By Samuel Postma
“Western Science has been our god” (James 5). In her novel, The Children of Men, P. D. James’s character Theo writes about his culture’s attitude toward science. In James’s bleak vision of 2021, humanity is infertile, and no child has been born for over 20 years. This phenomenon is inexplicable yet accurate nonetheless. Scientists have tried to explain it, but they are unable. Regardless, society continues to worship science as it has in the past. Science is the bringer of all good things, but it requires no homage, and deserting it as desired produces no immediate consequences. About science, Theo notes, “We have felt free to criticize and occasionally reject it as men have always rejected their gods” (5). Humankind considers itself free to accept or reject science—worship or ignore—based on the feelings it evokes.
This reflection on James’s part serves as commentary for modern society. Actual Western culture views science from a peculiar, dualistic approach. Scientists are the subjects of extensive honor and respect in today's society. If a scientist speaks, the public listens. Little question is given about whether the speaker is correct or qualified to address the present subject. However, society chooses to dismiss scientists’ advice, recommendations, and arguments when they find them inconvenient or uncomfortable. If the scientist speaks about a political topic, people are far more willing to dismiss their opinions than if the matter were not political. For a Christian scientist, this somewhat arbitrary dynamic poses an intense conundrum. That Christian should be concerned about idolizing science, illogically rejecting or accepting the opinion of so-called experts, their potentially positive position as a societal leader, and the worldview to which those who listen to them ascribe. Believing scientists must prayerfully consider their role in the world and how best to interact with it. They must handle the authority science holds carefully, as good stewards of it, in a manner that glorifies God. This essay seeks to evaluate the present state of society’s perception of science in both our culture’s appreciation and distrust of the subject. It will then consider applicable leadership approaches Christians in their research fields could apply. These leadership approaches will inform the specific recommendation for scientists that follows afterward.
Society’s Views of Science
The first portion of the issue that must be addressed is society’s respect for scientific pursuits. According to Kennedy et al., 77% of the public believes scientists deserve a fair amount of trust and that they will act according to society’s success (5). Medical scientists received a score of 78% for a “fair amount of confidence” in 2022 (Kennedy et al. 5). These statistics show a strong majority, although room for distrust still exists. They indicate that the public trusts scientists to act in their interests more than society trusts politicians or other groups (Funk 87). Public support for scientists places them as the most authoritative group in society, traditionally considered “experts.”
Contributors to Society’s Views: Empiricism
Several possible reasons and factors contribute to our culture’s respect for science and those that engage in the process. Among them is a worldview, or framework for understanding reality, labeled empiricism. Lisle explains that empiricism argues that people can only acquire knowledge through observations, experiences, and tests (Ultimate Proof 38). This belief system became prominent during the Enlightenment (“3 Enlightenment”). It was the Age of Reason when intellect and scientific discovery were glorified. Experimental verification was elevated above other forms of knowledge. Likely, Western culture’s historical roots in this Age of Reason are at least partially responsible for its acceptance and propagation of the empirical worldview. An emphasis on experiment-based knowledge would explain why those who engage in such endeavors are considered most trustworthy.
Empiricism’s Godlessness
However, empiricism as the ultimate authority of truth represents a thoroughly unbiblical viewpoint. Proverbs 9:10 and Colossians 2:3 indicate that only in God does knowledge begin. Jesus states that He is truth (John 14:6). If knowledge begins in God, then humanity should begin its rational investigations dependent on Him, starting their reality exploration by acknowledging and submitting themselves to Almighty God (Bahnsen 165-166). Knowledge itself is based on God; it is only by common grace, and God’s image in them, that the unbeliever can ascertain truth (Lisle, Intro to Logic 9-11). Christian scientists cannot rationally accept this valorized view of empiricism given its inconsistency with their professed faith.
A Christian scientist has further reasons to reject empiricism beyond its incongruence with their beliefs. God is a rational entity (Bahnsen 98). Furthermore, God is the standard for rationality as He is the absolute Being (Lisle, Intro to Logic 7). Given these premises, it is natural to conclude that if empiricism is unbiblical, it will also be illogical. Lisle explains that empiricism is a self-defeating belief system (Ultimate Proof 38). Empiricism argues all knowledge must be experimentally or observationally verified. However, it is a knowledge statement itself, and it cannot be experimentally verified because it is an abstract concept. Empiricism is inconsistent with itself and cannot, therefore, be deemed true (38). Despite the worldview’s logical failure, it remains popular throughout society and even among Christians (38). Scientists should not accept illogical beliefs because they are individuals dedicated to discovering the world’s workings.
