Program / Course 25: Theological Synthesis / Lesson 2.4
What you will learn
- Identify the main kinds of apparent conflict among the disciplines and between theology and other fields.
- Use a five-question procedure for diagnosing a conflict.
- Distinguish a conflict of facts, a conflict of interpretation and a conflict of authority.
- Describe honestly the possible outcomes, including the case where the conflict stays unresolved.
The big idea
Sooner or later a student finds that two sources of knowledge seem to disagree: a verse and a scientific finding, a creed and a historical study, a philosophical argument and a doctrine. Not every conflict is real, and not every conflict can be dissolved. A careful method asks what exactly each side claims, whether the claims really overlap, how strong the evidence is on each side, and which source has the right kind of authority on the question. The outcome may be agreement, revision or an honestly stated open question.
Key terms
- Apparent conflict
- A disagreement that seems real at first but disappears when the claims are stated more carefully.
- Real conflict
- A case in which two claims cannot both be true, however carefully they are stated.
- Interpretation
- The act of working out what a text or a set of data means. Both Scripture and scientific results need interpretation.
- Authority
- The right of a source to be believed or obeyed on a certain kind of question.
- Accommodation
- The idea, found in Augustine, Calvin and others, that God speaks in terms that human beings can grasp and so does not always use technical language.
- Defeater
- A reason that, if true, undermines another belief.
- Concordism
- The attempt to match specific biblical statements with specific scientific findings. Critics think it often forces the text.
Background
The history of Christianity has many episodes where one field seemed to contradict another. Early Christians weighed Greek philosophy against Scripture. Medieval scholars worked to fit Aristotle with doctrine. In the seventeenth century the debate over the motion of the earth involved Galileo, and in the nineteenth century debates over geology and evolution shook many believers. Today the questions often concern history, neuroscience, ethics and the scholarly study of the Bible.
In some of those episodes the church’s older reading of a text changed. Few Christians now insist on a literal reading of passages that seem to say the earth does not move. Augustine, long before, had warned that it is a disgrace for a Christian to speak nonsense about the natural world while claiming to give the teaching of Scripture. In others, the old teaching remained and the new theory was set aside. The lesson is that conflicts are resolved by careful work, not by slogans.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: State exactly what each side claims
Write each claim in a sentence. Many conflicts rest on a misreading of one side. A text that sounds like a scientific statement may be poetry or a theological claim about meaning. A scientific result described in a popular article may be more tentative than the headline suggests.
Ask also what question each side is answering. The Bible tells why there is a world and what it is for. Natural science asks how natural processes work. These can overlap, but they are different questions.
Step 2: Decide whether the claims really overlap
Some apparent conflicts disappear because the claims concern different things. A statement that creation is good and a statement that species change over time do not contradict each other as they stand. Other conflicts are real. A claim that Jesus did not rise and a claim that he did cannot both be true.
A useful sorting: is the conflict about facts (what happened or exists), interpretation (what a text or data means) or authority (which source should decide)? Different methods fit each kind.
Step 3: Weigh the strength of each side
Not all claims have the same support. A well-tested scientific result or a firmly attested historical event carries more weight than a tentative hypothesis. In the same way, a doctrine held by the whole church for centuries and supported by many texts carries more weight than a single reading of one verse.
Be honest about your own bias. People tend to be harsher on evidence that threatens a favored view, and softer on evidence that supports it.
Step 4: Ask which source has authority on this kind of question
On whether a certain medicine works, medicine has authority. On whether the human person has an unconditional dignity, science alone does not decide. A Christian will usually say that Scripture and the church speak with special authority on questions of salvation, God and the meaning of life. Traditions differ about how far that authority reaches. Protestants with a strong view of biblical inerrancy extend it to history and nature more than many Catholics and Orthodox do, though all hold that Scripture teaches truth.
Authority is not a way to avoid evidence. It is a way to decide whose testimony counts for most on a given matter.
Step 5: Choose a response and state its cost
There are four main responses. The claims can be reconciled by a better reading. One side can be revised in light of the other. The conflict can be held open until more is known. Or one side can be given up. Each has a cost. Reconciliation may be strained, revision may seem to give ground, an open question may be uncomfortable, and giving up a belief may be painful.
An honest synthesis names the response chosen and the cost. It should not claim that all conflicts have been solved.
- What exactly does each side claim?
- Are the two claims answering the same question?
- Is this a conflict of facts, interpretation or authority?
- How strong is the evidence on each side, and what are my biases?
- Which source has authority on this kind of question, and why?
- What would it cost me to revise each side?
Examples
Galileo and the motion of the earth
In the seventeenth century some churchmen read passages like Joshua 10:12 as teaching that the sun moves. Galileo argued that the passages used ordinary language, and cited the old principle that the Bible tells how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go. The church condemned him in 1633. Most Christians today read the passages as ordinary speech. The case is cited by both sides of later debates, with different lessons drawn.
