Bahman Armiti 2016-11-28

Conflict! Science, Morality, and the Figure of Jesus

Author: Bahman Armiti Course: "Biology, Evolution, and Theology, 7.5 ECTS"

Introduction

The history of humanity is, in many respects, a history of conflict. Throughout recorded time, various forms of confrontation have emerged; indeed, one might argue that no era has been void of the tensions inherent in human social coexistence. Conflict appears to be an integral component of our identity and development. In the contemporary era, this is characterized by two divergent intellectual trajectories seeking to explain the world: the expansion of the naturalistic worldview on one hand, and the guidance provided by religious faith on the other.

The Conflict over Guidance

The roots of the current intellectual opposition can be traced back to the 16th century. With the onset of the Enlightenment, as humanity sought liberation from the perceived non-moral actions and dogmatic authority of the Church, the discord between science and theology was initiated. This dispute centered on the interpretation of society’s future and the definition of human flourishing. Both science and faith endeavor to elucidate that which remains obscured or unknown. As John Polkinghorne observes: "The practice of religion and belief in God appear to have almost universal phenomena" (p. 3). He further notes that "In the bright light of science’s achievements, other forms of discourse are in danger of appearing mere expressions of opinion" (ibid p. 9).

Defining Science

The term "science" originates from the Latin scientia, signifying knowledge. In the biblical tradition, the pursuit of knowledge is introduced with a divine prohibition: "And the Lord God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die'" (Genesis 2:16–17).

Polkinghorne explores the nature of science through the lens of Karl Popper, noting that science is unique among human activities in its systematic criticism and correction of errors (p. 10). Within the academic framework of THS, Gerald Willemsen defines science as "observed facts put into context through theories." To validate a theory, researchers must employ rigorous methodologies aimed at either verification or falsification.

Furthermore, Polkinghorne (pp. 22–23) argues that scientific theories necessitate a dual focus: they must consist of objective facts and truths while simultaneously providing the methodological tools for further inquiry. Science demands an intellectual readiness to re-evaluate existing paradigms. The demarcation between science and theology lies in the requirement of "proof"—the necessity for claims to be demonstrated and verified repeatedly by the scientific community. While certain branches of physics, such as the transition from Newtonian mechanics to Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, demonstrate that scientific "truth" is evolving, the scientific worldview remains committed to resolving these internal contradictions through empirical study.

The Objective of Theology

Etymologically, theology is derived from theos (God) and logos (reason/discourse). Classically understood as the study of God, it is defined in modern academic contexts as a scientific discipline investigating the human experience of the divine. Polkinghorne identifies a three-fold foundation for theological discourse:

1. Scripture: The sacred texts.
2. Tradition: The inherited legacy of previous generations (p. 33). He emphasizes the "apophatic" tradition, which acknowledges God’s essential ineffability (p. 42).
3. Reason: The exercise of rational faculties to assess the consonance between differing discourses (p. 40).

Polkinghorne suggests that this triad delivers theology from the confines of personal idiosyncrasy and into the public domain. He also distinguishes between the Old and New Testaments, noting that New Testament theologians often adopt a perspective akin to physicists, focusing on evidence and phenomena (pp. 41–42).

Natural Theology and the Modern Dilemma

Natural theology emerged as a response to the Enlightenment, most notably through Thomas Aquinas, who argued that human reason—a gift from the Creator—enables the understanding of revelation. Later, Jean Calvin posited that scientific disciplines like mathematics could provide insights into the divine.

Willemsen summarizes this by stating that while faith and science occupy the same reality, they approach it through different linguistic and methodological lenses (p. 4). However, the central tension remains: can religion substantiate its claims regarding evolution or biblical history through scientific methodology?

Biology, Morality, and Evolution

For the modern individual, a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative is often perceived as untenable. Instead, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution serves as the primary educational framework. In The Origin of Species, Darwin described the sublime process by which "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved" (p. 59). It is noteworthy that evolutionary thought predates Darwin, reaching back to Anaximander (610–546 BC), who posited that life originated in water.

Contemporary research, such as the Dunedin Study, explores whether morality can be reduced to biological factors. The correlation found between the MAOA gene, environmental factors, and criminal behavior prompts a profound question: is what we term "sin" merely a biological predisposition? If morality is entirely determined by genetics, the concept of individual moral responsibility becomes increasingly complex.

Morality through the Lens of Faith

In my assessment, the institutional Church lost its cultural authority prior to the Enlightenment due to internal moral failings. Martin Luther’s protest in 1517 against the sale of indulgences was fundamentally a moral challenge. When Nietzsche famously proclaimed that "God is dead," he was describing a societal transition toward rationalism and indifference.

However, I maintain that God provided a foundation for morality through the person of Jesus Christ. While some, like Bråkenhielm, advocate for "non-overlapping magisteria"—treating religion and science as distinct authorities—I believe faith must be anchored in the praxis of Jesus. I find it difficult to reconcile the violence and systemic biases present in parts of the Old Testament with the divine will. Conversely, the actions of Jesus—his inclusion of the marginalized, his presence with women, and his forgiveness of his executioners—offer a universal moral compass.

Without the foundation of Christ’s actions, morality risks becoming purely relative. While many in Europe today treat moral values as objective, I would argue that the only robust basis for objective morality is the divine love revealed in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

These reflections are formulated from the perspective of my personal convictions rather than formal theological training. I have attempted to articulate my understanding of the intersection between faith, science, and morality, and I ask for the reader’s indulgence where my views may diverge from established theological orthodoxy.

---

References:

• Polkinghorne, John, 1998. Science and Theology. London: SPCK.
• Bråkenhielm, Carl Reinhold & Fagerström, Torbjörn, 2005. Gud och Darwin – Känner de varandra? Verbum.
• Willemsen, Gerard, 2016. Evolution och teologi. (PDF).
• The Holy Bible.
• The Dunedin Study: http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz