“How do you reconcile science and theology?” People would ask me this question when they find out that I am either an engineer/physicist with a Masters of Divinity or a pastor with a degree in physics who once operated a submarine nuclear power plant and worked as a Systems Engineer for sonar and laser systems.
The short answer that I gave throughout my careers is that science and theology answer different questions and use different techniques. Science carefully collects data about events, forms hypotheses and mathematical models to predict similar events, and then tests those hypotheses and models with additional observations of the physical world. Hypotheses that have been verified to an exceptional degree, effectively eliminating random occurrences, become widely accepted and are called theories or laws. Theology discerns a future oriented purpose by studying culturally accepted documents (Scripture) and community accepted interpretations of those documents. Many denominations document accepted interpretations and call them declarations, catechisms, confessions, or creeds.
Sometimes I might answer this question saying: Science and theology each seek to explain the universe, but they do so from different perspectives. They are like two observers of an incident having different opinions of what happened based on the angle from which they observed the incident.
While either of those short answer satisfied those who asked, both neglect questions of practical ministry. How are prayers effective? What difference does worship make in the world? How are we to interpret bad things that happen to faithful people?
My dual career path has led to similar levels of formal training and professional experience in each of these diverse fields. Thus I feel perhaps uniquely prepared to consider the intersection of modern science and theology. Discerning the future is merely fiction unless it affects the world. Thus religion must exist at the intersection of material life and theology. And:
If your belief conflicts with empirically confirmed knowledge, then you are not seeking meaning; you are delusional.
— Sabine Hossenfelder, PhD, in Existential Physics: A Scientist’s Guide to Life’s Biggest Questions. Penguin Random House, 2022.
Deconstruction
Retirement freed me from the daily challenges of ministry or engineering giving me time to contemplate the intersection of modern physics and theology.
One afternoon I sat back in my favorite chair presuming that my moral and ethical decision making process was like a sea worthy ship that was securely moored to a pier that had stood firm through storms over dozens of centuries. I closed my eyes to discern how I might examine one of the ropes that tied my ship to that solid pier: What are miracles?
Within seconds I had an epiphany. Quickly I realized that (1) I had all the parts of a solution; (2) this solution resolved many tangentially related theological paradoxes; but (3) this solution would radically challenge conventional biblical interpretation and would not be well received. Perhaps this is why Jesus always taught with parables that even his closest disciples had difficulty understanding.
The rope in my hands had become dust. The pier that had outlasted rigorous examinations for millennia had disappeared. My ship had become a dingy so far from shore I could only see water in all directions.
For many people religious deconstruction takes months if not years. They often examine part of their interpretation process before looking for flaws in the underlying framework. I had intended to merely fine tune what I believe, to further the work of the Church. Instead, in the blink of an eye, it was all gone.
A change in one’s ethical framework frequently causes people to feel adrift until they can establish a new framework. This ethical unmooring gives atheists a bad reputation. Others cannot see how they can make any ethical decisions.
The disintegration of my framework left me with only the most basic ethical questions: Is it legal? Will it help me move forward?
Initially I called my deconstruction not an epiphany —an appearance upon— but an apophany —an appearance away from. At that point I felt that my vision was no longer clouded by cultural conditioning for religion.
Reconstruction
Our legal system depends on most people behaving better than the legal minimum. Moving forward typically involves getting support from other people. Thus I used my skills in vision discernment and research to begin discerning a new framework.
As I began to construct a new ethical and moral framework I quickly discovered that many people had survived similar unmoorings and had provided navigational beacons and buoys for those who followed them. Recalling the 40 page statement of faith I had written in seminary I began rewriting, reconstructing my statement of faith based on my new understanding of God.
Early in my reconstruction I imagined my mentors telling me: “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” To which I would reply: “Is there a baby in here? All I see is a lot of dirty bath water.”
I now see that dirty bath water as layers of “interpretation” and ritual laid atop a solid theological core. Those layers of “interpretation” have been used and misused to preserve institutions and oligarchy. It is those layers that have crumbled for me.
Summary
Having survived a rapid deconstruction of my belief system I am now in the midst of reconstruction by reading books and other sources and then reflecting on them.
I look forward to reading your comments so I might refine my reflections. Below are the topics I am currently considering. I expect to revise the linked posts from time to time as I learn more.
- Science Seeks to Understand Nature, Scheduled for: 2024 November 20
- Where is God?, Published: 2024 November 6
- Causality versus Free Will, Published: 2024 March 19
- Miracles versus Magic, Scheduled for: 2024 November 27
- Am I Dreaming?
- It Is Your Destiny
- Spirituality
- The Power of Myth
- I Am Therefore I Think
- Ethics
- Draining the bath tub
Leave a Reply