You may not yet have heard anything about the book, but as soon as you hear the title – A Dictionary of Christianity and Science – you probably think controversy and of any number of specific issues. But many of those questions are very important, and our guests today have put together a massive resource to help.
Hi, I’m Fred Zaspel, executive editor here at Books At a Glance, and we’re talking to Christopher Reese and Michael Strauss, coeditors – with Paul Copan and Tremper Longman – of the new book, A Dictionary of Christianity and Science: The Definitive Reference for the Intersection of Christian Faith and Contemporary Science.
Chris, Mike – welcome! And congratulations on this major accomplishment!
Strauss & Reese:
Thank you, Fred. Great to be here.
Zaspel:
Why this book? And why now? We’ll get to some specifics in a minute, but first tell us just in broad strokes what you have set out to accomplish. What is the contribution you hope to make?
Strauss:
I think this is a subject that generates lots of interest. The question of how evangelical Christianity and science interrelate. And there’s probably more heat than light in the subject, so the goal is to outline the different evangelical thought, to give people an evenhanded approach so that they can see different sides of different issues and have an overall view of what it looks like.
Reese:
I agree with that. We’re just trying to bring some of the best evangelical thinking out there on some topics that can be really difficult to understand. Sometimes it’s hard to find information on these topics and you have to go to a bunch of different places. So we tried to just bring it all together in one volume and have some of the best and most current thinking on those topics.
Zaspel:
Give us an idea of the range of issues and topics you’ve included in this dictionary. What were you looking for as you set out to make all this happen?
Reese:
We cover quite a range of issues and topics in the dictionary. We look at some individuals in the history of science; some important names, people like Galileo and Darwin and Einstein. And we also look at some of the key debates that often happen in Christianity; things like the age of the universe and the earth, different viewpoints on evolution, topics like the Fall, and the Genesis Flood. We get into some theological issues like the soul and life after death, and also some philosophical issues in science. Things like, “What is a law of nature?” And, “What are the limits of science?” Scientific inquiry; and then, “How can we relate theology to science?” So it’s a very broad spectrum of things we’re talking about.
Strauss:
I would add that the goal is to give an introduction to these topics; it’s not supposed to be exhaustive, either in the scope of topics or in the depth of each topic. But the idea is to give an introduction and every one of the topics gives further reading and recommendations you can delve deeper into it. It’s pretty exhaustive as you have said, Fred, but still the goal is to touch on these things from an evangelical viewpoint, but yet give people a starting point where they can delve deeper as well.
Zaspel:
You could hardly have chosen a general topic that is more controversial. With a book like this you know before you begin that virtually every entry will be met with criticism from one side or another. So when you come to address specific issues how do you handle the various viewpoints?
Strauss:
We have different kinds of entries in the dictionary, and one of the entries are things we call multiple viewpoint entries. And the real goal of those entries is to give different viewpoints a voice. Chris mentioned the age of the earth and how old is the universe and Christians have different viewpoints about that, so we have a multiple viewpoint entry there where different contributors get to describe and discuss their view and why they hold a certain view. And so on things that are controversial we have these much longer essay type views; and we as editors gave some latitude and leeway to the authors as they wrote that. So those are somewhat editorial in nature, though we’ve tried to keep them factual as well. One of the things we’ve tried to do in these controversial issues is, rather than present a single viewpoint that any of the editors would necessarily agree with, present multiple viewpoints. And then this serves as a great resource. If your goal with the dictionary is to come and hear the definitive evangelical view on a controversial issue, then you’re not going to see that; but if your goal is to get input from deep thinkers on these issues and see what the issues are, then it’s going to be a great resource for you.
Reese:
That’s right. I think we try to include the main evangelical approaches to the more controversial topics. And that’s the spirit that I think most of us general editors approached these things. We think most people should be able to present their viewpoints and have a rational discussion about it and learn from each other.
Zaspel:
Are all the viewpoints represented here viewpoints that fall within the evangelical camp? How broad is your purview here? Maybe you can give us a sample or two.
