# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S230
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

230

IV. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

or conduct experiments. It is only because Dawkins has made the prior
philosophical assumption that supernatural religious claims are false that he
spends so little effort looking into the evidence.
The same general moral applies to a variety of other debunking strategies, such as the attempt to explain away religious experiences as a defect in
the temporal lobes, the result of a “God gene” or of a misfiring “God-spot” in
the brain. All of them assume without argument that no religion is grounded
in evidence. Yet the central Christian claims are about Christ’s saving work
in history, and therefore can be investigated using secular, empirical methods. In their book, The Spiritual Brain, neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and
science journalist Denyse O’Leary provide a wonderful antidote to many of
the overblown claims of secularists in the popular science media, and expose
many of the recurring, unexamined philosophical assumptions that drive
agenda-driven claims about what science shows.327
More generally, a good strategy when engaging any material using
science to advocate for non-Christian conclusions is to consult the best evaluation of that work (for example, in book reviews, articles, or on blogs) from a
qualified Christian thinker. Invariably what emerges is that when scientists
seek to use science to discredit Christianity or theism in general, it is their
non-scientific philosophical assumptions, and not the scientific data, that play
the decisive role.
As one more example of this, consider a recent work by the atheist cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, A Universe From Nothing.328 Krauss’s goal is to use
modern cosmology to show that God is not necessary to explain the origin of
the universe. In the course of the book, Krauss offers three scientific definitions of “nothing,” and argues that each of them allow the universe to arise
from nothing, without God. Thus in chapter 9, “nothing” means empty space,
which Krauss tells us, can expand and produce matter and radiation. In
chapter 10, Krauss goes further, and defines “nothing” as the absence of space,
in which “quantum gravity… might create an inflating universe directly from
nothing.”329 And finally, in chapter 11, “nothing” is defined as the absence
of the laws of physics, which laws might somehow arise at random from a
multiverse.330
The problem with Krauss’s approach is that in every case, he has altered
the standard definition of “nothing.” Logicians understand “nothing” as a
universal negation: to say “Nothing is there” is equivalent to saying, “Given
all of the things that exist, none of them is there.” By that understanding,

empty space is not nothing, since nothing cannot expand. Likewise quantum
gravity and, if it exists, the multiverse, are not nothing. Nothing has no potential to do anything. Thus a bad essay can be improved, but a non-existent
essay cannot. Only what exists has the potential to produce any further result.
The real issue here is not scientific at all. It is a matter of metaphysics.
An atheist thinks that the universe (or a multiverse) simply exists as a brute
fact, whereas a theist thinks that the existence of the universe requires some
explanation, and argues that this is provided by a supernatural, necessary
being. Krauss ignores this reality because he dismisses all “philosophical and
theological musings,”331 and believes that science is the only source of knowledge. But the result is that Krauss is simply unaware of his own philosophical
assumptions (such as scientism and naturalism). He is therefore unable to
see that the origin of the universe is a profoundly philosophical question that
cannot be adequately addressed without metaphysics.
C. S. Lewis frequently admonished Christians to read old books,332 not
because the old books are always right, and newer books are always wrong,
but because the older books contain a valuable counter-perspective, preserving insights that our own age ignores. Contemporary debates about the
role of science in public life and what this implies is often poorly informed
by a sound historical perspective on the development of science and the
interaction of science with theology and philosophy. Thus, when Krauss
asserts that, unlike modern science, “theology has made no contribution to
knowledge,”333 a well-informed Christian may respond that one cannot pit
science against theology, because, in point of historical fact, modern science
was in large measure an outgrowth of theology.
Assumptions made by all scientists today—including atheist and other
non-Christian scientists—reflect a view of reality that derives from theological sources. Scientists are able to search for universal laws of nature because
they presuppose that nature is a coherent, law-governed system—an assumption grounded in the theological idea that the world is the product of a single,
rational Creator. Scientists make observations and conduct experiments to
find out what is going on in natural world (rather than deducing its behavior
from a preconceived philosophy) because they assume that world is contingent—an idea grounded in the theological idea that the world is the creation
of a free being who might have created differently. Scientists are confident
that they can discover the truth because there is objective truth in the world to
discover and their own minds are reliably attuned to that truth. These, too, are
assumptions ultimately grounded in the theological idea that the divine logos
is reflected both in nature and in the minds of those made in God’s image.

327
See Mario Beauregard and Denyse O’Leary, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the
Existence of the Soul (New York: HarperCollins, 2007).
328

See fn 32, p. 17 above.

331

Ibid., 143.

329

Krauss, A Universe From Nothing, 169.

332

Lewis, “On the Reading of Old Books,” in God in the Dock.

Ibid., 176.

333

Krauss, A Universe From Nothing, 144.

330

137

More generally, non-scientists will benefit greatly from reading widely
in the history, theology, and philosophy of science. This will quickly reveal
the fact that science is not done in a vacuum, but is always influenced by a
complex variety of non-scientific beliefs. By becoming aware of these beliefs,
one can more effectively disentangle the science proper from other ideas
that may motivate science and may be used to evaluate its findings. When
it is confidently claimed that pursuing science requires abandoning many
Christian ideas as outmoded, superstitious relics of our pre-scientific past,
Christians can simply point out the great contributions of historical and
contemporary scientists who not only accepted Christian doctrine, but who
found it to be a source of encouragement and support.334 Indeed, the history
of science is filled with stories of men and women who viewed faith in God
as a motivation and source of strength for their calling. Countless members
of the scientific community today share such convictions (they are hardly
outdated!) and, God willing, their numbers will increase.

6. Conclusion
While much more could be said, it is hoped that the examples and
discussion in this chapter will help to motivate further reading, classes and
discussion that will benefit Christian students, teachers, researchers and nonscientific laity. If we reflect on the interdependence of our different vocations,
and apply that insight specifically to science, it may generate more Bible
studies, seminars, convocations and conferences that bring these groups of
people together with our clergy and other professional church workers to
discuss the most constructive Christian responses to science, its findings, and
the claims made on its behalf.
In the process, we can encourage more Christians to pursue careers and
vocations in science, confident of their calling and with a high moral motivation. We can also aid students and teachers, seeking the best strategies for
handling controversy, especially as it impacts on the Christian faith. And we
can see scientists themselves as a great resource in the body of Christ, those
best qualified to help us understand what science is really saying and best
equipped to inspire young people to follow them into scientific vocations.
Together with the other resources in this report, it is hoped this final chapter
will promote more constructive dialogue about the intersection of science and
Christian theology.

334
An excellent place to begin is Stanley Jaki’s accessible yet learned work, The Savior of Science. There is also a recent assessment of Jaki’s enormous contribution to understanding the
interplay of science and the Christian faith by Stacy Trasancos, Science was Born of Christianity:
The Teaching of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki (Titusville, FL: The Habitation of Chimham Publishing, 2014).

139

2016 Convention Workbook

138