Empiricism’s Irrationality
Knowledge’s foundation in God, however, does not prohibit engaging in experimental pursuits. Scientists have proposed many statements about the nature of the physical world that appear to reflect accurately how the universe behaves. This truth is a perplexing fact when the thinker notes that scientific reasoning appears superficially fallacious. Most attempts to understand the world empirically involve observation, explanation, prediction, testing, revision, and repeating the cycle. Ostensibly, if the explanation for observations consistently predicts the outcome, scientists may have confidence that their explanation is at least partially correct. However, a significant problem with this reasoning exists. It follows the format of a formal fallacy known as “Affirming the Consequent” (Lisle, Discerning Truth 70-72). According to this fallacy, if p then q; q, therefore p. However, there may be many other causes other than p that yield q. As an example, astronomers used to believe the sun orbited the earth. Now, they know that the earth orbits the sun. The observations possessed by ancient astronomers, paired with their explanations of the available data, did align with each other. Their explanations (p) would align with their observations (q). However, a simpler explanation, where the sun remained immobile, also explained q, even though this view was disregarded for centuries. Much of science follows this method of reasoning. Despite its being fallacious, it successfully discovers fact. The unstated assumption that corrects this fallacy is the belief that the world behaves consistently. Through trial and error, a scientist can progressively reach more correct explanations of the world’s functions (70–72). Nonetheless, the assumption of consistency is itself extremely difficult to rationalize. It is logically necessary because humans rely upon uniformity when using their physical brains. What most of the secular world misses, though, is that justifying the assumption of consistency requires an appeal to an outside, consistent, sovereign force. Only God satisfies the requirements of being sovereign Creator, the Determiner of reality, and eternally uniform. As a result, only God accounts for the founding principle of science (Lisle, Ultimate Proof 62-63). Experimental pursuits are not ungodly. Instead, they are God-honoring as they find justification in His nature. It is the elevation of experimentation to the level of empiricism that is idolatrous and illogical.
Reacting to Empiricism
Even though excessive acceptance of scientific claims is an issue that Christian scientists should attempt to address and be mindful of, its existence is a present reality; moreover, Christians may use it positively. Society’s trust in science positions the scientist in a unique role in culture and gives them a particular kind of power. However, this power is not something to be misused or wielded carelessly. Christian scientists have a responsibility to use the things given to them for God's glory. Scientists should seek to use their positions in society to spread the Gospel and the truth. They should always try to provide accurate information so that they do not deceive others. At the same time, they must reframe the public’s perception of them for the culture’s benefit. As teachers, they will be held accountable by God, according to James 3:1.
Social Skepticism Towards Science
However, society has not given itself over to science completely. Just as a fictional culture chooses to dismiss science when it feels compelled to in The Children of Men, so Western culture remains somewhat skeptical of scientists. Although scientists in general hold one of the highest levels of public trust among social groups, the statistics mentioned earlier show that society still questions them (Funk 86; Kennedy et al. 4). According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, while most of society does place some confidence in scientists, only 29% of people placed significant confidence in them in 2022 (Kennedy et al. 4). Near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, this statistic stood at 40%—much higher (4). This correlation suggests that factors involved with the pandemic may have impacted public confidence in scientists. However, according to Funk, even in 2017, the public was careful with its trust in scientific researchers (86). While confidence presents one issue for Christian scientists to address, lack of trust in the scientific community presents another.
Skepticism’s Desirability
A rational degree of skepticism for scientists is crucial for maintaining logical thought and accountability within the scientific community. Appealing to an expert’s authority about any topic requires care to avoid committing the informal fallacy of a Faulty Appeal to Authority (Lisle, Intro to Logic 145-148). The expert must be an expert specifically on the subject under scrutiny (146). This can be troublesome since the scientific field is incredibly diverse. An expert in biology may be an expert on one biological protein but only know the basics of environmental science. Also, no person should ever treat a human authority as infallible. Between the Fall in Genesis 3 and humanity’s natural limitations, it is possible for the most well-intentioned scientist, the appeal to whom meets all logical criteria, to be incorrect (147). An appeal to an expert should also never replace personal analysis of available data and rational thought. Expert opinions should be supplementary or invoked when it is not feasible to investigate a given claim (146). Lastly, any appeal to authority must be careful to observe biases and worldviews that might influence the expert's opinion (147). For instance, a scientist with an empirical worldview may dismiss evidence that researchers could use to support the existence of God. These qualifications mean that society should maintain some skepticism toward claims made by scientists.
