It's always struck me as absurd that so many people
think there is incompatibly between good science and good Christianity. By
'good science', I mean science that does not believe it has anything to say
about the truth of Christianity, and by 'good Christianity' I mean a Christian
faith that does not seek to distort or deny scientific facts. This wisdom
follows a logical path, which says that if x has no bearing on the truth of y,
then one (from either side of the argument) cannot use x as an attempt to deny
the truth of y. We do not need to refer to arthritis when studying
geoengineering, but being an expert in geoengineering doesn't undermine
people's experiences of arthritis. We do not need to refer to psychotherapy
when studying calculus, but being a mathematician doesn't undermine the
qualities of psychotherapy. Similarly, we do not need to refer to the Christian
faith when doing science, but nothing we do in science undermines the
probability that Christianity is true. How can it? Christianity is true, and
science is the most useful experimental tool we have - both are perfectly
compatible when engaged with properly.
Unfortunately, many of the most prominent spokespeople for atheism and for Christianity are under the assumption that they have to defend their science against religious faith, or that they have to defend their religious faith against scientism (the mistaken belief that science is only way to render truth about reality). Of course, if you are riddled with the mistaken assumption that science is the only way to render truth about reality, then you are likely to infer the absence of evidence for Christianity; just as if Jack is riddled with the mistaken assumption about the connection between arthritis and geoengineering, he is likely to infer from his studies of geoengineering that claims about arthritis are dubious.
A proper analysis of the situation would reveal that both science and Christianity are underpinned by four primary qualities; truth, mental cognition, mathematics and logic - all of which are instantiated in the person of God. Even if you don't yet believe in God, you should at least attest to the fact that science and Christianity are both underwritten by truth, mental cognition, mathematics and logic, and that science is inadequate for the matter of attempting to supersede or replace religious faith. Scientism's arguments against the existence of God (from Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss, etc) are like those of a crazed chef, who tries to cook a luxury banquet with only bread and water as ingredients, and then when he hears from the guests that their meal wasn't very tasty, concludes that banquets are not really very luxurious after all.