Reese:
I think that pretty much all the viewpoints that we have do fall within the evangelical camp. All of our contributors are in that orbit somewhere, and that’s what we wanted. There are a lot of other references out there that cover these topics from a more secular perspective. You’ll get all kinds of viewpoints, people that are pantheists and things like that. But we really wanted this dictionary to come at this from an evangelical viewpoint so when anyone picks it up, they’ll know that’s where pretty much everyone is coming from.
Strauss:
All the contributors had to say that they had a personal adherence to the National Association of Evangelicals’ statement of faith. So there is a broad spectrum there. You asked for a sample or two. I learned a lot because I grew up in a particular evangelical framework, and to hear others who hold to a high view of Scripture and yet see things, particularly in the early chapters of Genesis, differently was quite an eye-opener for me. So I learned a massive amount as an editor. One of the more controversial things, for example, might be the literal historicity of Adam and Eve, where among evangelicals who hold an inerrant view of Scripture there is still a discussion about what genre of writing the first few chapters of Genesis are and how the original readers would have represented what they read and interpreted what they read. There are certainly evangelicals who would say these are more allegorical or metaphorical and yet they still have an inerrant high view of Scripture. It was some views like that that I was exposed to for the first time. The beauty of the dictionary is that I get to read what others in the evangelical camp hold to without necessarily agreeing with them or changing my view. Out of everything, I think that was one of the more controversy things that we went through.
Reese:
That is a good example, Adam and Eve. The Fall would be another one that is kind of related to that. I agree with you, Mike, that I learned a lot reading these entries. It was interesting to see also in the history of the church all the various viewpoints that have been held. I think a lot of people think this is all sort of new but so many of the main viewpoints that are held today were also held by various people in church history. So it’s nice to see that historical background.
Strauss:
In fact, when we live in the 21st century, we think that some of these controversies are new, but in almost everything from how long ago the earth was created to how long it took to create the earth are ideas and discussions that have gone on for thousands of years with no monolithic view as to what is the right answer. So that is kind of eye-opening for those of us who think that new scientific theories like Evolution and the Big Bang have sparked controversy that never existed before, or interpretations that never existed before. And I think we can say, no, that’s not true, these ideas are not necessarily new, they are within the texts themselves. Within the texts themselves there’s difference of perception from mainline scholars as to what is trying to be said.
Zaspel:
So in one volume we can’t expect, of course, to find everything we need to know about a given topic, but we can expect to find the topics sketched out sufficiently to understand what’s going on. So, for example, we can learn the various interpretations of the Days of Genesis. Even though we don’t have all the arguments for all of the positions, we can understand sufficiently what each view is saying and why?
Strauss:
Absolutely. I think that’s a great example. In fact, we have three different long articles on interpretations of the views of Genesis which give some of the major viewpoints. But then we have another article that outlines about 12 interpretations that people hold even today. So, not only are these in-depth articles describing what evangelicals believe, but there’s a broader article that even gives a bigger perspective. I think that was one that we really touched on and delved into deeply. But even things like the Flood, what’s the extent of the Flood and what does the language of Genesis when it describes the Flood mean. Anything, like Evolution, that you think could be controversial and that Christians hold different views on, is going to be touched on to a level where you can get a really good feeling for what the various viewpoints are, again, among evangelical Christians.
Reese:
We tried to give more space to the more controversial issues. So hopefully we have majored on the key points that way.
Zaspel:
Chris mentioned Galileo a little while ago and I just have to put in a word for B. B. Warfield. You invited me to put in the article on B.B. Warfield. Do you have a significant emphasis in the book on historical figures like that as they bear on theology and science and the interaction between them?
Reese:
We do. We have quite a number of biographies. I was just looking over the list the last couple of days and there are quite a few, going all the way from the Patristic era all the way to modern times. Most of them, just for reasons of space, we devote about 500 words to. A few figures who have had a huge impact, we increased that. We did about 1200 words on some folks like Galileo and Darwin and a few others. The biographies are fascinating.
