15 Questions Atheists Have for Christians – Part IV: Christianity and Science

This post continues to discuss the questions brought up by Krystal Smith in her (now unavailable) article 15 Questions Atheists Want Christians to Answer. One issue atheists and agnostics raise with religion is that there seems to be conflict between religious belief and scientific discovery. The questions offered by Krystal Smith in her article which lend themselves to such discussion are:

1. Do you Believe in Evolution?

2. Have You Found any Contradictions In Your Holy Text?

3. Do You Believe Everything in Your Holy Text?

While these questiosn are interrelated, and all relate to the broader question of how religion and human knowledge interact, we will attempt to answer each question individually, before discussing the overall theme.

1. Do you Believe in Evolution?

Few topics in the science/religion discussion garner as much attention as the question of evolution. There are two issues that seem to be at fault for this being the focal point of such debate. On the one hand, the Sola Scriptura mindset of, particularly, Evangelical Christians does not allow for Biblical accounts, such as the Creation account in Genesis, to be taken as anything but literal and exact historical fact. God bringing forth Creation, including humanity, as we see it today, in seven literal days seems to preclude the possibility of a gradual evolution of animal species over the course of millions, even billions of years. On the other hand, evolution has become the favorite of those who espouse an atheistic worldview, as they think it offers an alternative to God as the origin of Creation.

Numerous attempts have been made to create some sort of rapprochement between the two positions. Some have attempted to soften the position found among hard line atheists by making God the source of evolution. Others attempt to show that evolution fits into a Biblical worldview by arguing that the language of Genesis is allegorical, the days for example not corresponding to literal 24 hour days, but being extended periods of time.

Generally, such middle ground is rejected by either side. We see, for example, in an article by James Stambaugh on the Institute for Creation Research website, rejecting any attempt to show that the word “day” (Hebrew yom [יום]), does not mean a literal 24 hour day (https://www.icr.org/article/meaning-day-genesis/).

Certainly, both positions have flaws. Without God, there does not seem to be a compelling means by which one can explain the move from non-life to life. Numerous explanations exist: amino acids being catalyzed from electric or volcanic forces working on chemicals in earth’s early atmosphere; proteins becoming more complex by growing on crystalline structures; to name but a few. These are fascinating ideas, but amino acids, and even complex proteins, do not equal life. Some have even promulgated more farfetched ideas, such as the idea that life was seeded here from another planet, rather than arising on earth. The vector for this in these theories ranging from asteroid or meteorite impact bringing with it organic

compounds/bacteria, to intelligent species of aliens seeding the planet. Ultimately, this does little more than move the goalpost for the origin of life, if there is no mechanism for it here, why should there be on another planet? If, however, we are to ignore the theory of evolution, and adhere to a strict and literal interpretation of the Creation account in Genesis, we must argue that the world is approximately 6000 years old, the order in which creatures were created, and so forth. This conflicts, however, with much of the fossil record, creeping things being created on the sixth day, while birds were created on the fifth, for example. Or the dating of fossils to millions of years ago, rather than thousands. Are we, then, unable to trust our own senses and reason, which are also God given?

Where does the Orthodox Church stand in this debate? Fr. Lawrence Farley, in an article on the website of the Orthodox Church in America says:

While Scripture certainly contains historical record, and gives us ways to understand natural phenomena, it is not primarily concerned with being a historical chronicle, or a science textbook. Rather, it is concerned with the history of salvation. In Scripture we follow humanity from its Creation and fall through a successive series of covenants (Sandra Richter discusses this extensively in her book, The Epic of Eden). What was a covenant with all of humanity in Adam, which means human being, becomes once again a covenant with all of humanity in Christ. Scripture is a witness to these series of covenants, and their fulfillment in Christ and the Incarnation. The purpose of Scripture is not to let us know if dinosaurs are real, but to witness to Christ, the God-man. Genesis is not a text to be taken in isolation, meant to be taken on its own as a source of historic and scientific information, but as a part of this history of salvation, expressing typological realities. As Fr. Lawrence points out, Genesis is also pivotal in understanding not only God’s relationship with the world, as its Creator, but also how He is different from the gods of the nations, who we know from Psalm 96 are demons. In the creation stories of the nations, such as the Enuma Elish or the Theogony, for example, there is a similar progression from chaos to order, but this occurs over generations of gods, not by the will of God, and pivotal in this establishment of order is an intergenerational war, Zeus against the Titans, Marduk against Tiamat, etc, showing that even within the established order, there still lurks chaos.