Creation and evolution
Christians hold a range of positions: a reading of Genesis as describing a recent creation in six days; views that accept an old earth but reject common descent; and views, held by many Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants, that accept common descent and read Genesis as teaching theological truths. Each side argues from Scripture and from evidence. The disagreement within the churches is real and unresolved.
The resurrection
Here the conflict is real. A historian may judge that the evidence does not support a bodily resurrection, and the Christian claims that it happened. Both cannot be true. Christians such as N. T. Wright argue that the historical evidence supports the claim. Others dispute that. The question is decided partly by judgments about evidence and partly by background beliefs about what is possible.
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that faith and reason cannot truly conflict since God is the author of both. The Church has accepted that the Bible is not a textbook of science and holds that biblical truth is taught without error for the sake of salvation. Pope Pius XII in 1950 allowed that evolution may be investigated, provided the soul is held to be created directly by God.
Orthodox
Orthodox writers often stress that Scripture is read within the tradition and the liturgy, and that the fathers themselves offered many readings of Genesis. Some Orthodox accept evolutionary science and some do not. Many emphasize that the main purpose of Genesis is theological.
Protestant
Protestants range widely. Some hold that Scripture, rightly read, is inerrant in all it affirms, including about history and nature. Others hold that inerrancy concerns the purposes of the text. Many conservative Protestant scientists, such as those in the American Scientific Affiliation, accept mainstream science and hold the faith, while others reject parts of it.
Scholarly and secular views
Many scientists and historians treat religion and science as separate domains of inquiry. Others hold that the two are in fundamental conflict. Historians of science note that the supposed war between science and religion is a simplified story and that the relationship has been mixed and complicated in different periods.
Why it matters
A worldview that has never faced a conflict has not been tested. A student who knows how to handle apparent conflicts is less likely to panic at a challenge and less likely to dismiss one. The method also teaches a lesson about honesty: some questions cannot yet be answered, and saying so is better than inventing an answer.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Science and Christianity have always been at war.
Correction: Historians who study the matter describe a mixed record. Many early scientists were Christians, and the relationship has included both cooperation and conflict.
Misunderstanding: If a text is not meant literally, then it is not true.
Correction: Poetry, parable and symbol can express truth. The question is what kind of writing a passage is, and what it asserts.
Misunderstanding: Every conflict can be solved by a clever reading.
Correction: Some conflicts are real, and forced harmonies can distort the text or the evidence. An open question is sometimes the honest outcome.
Misunderstanding: Whenever an expert disagrees with the church, the expert is right.
Correction: Authority depends on the question. Experts have authority within their fields, but a field’s results can be misreported or can go beyond its evidence, so each case needs judgment.
Knowledge check
What is the first step in handling an apparent conflict?
Write down exactly what each side claims, and what question each is answering. Many apparent conflicts disappear when it is seen that the claims concern different things, or that one side has been misstated. Only after that can the student decide whether any real conflict remains.
What are the three kinds of conflict?
Conflicts of fact concern what happened or exists. Conflicts of interpretation concern what a text or set of data means. Conflicts of authority concern which source should decide a question. Naming the kind of conflict suggests the right method for working on it.
What lesson do students often draw from the case of Galileo?
That Christians can misread Scripture when they insist on a reading that does not suit the text or the evidence, and that old interpretations can change. Historians also point out that the case involved politics and personalities, so it should not be reduced to a simple story of religion against science.
Is it acceptable to leave a conflict unresolved?
Yes, when the evidence does not allow a confident answer. An honest synthesis states the conflict, the options and the cost of each, and names the question as open. Claiming a resolution one does not have undermines trust in the whole account.
Think it through
- Is there a conflict between two things you believe or have been taught that you have never examined?
- How do you decide whom to trust when experts disagree?
- What is the cost of holding a question open, and what is the cost of closing it too soon?
Independent assignment
Diagnose a conflict
In your own notebook, write 400 to 600 words on one apparent conflict that matters to you (between a text and a scientific or historical claim, or between two doctrines). Use the five steps: state each claim, decide whether they overlap, weigh the evidence, say which source has authority, and name your response with its cost. Do not pick an easy example. If the conflict remains unresolved, say so.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Religion and Science A balanced philosophical overview of the relation of religion and science.
- Augustine of Hippo, Confessions Augustine reflects on time and creation, and on how to read Genesis.
- C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain Includes a discussion of how to read difficult material.
- N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God A historical argument for the resurrection, to be read critically.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hermeneutics On the theory of interpretation.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Common errors in reasoning that often cause apparent conflicts.
- Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God.
- Joshua 10:12 The text at the center of the Galileo case.