Book Review: Christianity and Science
An independent researcher based in Wales, UK. He is a trustee of ThinkingFaith Network, maintains the website allofliferedeemed.co.uk and is an Associate Fellow of the Kirby Laing Centre for Public Theology. He is co-editor of On Kuyper (Sioux Center, IO: Dordt Press, 2013).
Herman Bavinck, Translators & Editors: N. Gray Sutanto, James Eglinton, Cory C. Brock, Crossway, 2023, 236 pp, h/b, (£19.75 hive.co.uk)
Is there such a thing as Christian Science? Dutch neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) contends that there is. In this newly translated work, Bavinck observes a growing dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the sciences [wetenschap]. Many, including Bavinck, desire science to be based on a robust Christian foundation. To this end, Bavinck sought to formulate an understanding of the positivist and Christian views of science.
It is important to stress that Bavinck’s use of the term “wetenschap” encompasses more than the natural or physical sciences. It should be understood as denoting scholarship or academic disciplines.
In Chapter 2, Bavinck explores the nature of truth and Christianity as a religion of truth. God is truth implies that all that comes from him is truth. This stands in marked contrast to the wisdom of the world, which is considered foolishness. The early Christians stood antithetical to the world. Philosophy is incapable of making known the truth; this is primarily because humanity is so corrupted by sin. As Bavinck observes, “Science [wetenschap] can thus teach only a little, and that little only to a few. It does not know the way to truth, for it does not know Christ, and thus leads to dead ends.” (57). However, Bavinck does not denigrate reason; rather, he sees it as a gift from God.
Chapter 3 examines some defects that clung to Christian Science, these include the tearing apart of faith and reason, science became a “servant of theology”, and the neglect of empiricism. The result of these defects led to science considering “independence as its ideal”
Chapters 4-6 delve into the issue of positivism. Comtean positivism was prevalent when Bavinck was writing. It later morphed into logical positivism, which, although in decline, remains influential today. Bavinck does a masterly job of showing the incoherence of positivism. He demonstrates that it is self-refuting. Positivism maintained that knowledge can only arise from what is empirically verifiable. It is a form of naturalism and denies any form of revelation. It is reductionistic, reducing reality to the observable and measurable, and it denies the richness and depth of human experience and reality. Positivism claims to be a presuppositionless science. Yet, as Bavinck demonstrates, it is a philosophical system that presupposes the reliability of the senses, the objectivity of what is observed, and a unity and order — all of which presuppose metaphysical assumptions, which positivism denies.
Although Bavinck is highly critical of empiricism in the form of positivism, he does not deny the need for and importance of “normal empirical thinking” (107). The significance of everyday knowledge is underscored in Chapter 7. This is a hinge chapter. Having demolished the pretension of positivism, he establishes the need for empirical knowledge as a basis not only for the sciences but also everyday life. He highlights that normal empirical thinking precedes scientific knowledge. As he observes, farming preceded scientific agriculture. He stresses that scientists are human and have human failings.
He then moves on to discuss the natural sciences (Chapter 8), the humanities (Chapter 9) and the theological sciences (Chapter 10). He reiterates that the natural sciences proceed from philosophical convictions. In true neo-Calvinist fashion, he emphasises the organic nature of the sciences and the unity within diversity of creation: the “world is one whole yet endlessly differentiated”. By “organic” he emphasises the interconnected and dynamic nature of science. The unity within diversity means that it avoids pantheistic fusion and deistic disintegration. Each of the sciences have their own character and each their own law. There is no one single scientific method.
He perceived the humanities as being tied to perceptible phenomena, such as manuscripts, monuments, art, institutions, and so forth. He dismisses the suggestion of the humanities as a historical study, as the natural sciences have historical elements, geology is a case in point.
In Chapter 10, the role of theology is examined. In particular he addresses the question: is theology a science? He concludes it is. At the time of Bavinck’s writing the Dutch academy under the 1876 Higher Education Act subsumed theology under religious science. Hence the need for Bavinck to defend theology against its poor reputation.
Positivism denied any form of revelation outside of the measurable and observable. This is obviously in direct opposition to Christianity, where revelation is key. Hence, in Chapter 11 he deals with revelation, focusing on its source. For Bavinck all of Creation is revelation. As an organic whole, Creation displays aspects of God. He rejects the notion that different religions are manifestations of God. All religions have different and opposed ideas of God, sin, and redemption and he rightly stresses the uniqueness of Christ. The key question of the age is, “What do you think of Christ?”
Chapter 12, “The blessings of Christianity for science”, discusses the role of religious belief in the scientific enterprise: “we cannot possibly be neutral, unprejudiced researchers” (183). Bavinck is in no doubt: although science did not arise through Christianity, “Christianity saved science” (186). This is because science rests on the assumption that there is an eternal, knowable, unchangeable truth. Science is also rooted in a search, and a love, for truth.
All this is foundational for his final chapter: “A Christian university”. Given all that he has discussed before, he sees as imperative the need for a Christian university. As Bavinck has it: “Ultimately, these principles regarding the relationship between Christianity and science call for embodiment in a Christian university” (205).
Most notably this work lacks any explicit discussion of common grace. The focus appears to be on the antithesis; in particular, the antithesis between Christianity and positivist views of science. Thus, disjunction between different approaches to science is crucial for the necessity of a distinctly Christian university.
Bavinck argues that “theologians must themselves take the lead in philosophy”. In this book, Bavinck provides an excellent example of how this can be done. He engages with the key philosophical arguments prevalent in his time and shows how they are left wanting in their approach to the sciences compared with the Christian perspective.
In many ways, his approach presages Dooyeweerd. Bavinck’s emphasis on everyday knowledge preceding science, that religious convictions drive scientific research, the rejection of presuppositional-less science, and theology as a science are all ideas developed by Dooyeweerd. Although, Dooyeweerd would take issue with Bavinck’s view of theology as the queen of the sciences.
The title, Christelijke wetenschap in Dutch, is literally translated as “Christian Science”. The “and” is added in this translation presumably to distance it from Mary Baker Eddy’s sect. However, the and gives the impression that Christianity and science are separate, which runs counter to Bavinck’s integrated organic view.
The translators have exhibited commendable proficiency in making this important text by Bavinck accessible to a broader audience, not least in their introduction and the explanatory footnotes. This seminal work by Bavinck merits considerable scholarly attention for its foundational contributions to a Christian approach to the sciences and the importance of Christian universities.
Book Review: Providing for Pastors: How to Give Time, Energy, and Money to Support the Work of Pastors
Book Review: The Holy Spirit
Book Review: Christianity and Science
Missionary – What’s in a Word? A Critical Discussion of a Disputed Term
Slavery, the Slave Trade and Christians’ Theology – Part 1
John Wesley and Aldersgate
John Owen and Relating to God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
Abraham Kuyper: Inspiration, Revelation, and Scripture
Review Article: Neo-Calvinism: A Theological Introduction
Editorial