In Orthodox theology we understand that in the Old Testament we see not just a record of salvation, but a participation in it. This is typology, in which we see the realities of the Incarnation in the persons and the occurrences of the Old Testament. St. Peter says, for example: “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...” (I Peter 3:21). The flood destroys the wicked people, wiping the earth clean of their sinfulness, but spares Noah and his family. Mystically, Noah and his family participate in the reality of Baptism, which saves by washing sinfulness and renewing our natures. In the Creation narrative, then, the Orthodox would also see typological significance, as for us Christ’s Incarnation is not a course correction or something God was forced into by human action, but the purpose and fulfillment of Creation. In the opening of the book of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” (NKJV version). Creation is done out of water, upon which the Holy Spirt has descended. Creation begins as a type of the Baptism of Christ (Matthew 3:13–17, for example). Christ enters the waters of the Jordan, and the Holy Spirit descends on Him in the form of dove. Through water and the Spirit is Creation brought forth, and through water and the Spirit is Creation renewed, or, rather, Creation looks forward to its renewal in the Incarnation. The seven days of Creation culminate with God resting on the seventh day, that is Saturday, the day of the Sabbath. God commands, through Moses, the people of Israel to also rest on the seventh day, and to keep it holy, in remembrance of this (Exodus 20:8-11). Why, though, does God rest on the seventh day? He isn’t tired from all the work of Creation, rather God’s rest on the seventh day looks forward to the day that Christ rests in the tomb, before His Resurrection on Pascha. This image of “resting,” is, of course, not an image of God taking a nap from exhaustion, but that of a victorious king, seated upon his throne. When Christ ”rests” in the tomb, He is a victorious king, overthrowing Hades (Arise O God, by Fr. Andrew Damick provides an excellent overview of Christ the victorious king). When God creates humanity, He makes us in the “image and likeness” of God. The term used here for image is “eikon,” from which we get our word “icon.” This term is the same as that used to identify Christ as the “image” of God in, for example, Colossians 1:15. This is opposed to another word for image we see in Scripture, the term “eidolon.” The two terms, while they have broadly the same meaning, that is “image,” do have some nuanced difference in their meaning. “Eidolon” is often used of images that are an “artificial imitation of the visible appearance of something” (https://er.ceres.rub.de/index.php/ER/article/view/10442/9871). The “eikon,” however, is an image of something “that does not necessarily need to have a visible shape or material form” (Ibid). Christ is an “eikon” of the Father, since the Father does not have a visible shape, and in being this image of the Father, He becomes the model for us as “eikones” of God. Christ is the prototype human being, according to whose likeness Adam is fashioned. This is why we are not only created as an “image,” but also as a likeness. We are not mere statues, but have the capability to become more like God, to increase in this likeness, this is Theosis, becoming like God by grace, which is the Orthodox understanding of Salvation. The idols of the nations, however, are made in mockery of this Creation (as Fr. Stephen DeYoung and Fr. Andrew Damick mention). Like God breathes life into mankind, the idols of the pagan gods are made “alive” through a ceremony that included breathing life into them.

This is why one sees a variety of views within the Orthodox Church on the topic of evolution. Fr. Seraphim Rose, for example, rejects the idea completely, laying out his reasons in his book Genesis, Creaton, and Early Man. Others accept parts of the theory, the idea that evolution is the collection of adaptations over time, for example. But ultimately, the Orthodox position is summarized by Fr. Lawrence Farley: “It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.”

