In my dissertation I intend to put what social scientists have learned about habit formation, willpower, and self-discipline to use in helping believers achieve a healthy and consistent personal study of Scripture.
I anticipate needing to make the case that science is not opposed to faith and is not to be distrusted.
(I know this because one of my professors already expressed reservations about my using scientific findings in this way!)
I came across reinforcement for my approach while listening to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity today:
"Christianity has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political programme for applying ‘Do as you would be done by’ to a particular society at a particular moment. It could not have. It is meant for all men at all times and the particular programme which suited one place or time would not suit another. And, anyhow, that is not how Christianity works. When it tells you to feed the hungry it does not give you lessons in cookery. When it tells you to read the Scriptures it does not give you lessons in Hebrew and Greek, or even in English grammar. It was never intended to replace or supersede the ordinary human arts and sciences: it is rather a director which will set them all to the right jobs, and a source of energy which will give them all new life, if only they will put themselves at its disposal." (Emphasis mine, page 82)
Isn't it strange? If we applaud the expertise of linguists and historians and gladly use their discoveries to further our understanding of Scripture, why would we distance ourselves from the expertise of the social scientists and neurologists who can give us insight into developing the discipline needed to do that study on a regular basis?
Science is not the enemy of faith.
It can and should be the servant of faith and "set to the right job".
No comments:
Post a Comment