But which God? 4

On Tues and Thurs RJS puts up posts about science and faith. I want to add to that theme today by suggesting that the relationship of science and faith correlates (sometimes at a high level) with what kind of God we believe in — and we are looking into Paul Froese and Christopher Bader, America’s Four Gods: What We Say about God–and What That Says about Us. They have found Americans can be mapped on four views of God: Authoritative, Benevolent, Critical, and Distant.

Your image of God correlates with what you think about science and faith. Those who believe in an Authoritative or Benevolent God, think God is engaged; those who believe in a Critical or Distant God, think God is less engaged. This relates to science and faith, because that issue is about how God engages the world. The Critical or Distant God types trust in science more.

It’s one thing to say those who believe in a Distant or Critical God are more prone to trust in science, but can we infer from what we think of science to our view of God? Do “science types” (who are Christians) have a less engaged God? Do they have a more Distant God? Are they more prone toward Deism? Do those who distrust science have a specific view of God shaping that distrust?

A few observations:

First, whether acknowledged or not, most Americans negotiate somehow between faith and science, finding space in their faith for science.

Second, there are basically two approaches: Spinoza’s God, who is to be found through nature, and not logically distinct from nature, and what we find through nature is what God is like, and Leibniz, who argued that God was independent of nature. The way to study God for Spinoza was science. The way to study God for Leibniz was through revelation. Most Americans, however, side more with Leibniz than Spinoza.

Third, some interesting conclusions of this study:

Those who believe in the Authoritative God: 92% think God does things that defy the laws of nature; 27% think science will solve our problems; 55% think we rely too much on science; 19% think we evolved from primates; 60% think we should teach creationism in schools; 11% think science and faith are incompatible (51% of atheists think so; 18% of Distint, Critical God think so); since most Evangelicals are Authoritative God types, only 24% support govt spending for science research.

Those who believe in the Benevolent God are often with the Authoritative God in science and faith discussions, because both of these types see God as engaged. The Critical and Distant God types are more with Spinoza and see God at work through nature and therefore fully support scientific work.

Odd conclusion they make: when it comes to evolution, the Authoritative and Benevolent God types don’t trust science, but there is no other area of science where this distrust shows up to the same degree.

Thus, the creation-evolution debate is about how people envision God’s activity in this world.

The creation science debate is an attempt for believers to validate themselves through science, so the efforts here are actually a way of giving authority to science.

Between 40-50% Americans believe in a kind of creation; but more than half of Americans also believe in evolution, which means that most Americans are more or less theistic evolutionists.

The deepest skepticism about the relationship of science and faith comes from atheists and not from believers.

One’s position on Intelligent Design, they also conclude, is shaped by one’s view of God.