What the Orthodox Church rejects, however, is the idea that there can be Creation without God. Allegorical, precise, typological, or otherwise. Genesis shows us that God is the source of Creation, which He brings into being out of nothing. It shows that He loves His Creation, finding it good (or beautiful). It shows that Creation is made in anticipation of the Incarnation, through which our nature is renewed and will ultimately be perfected.

2. Have You Found any Contradictions In Your Holy Text?

Any cursory google search will provide lengthy lists of contradictions, or at least apparent contradictions in Scripture. Militant atheists glory in an attempted disproving of Christianity by showing places in Scripture which contradict scientific knowledge, archaeological findings, and, even more importantly, verses which seemingly are self-contradictory. A great deal of ink has been spilled by equally eager Christians and other scholars in answering and explaining such contradictions. Rather than attempting to add to the broad discussion on some of these contradictions, we will approach this question from three different perspectives: 1. understanding context and genre; 2. Sola Scriptura and a rationalist approach to Scripture; 3. contradictions and apophatic theology.

1. Understanding Context and Genre

   
   

The Orthodox reject the idea that Scripture is self-contradicting. Scripture details the history of Salvation and is an integral part of Holy Tradition. The Orthodox Church in America describes the Scripture as a means by which God reveals Himself to His people: “God has revealed Himself as the true and living God to His People, and that as one aspect of His divine self-revelation God inspired His People to produce scriptures, i.e., writings which constitute the true and genuine expressions of His Truth and His Will for His People and for the whole world.” As such, the Scriptures do not give us false information about God.

Scripture does not, however, fall out of the sky. It is written by human beings. So, while there is nothing theologically incorrect in the Scritpures, that does not mean that the authors have every historical fact correct, or even that they are interested in the absolute historicity of their text. The purpose of Scripture is not, after all, to be a text that concerns itself with what humans would consider history, but with the history of Salvation, the movement toward the Incarnation (to be fair, other histories from antiquity are also rife with inaccuracies, and they are concerned with historicity). We see too, that the authors, at times, use historical narrative to underscore their points, which means that they may leave out or gloss over that which is not necessary to their discussion. This can make it seem that there are contradictions, even if there are not any. We see an interesting example of such a contradiction in the Nativity narratives in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the story of the Nativity begins with the betrothal of Mary to Joseph. He then finds out that she is pregnant, and would have put her aside, had an angel not appeared to him to reveal the divine nature of this pregnancy to him (Matthew 1:18-25). The narrative continues with the birth of Christ in Bethlehem, which occurred during the reign of Herod the King. Herod is then visited by Magi from Persia, who want to know where the child was born. When they find out that it is in Bethlehem, they go there and worship, but do not return to Herod, as they are warned in a dream that Herod wishes to kill the child (Matthew 2:1-12). The Nativity narrative concludes with a divine warning to Joseph, that Herod will seek to kill the Christ child. Joseph takes his family and flees to Egypt. Herod then has all the male children to two years of age killed (Matthew 2:13-18).

The Nativity narrative in Luke seems not to be compatible with this. In the Gospel of Luke, the Nativity account begins with the Annunciation, in which the archangel Gabriel appears to the virgin Mary in Nazareth to proclaim to her the news that she has been chosen to bear the Messiah (Luke 1:26-38). Mary then goes to visit her cousin Elizabeth, who is also pregnant. After a few months she returns to her own home (Luke 1:39-56). The Evangelist Luke then gives a tidbit that seems to offer some historical context, he says that there was a decree from Augustus, which instituted a census, which was carried out when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and on account of this census Joseph went to Bethlehem with his betrothed, the virgin Mary (Luke 2:1-5). Arriving in Bethlehem, she gives birth to her child (Luke 2:6). As this is occurring, an angel appears to shepherds who are out in the fields with their flock. The angel, accompanied by a number of other angels, tell the shepherds that the Messiah has been born, and where to find him. The shepherds then go and worship the child (Luke 2:8-20). The Nativity narrative continues, detailing the various things that need to be done with a newborn under the Law, circumcision and presentation in the Temple. While being presented in the Temple, Simeon and Anna, recognize Christ as the Messiah (Luke 2:21-36). The narrative concludes with Joseph and Mary returning to Nazareth with the Christ child (Luke 2:39-40).

