Einstein and the God Problem
Barriers to the Integration of Christianity and Science
—Including Psychological Science
Every so
often, the famous German scientist, Albert Einstein makes news. He’s been
quoted and misquoted on a variety of subjects outside his area of expertise. It
is not surprising to read what Einstein said about God or religion if a quote
suggests that such a brilliant scientist believed in God.
Earlier
this year, one of Einstein’s letters valued at $125,000 was for sale. The RNS
story title is eye-catching (Karmarkar, 2023): “Rare Einstein letter rebutting
biblical creation story for sale.” Perhaps it shouldn’t matter what Einstein
thought about creation. Afterall, Einstein was a theoretical physicist—not a
religious scholar. Nevertheless, the biblical creation story has been around
for well over two thousand years and many continue to argue for a literal
interpretation of the Genesis text rather than embrace a naturalistic view of
the origins of our ancient universe. Given Einstein’s understanding of the
nature of the universe, it seems quite reasonable to ask his opinion about
creation, which is the stimulus for Einstein’s valuable 1950 letter, which he
wrote to Jewish students.
The
following quote was reported by RNS (Karmarkar, 2023)
“The person who is more or less
trained in scientific thinking is alien to the religious creation (in the
original sense) of the cosmos, because he applies the standard of causal
conditionality to everything,” wrote Einstein in the letter. “If you are however
to interpret the Bible symbolically (metaphorically), it is not clear anymore
whether God is in fact to be thought of as a person.”
Anyone
familiar with the history of religion and science is familiar with the serious
problems scientists face in cultures where religion has a powerful role in
deciding what is true or at least what may be said or written about scientific
discoveries. Making a comment that contradicts, or appears to contradict, the
Bible or what those in control of society think the Bible means is risky.
Scientists can lose their jobs, community respect, and suffer all kinds of
abuse.
Christianity
and Psychological Science
It might
seem a considerable leap to jump from scientific explanations for the origins
of the universe to psychological explanations of human behavior unless you are
familiar with the century of struggles against Christians who reject the
science of evolution and the mountain of articles written by psychological
scientists attempting to show how psychology may be integrated with
Christianity.
A
Christian’s belief about creation matters when it comes to reconciling
scientific explanations of the natural world with biblical views about the
world. In other words, a scientific worldview is not always compatible with a
Christian worldview. Before I say more about this, consider an interesting
summary of Christian perspectives on creation prepared by two professors from a
conservative university.
Mike
Tenneson is a science educator and Steve Badger was a chemistry professor. Their
2011 publication is on ResearchGate. They summarize five views about origins,
which include perspectives on the age of the earth and evolution. One view is
an atheistic perspective, which leaves out any role for a creator. Another view
considers the Genesis narrative as historical truth. Then there are two other
Christian views, which consider the importance of scientific findings to an
understanding of origins. The document by Tenneson and Badger contains data
from American Pentecostals thus the views are not simply those of the two
authors.
Now I
return to the importance of the creation story to the integration of
psychological science and Christianity. When the biblical creation story is
taken literally, it is incompatible with a scientific explanation of the unfolding
origins of the universe some 13.7 or more billion years ago or with the process
of evolution, which includes evidence of early hominins on earth more than 4
million years ago and the appearance of our own species (homo sapiens) about
360,000 years ago. Those who wish to bridge the gap between a naturalistic view
of the universe and a biblical view have created extrabiblical ideas to
reconcile the differences as noted by Tenneson and Badger.
When it
comes to psychology and Christianity, many ideas have been presented to show
how faith and psychology may be integrated (e.g., Entwistle,
2021; Johnson (ed), 2010; McMinn, 2012; Myers
et al., 2002). As
in the case of scientific findings about the universe or evolution,
psychological scientists do not change the publicly observable data to fit a
scriptural text. Instead, Christians either reject the scientific views of
psychologists or modify their understanding of the scriptures or theology.