Strauss:
There’s a huge fraction of the book that is biographies. In fact, when Chris mentioned the word count, we call this a dictionary, but it really is an encyclopedia. The shortest articles are 500 words so it’s like Unger’s dictionary where there are really long articles on things.
Zaspel:
This book is a massive resource. How many topics do you address? And just how many contributors did you work with? Can you give us a sampling of the people who have participated?
Reese:
We have 456 entries written by about 140 different contributors. A lot of those are folks from North America; we also have some from Europe. Some of the contributors who come to mind are: William Lane Craig, Todd Beale, John Mark Reynolds, Bruce Gordon contributed quite a number of entries, Robert Bishop, Hugh Ross, Darrel Falk, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Craig Keener, Darrell Boch and a good number of others.
Zaspel:
And I assume each of you editors contributed something?
Strauss:
Yes, I think I wrote 20 articles, mostly scientific. I think I probably had the most articles of any individual, although Bruce Gordon wrote quite a few. The one I wrote that’s not purely scientific is the over view of the days of Genesis; I think I wrote for the Flood, too, the overview on that one, so a few of the overview biblical articles. The other thing is, Chris mentioned a lot of theologians and philosophers and all, but the scientists we have are all evangelicals, but names most people have heard of. He mentioned Hugh Ross, there’s Michael Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez; and then there’s some hidden gems. I know someone at the University of Oklahoma who is arguably one of the best historians of science in the world. He’s the curator of the History of Science Museum at Oklahoma. His name is Kerry Magruder and that would’ve been a resource that other people probably haven’t heard of. He contributed articles on historical figures in science. We really did scour around for people, many with very well-known names, but others who we knew would be great contributors that maybe are less well-known. And those maybe some of the hidden gems inside the whole dictionary.
Zaspel:
Who is your intended audience? At what level are the entries written? How long are they, and what depth of treatment can we expect?
Strauss:
We have three different kinds of articles. One is called an introduction and that’s about 500 words; and they are just shorter pieces that outline the facts of the topic. Some are called essays and they are about 1200 words; they are things that are a little more in-depth. I think my article on string theory is an essay because it takes 1200 words to describe string theory. And then we have these multiple view discussions that are at least two articles, each of 2500 words, that talk about different views.
The intended audience is really anybody, I think. Although the contributors are scholars, almost every one of them has a PhD in their respective fields, we try to have them write in a way that was free of jargon and free of ideas and presentations that would not be understandable. The goal is to make it accessible to anybody who has an interest. I have to admit that there are certain articles that I read that were little more challenging for me as a physicist to read, than some of the other ones; but I’m sure some of the physics articles would be more challenging to others to read. But although it’s a scholarly book, the goal was to make it accessible to anyone with an interest in the subject.
Reese:
Yes, that’s right. I think there are multiple audiences for this. I think it could be really useful as a supplementary textbook in certain courses, maybe in apologetics or philosophy of science, some historical classes. And I think pastors will find this very helpful, maybe especially college or high school pastors who often have to answer questions like this. Students will ask them questions about Christianity and science and so I think it would be a good pastoral resource also.
Zaspel:
I don’t think you have to be a theologian or a scientist to benefit from it. I’ve been looking through it here and it’s really impressive
Strauss:
I would argue that almost every pastor should read it. As a scientist, I hear so much misinformation from the pulpit, both about what science claims and sometimes what Scripture says. As a professor at a secular university, I come across the results of the Science/Christian discussion at churches all the time. I have students come into my office who are having a crisis of faith and the real reason is they have been exposed to may be one idea about how Scripture and science fits together, and that idea no longer fits the information they are learning at the secular university. And if every pastor had this resource, and when someone comes to them and says, what does Scripture say about the age of the earth, and they said there are multiple views, and why don’t you read some of these, or here they are, I think there would be a lot less students in the university who have a crisis of their faith. Because they will understand this broader evangelical perspective. So if it was up to me, I would make it, particularly these multiple entry views, mandatory reading for every pastor who wants to get up and say this is how science and Scripture agree or this is what science says about Scripture or Scripture says about science.
