The Renewal of the Disciplines: Whither Science and the Holy Spirit?

In last month’s post on the political, I suggested that a pentecostal theological contribution could spring off the Acts 2 theme toward a “many tongues, many political practices” approach. On this topic, I would like to suggest a tweak on the motif, in light of our discussion about modern science: “many tongues, many disciplines.” What might this mean for the renewal of science as a modality of human inquiry?

First, I am not naïve that there are some voices coming out of the contemporary scientific establishment that are stridently anti-religious and that advocate a merely naturalistic and even materialistic and atheistic worldview as the only one compatible with the scientific enterprise. What is ironic is that these so-called defenders of science are actually motivated by non-scientific – i.e., philosophical – reasons but are too blind to their own prejudices to recognize it. The mistake that theists and Christ followers make is to then think that the positions represented by such a minority group actually represent well the broad scope of mainstream scientists

On the other hand, I am also not oblivious to the concerns of many evangelicals that much if not most of the science disciplines have devolved from operating within a theistic framework toward uncritical adoption of non- or even anti-theistic assumptions (but this statement is true for Western society at large across disciplines, not just science disciplines). Part of the challenge here is that the methodological naturalism that has driven scientific inquiry from its early modern times is not easily disentangled from the metaphysical naturalism that is deeply problematic for Christian faith. For especially conservative evangelicals of a certain stripe, then, steering clear from naturalism in both forms is crucial. But the challenge is how to do science, which requires aspects such as model building,  prediction, testability, falsifiability, repeatability of results, fecundity, and inference to the best explanation apart from such a methodologically agreed upon framework. Evangelical critics to date, have not addressed this challenge.

The further challenge that renewalists like myself encounter is our emphasis on the ongoing workings of the Holy Spirit in the world that God has created. For many pentecostals, charismatics, and renewalists, an impasse appears at this juncture: either affirm the supernatural agency of the Spirit or reject methodological naturalism. To insist on the former means either that science is incomplete (thus many evangelicals and renewalists are attracted to intelligent design, for instance) or that it is irrelevant to religious faith, while to embrace the latter also seems to undermine the tenability of a supernaturalistic worldview. I think part of the problem is that the language of supernaturalism is more a modern construct than appropriate to biblical revelation, thereby embracing, even if unwittingly, the tensions bequeathed by modernity. Why must acceptance of a God who acts in the world be construed merely supernaturalistically? Would not doing so already bow to the plausibility structures established by modernist understandings of “nature”? 

My recommendation is threefold. First, we live in a world shaped by and benefitting from modern science and engineering – medically, electronically, energetically, and in so many ways – so we ought to both allow scientists and engineers to do their work and thank God daily for it. More important, as more and more Christians and even evangelicals are engaging in the scientific enterprise, let them do their work within the traditions and practices associated with their disciplines and let them argue and debate the issues. Science is inevitably self-correcting, even if sometimes only very slowly, but self-correction is part of the scientific status quo.

Second, I don’t think we should think about faith and science as homogeneous on either side. Part of the reason for this series of respectful conversations is that Christians across the evangelical spectrum have a lot about which they agree and disagree. Scientists, Christian or otherwise, do as well. There are some foundational elements both within the Christian faith (the Nicene confession for instance) and mainstream science (the table of elements or, within the biological sciences, the theory of evolution) which while retaining relatively small minority and resistant positions, will probably not be overturned anytime soon. Yet going a second step, we should not underestimate the differences among Catholics, Orthodox, mainline Protestants, Anglicans, evangelicals, and renewalists, even amidst the commonalities that bind them together. Similarly, we ought not to minimize the differences among the physical, life, and human sciences, for instance, even amidst methodological commitments that do allow inclusion of them all under the arch-rubric we call “science.” My point is that there are many different scientific disciplines, each with its distinctive discourses, practices, standards of evidence, and cultures of apprenticeship and inquiry. We must be cautious against lumping all of them into a science category as if they were all similar. Historical sciences (e.g., geology, climatology, astronomy) function quite differently than experimental (e.g., organic chemistry, genetic engineering, experimental psychology) or theoretical sciences (e.g., cosmology, quantum physics). We ought to recognize that the scientist who spends ten or more years of his or her life learning that discipline is an expert in that area, usually with far less expertise in neighboring arenas and even less still in those areas further removed. 

It is for this reason that I return to my notion of “many tongues, many scientific disciplines,” in order to see how it can function metaphorically for thinking about Christian faith in relationship to modern science. My claim would be that the skillful scientist does what s/he does in part by receiving this as a gift of God’s Spirit; similarly, Christ followers can “strive for the greater gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31) , nurture their expression, and develop their forms of manifestation, just as those called to the scientific vocation grow in their capacity, facility, and adequacy in the chosen “tongues” of their disciplinary inquiries. From the standpoint of faith, insofar as the many tongues inspired by the Spirit declare God’s wondrous deeds (Acts 2:11), so also will the many voices of the various scientific disciplines amount to an orchestra that testifies to the wondrous works of the creator. To be sure, human glossolalia is expressive only in halting terms, even in inward groans and “sighs too deep for words” (Rom. 8:23, 26); why would the various sciences not also similarly witness in broken speech, fragmentarily, and incompletely? Wouldn’t that be consistent with their exploratory character?

Can evangelical Christians therefore participate discerningly but yet patiently and dialogically with those working in the sciences? The voices of unreason on both left and right will be exposed for what they are: ideologies driven by biases rather than views open to correction through public discussion and empirical data. Yet there are also limits to what science can discover since it does focus on the material world. Christian faith will always “know” and believe more than what science will ever hope to explain. Yet what faith knows and believes cannot ultimately contradict what science independently uncovers, since all truth, as Arthur Holmes emphasized, is God’s truth. Those who are led by the Spirit can therefore pursue the life of the mind, even the scientific vocation, and in this way also bring their own questions, perspectives, and curiosities to their scientific endeavors. What is of value will invariably spur inquiry and the quest for knowing more about the world God created will continue. In short, pursuit of the Spirit-filled life can be part and parcel of the modern scientific task. In fact, such might contribute, however unexpectedly, to the renewal of the scientific imagination for the 21^st century!