How can two such different narratives exist simultaneously? An issue certainly exists if we assume that both St. Matthew and St. Luke were attempting to record the entirety of the Nativity story, or that the narrative we are seeing is confined to a short period of time around the actual day of Christ’s birth. The two Evangelists, however, have different focuses in their witness to the coming of Christ. Matthew, for example, puts a great emphasis on the fulfillment of prophecy. He structures his Nativity narrative around four particular prophecies that come to fulfillment: 1. The first scene, so to speak, in which Mary is found to be with child, and Joseph is told in a dream that this child is of the Holy Spirit fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14), “So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us.’” 2. The second scene, in which the wise men search for the child, fulfills the prophecy of Micah 5:2, “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a RulerWho will shepherd My people Israel.’” 3. The fourth scene, in which the family flees to Egypt fulfills Hosea 11:1: “Out of Egypt I called My Son.” Finally, the slaughter of the innocents by Herod fulfills Jeremiah 31:15: “A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more.” Matthew is writing for an audience of Jewish Christians, to whom the idea of Christ fulfilling the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament is crucial to understanding His ministry. So his focus is going to be on those parts of the Nativity story that best underscore that message. The Evangelist Luke, however, has been called “the historian” due to his referencing “biblical events by reference to secular history.” So, he mentions the reign of Herod the Great in reference to the conception of St. John the Baptist, and the governorship of Quirinius in Syria in reference to the time of the Nativity. He also focuses on the universality of salvation, mentioning the prayer of St. Simeon: “Lord now You are letting Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word. For my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel” (Luke 2:29-32). The Gospels, then, look at the life of Christ from different angles, they have been compared to the facets of a diamond, each one is beautiful on its own, but form a whole together. The Nativity story is not a short few weeks or even months. Rather this was a time period of several years, which is why Herod’s response was to kill all of the children up to two years of age, rather than just newborns.

2. Sola Scriptura and Rationalist Approach to Scripture

   
   

Contradiction in the Holy Scriptures only causes an issue if your interpretation of the Scripture depends on the complete inerrancy of the text. This type of an understanding of Scripture is a major part of the Protestant movements starting in the sixteenth century. The first of the five Solas of the Reformation, Sola Scriptura, deals with this, ascribing sole authority to Scripture. Without a Church Tradition through which to interpret Scripture, the only means by which Scripture can be understood is through self-interpretation, each reader being able to interpret Scripture on his/her own. This approach to Scripture tends to make the various Protestant denominations rigid in their understanding of Scripture as a text, assuming a literal and historical reading. So we see, for example in the statement of faith of Grace Baptist Church: “We believe that the 66 books of the Bible are God’s inspired revelation to man. They are the very word of God, without error, completely authoritative, essential, sufficient, and trustworthy, and constitute the only infallible rule for truth and life.” There is no room in such an understanding of Scripture for contradiction to exist and must be explained away, because any contradiction in such a historical reading would undermine the inerrancy, introducing error.

There is an ancient tradition of a strict, or literal interpretation of Scripture, particularly within the Catechetical school of Antioch. The idea of Sola Scriptura is not, however, a descendant of this tradition. Rather, the Antiochian school can be understood as being a parallel way of understanding the Gospels, alongside the Alexandrian school, which focused on an allegorical interpretation of Scripture (this is an oversimplification of what is a very complex history of Biblical hermeneutics). The Antiochian school certainly did not promote the idea of a personal interpretation of Scripture, and ultimately understood the historicity of Scripture not as an end in itself, but as part of a typological understanding of Scripture, in which the events of the Old Testament look forward to, and participate in the realities of the Incarnation.

