Rev Gav

Do science and religion agree?

Genesis 1

I was once listening to an interview with the author Philip Pullman, and although I respect Philip and have read his books, at the end of the interview the presenter asked him what he though the Archbishop of Canterbury might think of his next book. Philip replied, “I couldn’t care less what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks.” He lost me there, such was the tone of derision in his voice. It was the voice of disrespect and one that makes me sigh and slump inside whenever I hear anyone disregard the thoughts, ideas, and feelings of another.

We are all human beings, and whether we are theists or atheists, surely our respective positions both call that we respect and love each other — even if we wholeheartedly disagree? I hope that they would both welcome the opportunity to sit and chat and joke together over a beer. Why? Because there is something more important on which they can both agree — the inherent value in another human being.

Despite being a Christian, some of the people I have the greatest respect for, and to whom I pay the greatest attention when they have something to say, are atheists, however, there is one battle-ground on which the debate seems still to rage. It feels odd to me, as it does for many of us faithful Christians because for us it is not a battle ground at all. We stand on the sidelines scratching our heads while atheists and a minority of Christians fight it out, and the atheists will win this odd battle because it is actually a battle on their turf and being fought with their own weapons. Perhaps worse than that, some of my Christian friends also feel threatened by Christians like me, who are knocking down the defences of these Christians from the other side. To them I can only apologise but feel like they need to hear that this battle is a waste of energy, not going to damage anyone’s faith, and diverting us from the mission of God.

What is this battle? It is the battle between creation and evolution. Even now, I can hear some of my fellow Christians groan!

The truth is that some Christians believe in a literal six-day creation and they have reinforced this idea through teaching this in schools. I will come on to that a bit later.

As an amateur biblical scholar it is 100% plain to me that the account in the book of Genesis is absolutely not a scientific document, nor is it ‘evidence’ that God created the world in six days. It was not written in the last 300 or so years since the enlightenment or modernity. It was never written scientifically or to be interpreted scientifically. The scientific worldview — the lens of modernity through which we look through — was not the worldview in which the account in Genesis was written nor read for thousands of years.

The account of creation in Genesis is a ‘theological affirmation’ that ‘God created’ and it does not in any way describe how God created, but it does affirm that God created. The account in Genesis appears to draw on other prehistoric and very early creation accounts but differs in one regard — in that God created out of nothing and that there was this one God in community — i.e. not multiple separate Gods.

The creation account at the beginning of Genesis is written in a poetic form and is clearly written liturgically, meaning it is designed to be chanted or spoken in community a bit like a creed. It was not written to reinforce the scientific belief that God created in six days but was chanted to reinforce what they believed to be true — that God created and that there is one God in community.

Most importantly, the creation account at the beginning of Genesis culminates with the creation of human beings who were created in the image of a creative God. It is a charge for us to be co-creators, stewards, or agents for God in the world God created. That is the point of Genesis, and when the community recited this liturgical poem it reinforced their commitment to be God’s ambassadors and to live in harmony with God and with the rest of creation. This, I think, is quite beautiful.

So how on earth did we get to the stage where six-day creationism is taught in schools? How come this topic became the battleground on which people’s faith is won or lost? How did we lose the poetry?

Fundamentalism and a literal reading of scripture are also a product of modernity. When you read the creation account in Genesis and you approach it scientifically — through the lens of modernity — you ask the question, “Is it true?” and if you are a non-believer then the answer is of course, no, and Genesis is consigned to being a myth, however, if you are a believer then the answer is of course, yes, and Genesis becomes a document that has to withstand a scientific scrutiny which it was never written to bear.

It is no surprise that atheists have a hard time with Christian fundamentalists. I have a hard time with Christian fundamentalism (and occasionally Christian fundamentalists). What upsets me most is that Christians like me get tarred with the same brush. I deeply respect my literalist brothers and sisters but I deeply disagree with their interpretation of scripture — and I do this on the shoulders of sound biblical scholarship.

The question is whether there is a third way and I believe there is, and it is not complicated, difficult, or irrational, and it does not disrespect science. For me, every new discovery in science and nature reveals something more about God and how God made the world. Science and religion are not enemies and I have both the Bible and scientist Brian Cox by my bedside (actually it’s not Brian Cox himself — that would be a bit weird — it’s a book by Brian Cox). They are not mutually exclusive and I do not divide myself into two — the bit of me that loves God and the bit of me that loves Brian.

Atheists stand by the idea that there is no evidence for God, and until they have that evidence they will not believe in God. Fair enough. I get that and that is fine by me. I do not feel threatened by atheism or by people’s views or beliefs about the non-existence of God. They can gather in pubs, hold conventions, write books, and bow at the feet of Mr Dawkins and that is just fine.

I whole-heartedly agree with my atheist friends that religion should not be enforced on anyone, and I agree that children should be free to choose what to believe and how to make sense of the world, but none of us would suggest that we teach only science across all disciplines. We do not teach only the science of poetry and of art and of music. To ask for the evidence of music is not to describe waves of air-pressure, the mechanics of ossicles in the ear, and to marry neuroscience with psychoacoustics. That is not music is it?

You see, to me, there is another music and it is a music that my atheist friends have not heard and do not hear. It is is the music and the poetry of God. It is all at once a thousand things — and even in the feeling of love that ‘transcended all understanding’ when I meditated this morning.

Take, for example, this simple poem about the moon.

Queen and huntress, chaste and fair,
Now the sun is laid to sleep,
Seated in thy silver chair,
State in wonted manner keep.

Is this a scientific document? No. Does this poem describe the moon? Yes. Does it convey something about the moon and our relationship to it that science does not? Yes. Is it scientifically and literally true? No. Is it true? Well, it is the wrong question to ask of it but if you push me… yes! And if you were to ask me if the creation account in Genesis is true? My answer will be that it is the wrong question to ask but if you push me… yes.

Amen