Asking the Right Question: Notes on the languages of faith and science

I was sitting around the table at the local Men's Bible Study today when I heard an anecdote, which I will paraphrase here:

"Did you know that it takes three to four generations for the monarch butterfly to return to Mexico and find the trees that its grandparents or great-grandparents left? Now scientists try to say that butterflies travel by the stars, so I asked my grandkid, 'Can you count to ten?' 'Yes,' he said. 'One... two......ten.' 'Good. Now, can you travel by the stars?' 'No.' 'Can a butterfly count to ten?' 'No.' 'OK, then can a butterfly travel by the stars?' 'No.' Right, there's no way a butterfly can follow the stars. Scientists don't know how to explain how the monarchs make it to Mexico, but they don't want to admit that it's a miracle so they come up with this explanation."

So there I sat, uneasily taking the story in. In another setting I would have argued against this kind of faith/science dichotomy, but this was my first time at the Bible Study and I really, really didn't want to be the know-it-all pastor. So I said nothing. Then, I thought about it some... and thought about it some more. Finally, hours after the study I began to see the problem with the monarch example, and it wasn't a problem of the truth or fiction of science or faith. The problem with the statement is the language of exclusion that does not allow for both the scientific explanation and the miraculous.

This is part of the bigger struggle between those of a scientific background and those from a background of faith. One seeks to explain how everything works, the other seeks to explain why everything works, and both too often assume that the how or the why are more important than the other instead of two parts of the more important: So what?

To use the monarch story as an example, the scientist may rightly ask how it is that a butterfly who has no living memory of a place can find its way home. The answer may be in the stars or in pheromones or in some other uniquely monarch trait. To answer the question "how" is to give language to describe some of the behavior that makes a monarch a monarch. It does not make a value judgment on the monarch; it is neither good nor bad. Nor does it say why there is such a thing as a monarch in the first place.

A person looking at the monarch story from the perspective of faith may say that the butterfly has a miraculous ability to find its way home, as the story told above suggests, but it is equally important that we realize this is not an answer to "how" the monarch is, well, a monarch. The monarch does not find its way to Mexico because of a miracle, unless by "miracle" we instead mean something closer to "wonder." Instead, the fact that the monarch makes it to Mexico is a miracle; i.e. an event that gives meaning, that gives us a "why."

The question underneath the surface is not a why or a how at all. In fact, it is the big question of whether the monarch has anything to say about God. Again, this demands neither a how or a why; instead it wonders about the origin behind the thing, the creator behind the creation, or the absence thereof. The monarch's journey may be a sign, but it does not preclude the laws of physics, biology or chemistry from working as they are wont to do. The how and the why are not mutually exclusive. A science-only perspective may try to answer by explaining how the monarch is capable of making the journey without the necessity of the divine. A faith-only perspective might say that the miraculous nature of the trip is evidence of God's handiwork. Yet, both remain incapable of coming to a simple concern, finding it easier to answer their own begged questions than figuring out where the rubber really meets the road.

I don't have yet have the perfect question; let alone an answer. I haven't yet stumbled upon the conversation starter that allows everybody in. But I'm getting closer. With each of these encounters I'm finding myself more and more sure that there is language that can synthesize the how and the why and give us a big so what, but for now I'll keep thinking and stop typing. I'm usually better for that anyway :-)