The Orthodox Church, then, takes a less rationalistic approach to Scripture than is seen in the west. Having grown out of the Enlightenment and the universities, the Protestant approach to the Scriptures is tied to the critical process, in a sense an inversion of the process. In creating a critical edition, one works back to what the original text must have looked like, and then uses the historical and cultural context of the text to help interpret the text. With Scripture, the assumption is that everything must be correct, and then history and science must be understood in the context of Scripture. The Orthodox approach looks at Scripture as a revelation of the history of salvation. Where it does address history or science, this is secondary to the typological and allegorical understanding in which we see God working in human history, and history moving toward the Incarnation.

3. Contradictions and Apophatic Theology

   
   

Scripture not a history or science textbook, it focuses on the working of God within human history and moving humanity to salvation. So we see, for example, a great emphasis on King David in Scripture, where there is scant evidence for his existence historically, a few inscriptions and not much else. King David is important, not because of his military prowess and the greatness of his empire, which was regionally a power, but nothing compared to the might of the great powers of the Bronze Age, the Egyptian or Babylonian empires, for example, but because in King David, God makes a covenant with a nation, and it is from David that Christ would descend.

As a text that offers humans an understanding of God, it is also not to be wondered at if there are what appear to us to be contradictions. In his treatise Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, St. John of Damascus discusses the nature of God:

“God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm concerning God does not shew forth God's nature, but only the qualities of His nature. For when you speak of Him as good, and just, and wise, and so forth, you do not tell God's nature but only the qualities of His nature. Further there are some affirmations which we make concerning God which have the force of absolute negation: for example, when we use the term darkness, in reference to God, we do not mean darkness itself, but that He is not light but above light: and when we speak of Him as light, we mean that He is not darkness.”

God is infinitely beyond human beings, we are unable to comprehend Him in His essence, that is in His being. We do interact with God, and know some things about Him, His energies. The image we use to illustrate this reality is looking at the sun. If you look at the sun directly, you become blind. It is beyond the ability of a human to deal with its brilliance (setting aside telescopes, tinted lenses, and so forth). We constantly interact with the sun, however, it warms the earth, gives us light to see, allows plants to grown, which forms the foundation of the food chain, etc... It is in Scripture that God reveals to us His working in history, it is one (but not the only) of the foundational ways in which we come to know God and His will.

The ultimate incomprehensibility of God has led the Orthodox Church to adopt a preference for what is called apophatic theology, that is negative theological statements, over cataphatic theology, positive theological statements. Positive statements are, by their nature, limiting, and so are only useful to a certain extent when discussing God. For example, the statement “God exists” would not get much argument from a religious person. However, we are limited by our own understanding of “nature.” We have a human nature and can only perceive existence through that nature. God does not have a human nature, but a divine nature, so it ultimately falls short for us to say that “God exists,” since He does not exist in the way that we exist, and we cannot comprehend an existence such as Gods. The same hold true for a statement like “God is everywhere.” This statement has a limitation, the physical bounds of the material universe. God is not bound by the universe, and so this statement ultimately falls short as well.

Since we are unable to comprehend God in His essence, what may seem to be a contradiction to us, is not necessarily one, but something that goes beyond our understanding, which is limited in scope. Christianity is a faith of contradiction, a faith of impossibility. God, who is infinite, loves His Creation so much that the infinite takes on the nature of the finite. God, who is life, dies, and in dying transforms death into life.

3. Do You Believe Everything in Your Holy Text?

Scripture reveals to the truth of God’s working in human history, preparing and fulfilling salvation and the renewal of human nature. Understanding what Scripture is saying, however, how to interpret it, is not always straightforward. Interpreting Scripture involves typological and allegorical understanding. While it is meant to be read and studied, for spiritual edification, it is not meant to be interpreted on an individual basis, because this will often lead to incorrect interpretation.

How, then, can the Christian read the Scriptures in the context in which they were meant to be understood? Scripture must be read within the context of the Church. It is within the Christian community of the Church that the books of the Bible were written, the Old Testament in anticipation of Christ’s coming and the New Testament in witness of Christ’s Incarnation. It is within the worship of the Church that these Books were then compiled to form the Canon of Scripture as we know it. Outside of the worship and life of the Church, Scripture cannot be understood.