways, it told us what we sort of already knew: scientists—at least in the United States—are much less religious than the general population. Indeed, 33 percent of the general US population attends weekly religious services, whereas only 11 percent of scientists do—a disparity of more than two to one.
It almost seems as if the more you know about science, the less you need God.
Of course, studies like this one tap into the long-standing perception that science is at war with religion, perhaps especially the Christian religion. Ever since the church contested Galileo’s finding that the earth revolved around the sun, it seems like science and Christianity have been locked in a never-ending battle over people’s souls.
And like any war, people feel like they eventually have to pick a side.
But is there really a war between science and Christianity? Not at all. In the video below I discuss how the true findings of science do not present a reason to reject Christianity but actually present many reasons to accept it.
[i] Elaine Howard Ecklund, David R. Johnson, Christopher P. Scheitle, Kirstin R. W. Matthews, and Steven W. Lewis, “Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions,” Socius 2 (2016): 1–9.
Jim Pemberton says
One of the chief difficulties with talking about science is the fairly broad semantic domain for the very word “science”. You have to spend a lot of time nailing down what people mean when they use the word and if you don’t, then you only end up with a confused conversation. Some of the definitions I can think of off the top of my head are: Science is…
…the academies of the various disciplines as they determine what legitimate science looks like in practice and publication. These are often arbiters of the next definition.
…the philosophies that undergird the practices and publications of the scientific academy, either stated or implied.
…the philosophies that undergird the practices and publications of scientists historically.
…the activities of scientists in general as though they applied to each scientist individually, usually to misrepresent an issue as being accepted by all scientists so as to discredit scientists who disagree.
…the activities of a specific scientist as though they applied to all scientists in general, usually to misrepresent science for political gain or journalistic hype.
…the reporting of statements of scientists either unofficially or in published journals. This is where most people get their understanding of current scientific discovery.