Reese:
I agree with that. Looking at it from a different angle, in the past 10 years or so the new atheist writers have tried to use science to bludgeon Christians into submission, so this dictionary is a great resource to undermine that approach. This sort of conflict idea that they always try to promote, that Christianity and science are locked in a battle to the death, is just not true. So I think this would be a good resource to combat a lot of the nonsense that comes from them on science.
Zaspel:
I believe it. I think this book was over-due. What were you looking for as you edited these articles? And did the articles generally require much editorial work on your part?
Strauss:
One thing I was looking for is checking the facts, making sure that people say things that are correct. Again, as a scientist, I hear a lot of supposed facts preached about that are really very suspect at best. I think fairness was another thing, particularly with these editorial multiple entry views. We wanted to make sure that views were presented fairly. The people who wrote differing views did not get a chance to see what the other person wrote, so it wasn’t an attack on the other person, it was presenting their view. So a civil tone was important to me. Clarity that brought some kind of insight into the topic. And when it comes to the multiple entries, as an editor, I did struggle a little bit because I didn’t always agree with them and I wanted to give the contributor flexibility in what they were saying. We write in the intro that sometimes there’s a fine line between facts and opinion in certain of these areas and I think in those multiple entry ones we let the opinions come through a little bit. Although, in the other ones it was a little tighter. Like everything, some articles required quite a bit of editing and some did not. I have a few articles that I have written that if you compare the final entry to the original entry there’s an extreme amount of red ink in that process. I think it kind of depends on who’s writing and how controversial subject is and other things.
Zaspel:
Well, this is important, I think. It’s an important work that, as you write, Mike, that it’s an area where theology and science does interface a lot and it may be frustrating to scientists to hear preachers talk about it, but it’s also frustrating sometimes for theologians to hear scientists talk about the Bible, too. And it’s a great resource to check each other on that. We have two volumes of divine revelation, we have natural revelation and special revelation and both are true. Our interpretations of either can be mistaken and having the other side check us is an important thing, I think.
Reese:
Do you want to say anything about your Warfield entry, Fred?
Zaspel:
No, I’m good with that. We’ve mentioned it, we’ve highlighted it, I’ll just say, “buy the book and read it.”
Are there any other particular features of this dictionary that you’d like to point out?
Strauss:
I have one I think is really important because it was conveyed to me as I wrote my articles. There’s so much resources to find things, let’s take my entry on string theory. If I want to go find out about string theory, I can go read Wikipedia or pick up Brian Greene’s book, The Elegant Universe, so why would I want another resource? And one thing that we tried to do is, this is an article of science and Christianity; so in every article we try to highlight its relationship between the subject and theology. So when I write string theory, I say what does this have to do with the character of God or with my understanding of God or with theology in general? And you’re not going to find that in any other resource. So if you think, I can go read about some of the subjects anywhere, you’re right, you can; but this certain aspect to every article that really tries to make the connection between the science and the theology, is only going to be found here. I don’t know anywhere else you’re going to get that and so I think that’s a really valuable thing for people who are asking these questions and trying to investigate this topic.
Reese:
That is important. Christianity and science cuts across so many disciplines and we been able to bring so many different contributors together under one roof with this. We have scientists and theologians and philosophers and experts in biblical studies. I think it’s just awesome to have all of those disciplines come together to address these different topics. It’s just a wealth of resources.
Zaspel:
We’re talking to Chris Reese and Michael Strauss, coeditors of the new Dictionary of Christianity and Science. It’s really an impressive accomplishment, sure to become a standard resource that will find a spot in every library.
Chris, Mike – thanks much for talking to us today. Congratulations on a real accomplishment.
