Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
13
The Nature of Faith
T
HE PUSH-AND-PULL
, the back-and-forth through history between science and religion is more
of a dance than a war. I now think of it as an awkward egalitarian waltz, with the partners
trading off the lead, sometimes moving one step ahead, other times following behind, and
occasionally stomping on each other's toes. Science and religion share humanity's strong
desire to understand our world, and as is the case with Noah's Flood, much of the conflict
we perceive between them occurs over how to interpret ancient stories in light of modern
knowledge.
What more can we learn from the story of Noah's Flood? Even though we can no longer
read the story literally, we can still learn from it—all of us. The story of the biblical flood
story shows how it is as important for scientists to maintain flexibility of interpretation when
facing new data as it is for theologians who don't want to be backed into making implausible
arguments, like having to claim that rocks lie.
In our journey through the history of flood stories, we have seen two different ways of
viewing faith—faith in a method or process (like science) and faith in a particular idea, view,
or conclusion (like scientific theories or religious beliefs). Based on the idea that open in-
quiry promotes learning, scientists put evidence first to formulate and build upon theories.
Evidence that does not fit a theory is scientific gold—it leads to new discovery and know-
ledge. In contrast, elevating preconceived ideas and beliefs above evidence shuts off learn-
ing and stifles curiosity about the world. Here lies the question at the border between science
and religion. Is seeing believing, or is believing seeing?