To an extent, our present culture does recognize the above requirements. Unlike in The Children of Men, many areas where the public doubts scientists’ motives are the most reasonable areas to doubt them. Society questions scientists most when they speak to highly controversial issues, despite being within their field of expertise. Examples include global warming, modifying food genetically, and vaccinating children (Funk 86). Another example might be statements about the functionality of masks or the reliability and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. The decline in public trust in scientists over the past two years of the pandemic is dramatic (Kennedy et al. 4–5). Global warming and the pandemic are highly political issues where scientists may be more inclined to give biased claims based on economic motivation or political bent. Although this doubt may sometimes mean the public rejects thorough and accurate research, maintaining a healthy degree of skepticism about controversial topics is valuable.
Social Factors Impacting Society’s Views
Unfortunately, several outside factors impact skepticism or trust in science besides careful analysis of an authority’s qualifications. Among them is political affiliation. In 2022, Republicans are showing significantly less confidence in scientists, likely due to their beliefs regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Only 15% of Republicans have a great deal of confidence, and 34% say they have little to no confidence in the scientific community (Kennedy et al. 7). These numbers have decreased from pre-pandemic numbers, though they were never especially high (7). Conversely, over 40% of Democrats continue to have higher confidence levels in the scientific community, though COVID-19 also adversely affected these statistics (7). Before the coronavirus outbreak, there was a noticeable difference between Black, Hispanic, and White groups. Although no group lacked significant confidence in scientists, Black individuals expressed less confidence than those who were White (8–9). The pandemic has reduced these confidence numbers and leveled them out so that all three groups express similar degrees of trust (8). Political affiliation and racial identity may unduly affect trust in scientists.
Worldviews and pre-existing beliefs will naturally affect skepticism toward various arguments. Assuming one’s assumptions are correct and the justification for said distrust is sound, the hesitancy is warranted and right. Nonetheless, just as society can place more confidence in scientists than is wise, its doubt in them can also produce issues. Too much concern may cause the individual to reject valuable and even lifesaving information. Much research and extensive discussion exist about using vaccines to prevent disease. Distrust of researchers may cause communities to avoid such vaccinations, increasing the incidence of disease within their group. The rejection of medical recommendations for treating diseases may exacerbate the issue. Unsubstantiated fear of new practices based on previous mistakes may cause society to reject the best option for solving issues. At the very least, rejection of scientific research may cause a group to lose credibility among their peers, silencing their voice. A delicate balance exists between healthy skepticism and reasonable acceptance of the claims espoused by scientists.
Responding to the Data
A scientist who believes Christ’s claims and affirms the Christian faith faces a puzzling dilemma. They live and work in a culture that sometimes gives them more authority than they may believe is right. They work with colleagues and speak to people who hold an unbiblical worldview they must confront. However, their role also gives them a special ability to speak into people’s lives and give God glory. They must use this privileged status well. At the same time, society questions them healthily, which should give the researcher some comfort of accountability. Because of various historical events, some groups overcompensate for their previous trust and doubt scientists more than might be wise. A Christian scientist must simultaneously help people embrace scientific research while encouraging them to remain skeptical when appropriate. The best way to encourage this balance of beliefs is for Christian scientific community members to engage in authentic and transformational leadership practices. Both theories emphasize openness and positive relationships. By utilizing them, a leader in a scientific field may successfully navigate complex trust issues within culture.
Transformational Leadership
The first theory the reader should consider is Transformational Leadership. This leadership model focuses on the leader’s responsibility to transform their followers and the environment around them so that their followers become more effective in their roles. It emphasizes trust, integrity, creating a vision, empowering those around the leader to become leaders themselves, and living out the values affirmed by the group. Kouzes and Posner describe two particular practices included in this leadership approach that may be particularly valuable for Christian scientists (43–45, 47–48). As leaders of society, scientists should be careful in how they live and interact with the culture so that they demonstrate a proper understanding of science’s place in the world (43–45). They should be cautious not to affirm empiricism in their lives or research. They should maintain proper respect for their and others’ fields while also recognizing their limitations. Scientists must exercise caution and care with their language (47–48). Their words may determine how those with whom they speak perceive their research. It is the scientist's responsibility to represent their research and authority properly. Their language will influence their listeners’ understandings of reality in a positive or negative way. By speaking and living well, Christian scientists will serve as godly ambassadors for their scientific field, demonstrating the rightful position experimental pursuits should hold in society.
