Brian Odom* (Chicago, IL)
Some people feel that there is a huge tension between Science and Faith. As someone who both follows Jesus and works as a university professor of physics, the little bit of science/faith tension I do experience tends to be constructive, in that it helps shape my faith. I think that this shaping is a good thing, but it also leaves me with some questions about what the interaction should look like.
The subject of evolution is one example where I am quite happy to have let science shape my faith. I am told by trustworthy biologists, ranging from atheist to Christian (e.g. Francis Collins author of The Language of God -- 
check the former link for some good quotations), that the evidence for human evolution (yes, going back to amoebas) is too good to argue with. Following Jesus in taking a high view of scripture, I am left with two choices concerning the Genesis creation stories: (1) believe that they are intended to be literal accounts leaving no room for evolution and that God deliberately set up DNA in such a way as to trick us, or (2) hold the Genesis accounts as truth-telling God-inspired creation myths. (I use the word “myth” here in a reverential sense. Myths are non-historic, symbolic stories which can tell profound truths.) I choose option (2), and far from detracting from my faith, this view boosts my awe of God. With a measure of humility about what I know and don’t know, I say, “How spectacularly clever of God to use the intricate process of evolution as his tool for creating me.”
I think mistakes can be made when faith willfully ignores science, but I also think mistakes can be made in the opposite direction. Taking an example from my own field, do the laws of physics allow for free choice? In the pre-20th century clockwork picture of physics, given enough information about initial conditions everything about the future was thought to be predictable, leaving no room for free will. A 19th century believer might have been tempted to conclude that science, if it left room for God at all, led to the conclusion that every single human action has been predestined by God. However, quantum theory, developed through the first part of the 20th century, made a mess of that clockwork picture. Microscopic processes appear to observers as being fundamentally unpredictable, and therefore related macroscopic outcomes are also fundamentally unpredictable. Does quantum mechanics open up space for human and divine free will? I think it’s a very interesting possibility, but I wouldn’t claim that for certain. The one thing I know is that 19th century believers would have been making a mistake to let physicists remove the possibility of free choice from theology.
Other specific questions come to mind, including physiological discoveries about spiritual experiences, archaeological findings, and “historical Jesus” studies. It might be interested to talk about these or other specific topics, but I was especially interested in discussing how to find a good posture for allowing faith to be shaped by modern scholarship. What is at stake if Christians continue to regard the theory of evolution with hostility or with reservation? What is at stake if people of faith overstate the case that the Big Bang provides evidence for a Creator, or if we prematurely allow science to shape aspects of theology? How do we strike the right balance? I think that humility is one key element, but there’s certainly a lot more to say…
* For those of you who have been following this blog, I’ve previously been posting as “Brian O.” Since this post relates to my job as a physics professor, I’ll drop the anonymity and go by “Brian Odom” from now on.