The Cost of Belief
When it
comes to reconciling the differences between scientific findings about the
universe or people, Christians have various options available, but they pay a
price if they reject the traditional views that predated the ongoing scientific
revolution. There are benign ways to think about interpreting the Bible so that
it does not appear to contradict scientific explanations. The price Christians
pay varies of course. Those who reject scientific explanations pay a price of
isolationism from academia and the cost of educating their children in
expensive schools that reject scientific explanations.
Christian
university administrators know the cost of creation too. Whatever they may
believe about the biblical creation stories or scientific explanations of the
origins of our universe and humanity, we can expect them to use the language of
the creation narrative. Evangelical philanthropists want their money to support
a Christian worldview firmly rooted in traditional interpretations of
scripture. That means selective literalism. And it means rejecting secular
worldviews beginning with day one of the cosmos.
Christians
who embrace scientific explanations pay different prices depending on how they
reinterpret the scriptures and the support, or lack of support, they experience
in their communities. But there is a hidden price too. Once a thoughtful
Christian gives up a literal view of creation or any other scriptural text,
then they face the difficulty of knowing where to stop re-interpreting one text
or another. After all, if God did not literally speak various items into
existence over a period of six days, follow the Genesis sequence of creation,
or personally make the first humans named Adam and Eve, then what other texts
may be rejected in favor of more naturalistic explanations?
Doubt about
the reliability of scripture or church doctrines built upon various biblical
texts may arise as has obviously happened. It is this doubt that is the hidden
price Christians pay for embracing scientific explanations instead of
traditional biblical teachings.
I referred
to several books that offer different views on how psychology and Christianity
may be integrated. Given the length of those treatises, it is not possible to
explain those perspectives here. However, let me suggest some general
approaches Christians take when they do not wish to reject science and do want
to retain their Christian faith.
 |
| Which Bridge Should They Trust? |
Barriers to Bridges Across the Divide
Following are some barriers that prevent Christians from selecting a bridge to a scientific view of the creation of the earth or the universe.
1. A literal understanding of God speaking things into existence, which rejects the natural processes of the origins of matter.
2. A literal understanding of the Genesis sequence of events, which rejects the events presented by scientists.
3. A literal understanding of the length of a day.
4. A belief in an age of the universe that denies the billions of years estimated by scientists.
Possible Bridges Across the Divide
Following are some possible elements of a Christian view on origins that surmount a literal interpretation of Genesis in order to bridge the gap between scientific and Christian worldviews.
1. Ancient
views- The Bible offers a truthful account of ancient views of the world rather
than a current scientific view.
2. Literary
views- The Bible should be viewed as a collection of different types of
literature including stories, poems, parables, and prose containing various
figures of speech. There are similes and metaphors and some writers use
hyperbole. Christians shouldn’t read the Genesis text as if it were a historical record
or a science book but rather see the Genesis creation text as an ancient story.
3. Spiritual
guide- The Bible is a guide to spiritual truth—not a record of history or
science. Christians should look for the spiritual meaning in a text and not get
hung up on the examples ancient people found helpful in the quest to live a
righteous life. For example, they see God at work in creation.
4. Dual views-
The Bible and science offer different perspectives on the same phenomena.
Science explains the process of the evolving cosmos and the Bible simply states that God
was there. Who is to say that God did not design and oversee the process that resulted in the bodies identified in the universe? Everything may be viewed from both a naturalistic and a spiritual
perspective.
Comments on Psychology
It seems to me that psychological scientists working in evangelical settings have limited wiggle room when it comes to expressing their views on the origins of the cosmos. I suspect they have it easier than their colleagues who teach courses involving the origins of the universe. But when it comes to the next phase of the creation of life, psychologists are in the same primordial soup as their colleagues in biology. That story is another post.
See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on AMAZON or GOOGLE STORE
Follow on FACEBOOK Geoff W. Sutton
You can read many published articles at no charge:
Academia Geoff W Sutton ResearchGate Geoffrey W Sutton
No comments:
Post a Comment