Keller--one more time

Let's see . . . I had just said I wouldn't get distracted and went back to summarizing key chapters in Tim Keller's book The Reason for God. Then I got distracted with another left-wing plot that I had to rant about. Sorry . . . I feel better now, so it's back to Keller again. This is an important book to share with non-Christians, so I do intend to finish it. In a later chapter he takes on another challenge to Christianity: the fact that many believe science has disproved belief in God. He uses Richard Dawkins as a good illustration for this idea. It was Dawkins who said Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. In another book Dawkins argues that a person cannot be an intelligent scientific thinker and still hold religious beliefs.

Keller challenges one reason for this belief, the fact that miracles have supposedly been disproved today. He starts by noting that the statement "no supernatural cause for any natural phenomenon is possible" cannot be tested since it is not a scientific finding, but rather a philosophical presuppositions. Science, by its nature, can't discern or test for supernatural causes. This belief that miracles cannot happen seems to be based on the idea that there cannot be a God who does miracles. Of course, Keller says if there is a God, there is nothing illogical at all about the possibility of miracles. The idea that God does not exist actually is an article of faith since his existence can be neither demonstrably proven or disproven.

The author then challenges the idea that science is in conflict with Christianity. Take the idea of evolution. Christians may believe in evolution as a process without believing in philosophical naturalism, the idea that everything has a natural cause and that organic life is solely the product of random forces guided by no one. He uses as an example Francis Collins, an eminent research scientist and head of the Human Genome Project. This man believes in evolutionary science and critiques the intelligent design movement. However, Collins also believes that the fine-tuning, beauty, and order of nature nonetheless point to a divine creator. So here is someone who believes in evolution and God.

At this point I part ways with Timothy Keller. It is true that Francis Collins portrays himself both as a scientist and a sincere Christian. But his position, commonly known as theistic evolution, simply makes no sense. How can you have evolution, commonly defined as unguided, be guided by God? That term, theistic evolution, strikes me and many others as an oxymoron. I wish Keller had used other challenges to evolution from the intelligent design movement.

Okay, back to the issue of science being in conflict with Christianity. Keller says this idea is losing credibility with a growing number of scholars. The concept of a conflict between science and religion was a deliberate exaggeration used by both scientists and educational leaders at the end of the 19th century to undermine the church's control of their institutions and increase their own cultural power.

Keller uses two famous studies to show many scientists see no incompatibility between faith in God and their work. In 1916 40% of scientists who were surveyed said they believed in a God who actively communicates with humanity. In 1997 this survey was repeated -- the numbers have not changed significantly in 80 years. One theologian wrote that most of the unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science.

Going back to the idea of evolution, Keller looks carefully at Genesis 1. He says the relationship of science to the Bible hinges not only on how we read the scientific record but how we interpret certain key biblical passages, especially the first chapter of Genesis. He notes that Christians have a wide range of interpretations of this crucial chapter. Keller takes the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15 do. In each couplet one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event. He believes Genesis 1 has the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a song about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. He sees Genesis 2 as an account of how it happened. He believes it is false logic to argue that if one part of Scripture can't be taken literally then none of it can be. That isn't true of any human communication. His conclusion is that people considering Christianity as a whole should not allow themselves to be distracted by this intramural debate. This person should concentrate instead on the central claims of Christianity -- the person of Jesus, the resurrection, and the central tenets of the Christian message.

There is one more chapter in Keller's book that I would like to examine next time. And, of course, this chapter represents a quick overview. There are plenty of good books and articles that deal with the issue of science and Christianity, so if you are interested, let me know and I can get you some more information.