Authentic Leadership
Another leadership theory that scientists can utilize is Authentic Leadership. This leadership model emphasizes openness about one’s thoughts, attitudes, and intentions (Gardner et al. 1121). It describes the importance of being aware of one's biases and taking care to overcome them while maintaining an integrous commitment to professed moral beliefs (1123). Leaders must commit to developing themselves, being relationally transparent, and adapting to challenges (1121, 1123). Believing scientists should also seek to be open about their research. They should publicly acknowledge its faults and strengths. They should actively seek engagement with members of society in roles radically different than their own. Scientists must note their faults and confess when they possess motives that might not be conducive to unbiased research. These practices may assist scientists in fostering a more appropriate public image for science.
A Specific Recommendation
These leadership models give broad suggestions for actions and approaches scientists can take to address the issues facing their communities and society as a whole. But there are concrete tools they may use as well. One action that scientists may take to begin the process of reaching a more balanced cultural disposition is engaging in and returning to rigorous peer review. Peer review has been a long-standing practice in scientific research since it started in 1665 (Kharasch et al. 1). However, the Internet, society’s need for efficiency, and the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic have reduced scientists’ concern with honest, extensive peer review (2). Posting articles before they have been adequately reviewed leads to misinformation, which abuses science’s power and leads to public distrust (2). Although the public should be cautious about what it accepts as true and to what it ascribes authority, scientists have the first responsibility to test and ensure the truth of what they publish (3). Peer review better ensures the scientific accuracy of what is presented. Practicing it communicates the potential fallibility inherent in human research endeavors while also bolstering public confidence in the truth and clarity of what is communicated (1). While slower, it helps scientists steward their leadership position in a given culture, limiting society’s excessive confidence while building legitimate trust in scientific fields.
Final Thoughts
The issues facing a faithful Christian in the scientific field are extensive and convoluted. They should be concerned about having too much power in society’s eyes. An overreach of power reduces their accountability and misrepresents the authority scientists should possess. The believer must attempt to temper the value culture imposes on science. However, when our culture overcompensates or lacks due confidence in research, the scientist must advocate for a field that honors and glorifies God as it engages with His creation. The Christian scientist must hold these two principles in hand, recognizing that they are not contradictory. Instead, a fine balance may be struck between the two. To communicate these concepts, scientists should seek to emulate values expressed in Transformational and Authentic Leadership. Among these values are openness, authenticity, integrity, and adherence to ethical standards. One specific practice the Christian scientist may take to apply these theories is holding strictly to peer review. By slowing the publication and posting of research, as well as seeking the advice and feedback of peers, the scientist increases the reliability and integrity of their research. They foster an accurate public image. Ultimately, the believer must seek to handle their leadership role in a manner that glorifies God. They must steward the power they have to edify others and serve God’s Kingdom. Their final responsibility is to their King, acting as ambassadors for Him. As teachers, instructors, and stewards of truth, they hold a special responsibility. In this way, they truly embody the sentiment put forth by the Apostle James in the Bible: “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).
Works Cited
“3 Enlightenment, Science and Empiricism.” The Enlightenment, 2022,
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history-art/the-enlightenment/content-
Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. P & R Publishing, 1998.
Funk, Cary. “Mixed Messages About Public Trust in Science.” Issues in Science and
Technology, vol. 34, no. 1, 2017, pp. 86–88.
Gardner, William L., et al. “Authentic Leadership: A Review of the Literature and Research
Agenda.” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 6, 2011, pp. 1120–1145.
James, P. D. The Children of Men. Vintage Books, 2006.
Kennedy, Brian, et al. “Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Other Groups Declines.” Pew Research
Center Science & Society, Pew Research Center, 15 Feb. 2022,
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-groups-
Kharasch, Evan D., et al. “Peer Review Matters: Research Quality and the Public
Trust.” Anesthesiology, vol. 134, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 1–6. EBSCOhost,
https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000003608
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. The Student Leadership Challenge: Five Practices for
Becoming an Exemplary Leader. Jossey-Bass, 2018.
Lisle, Jason. Discerning Truth: Exposing Errors in Evolutionary Arguments. Master Books,
2010. EBSCOhost,
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&AuthType=shib,sso&db=cat07622a&AN=nul.1868953&site=eds-
Lisle, Jason. Intro to Logic: Informal Fallacies. New Leaf Publishing Group, 2018.
---. The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate. New Leaf
Publishing Group, 2009.