Slippery Slopes in the Religion-Science Debate?

In this video Conversation, Joel Hunter addresses the “slippery slope” argument supported by many evangelicals and suggests that not only is this perspective flawed, but it also may prevent believers from appreciating the fullness of God’s creation.

Hunter explains that when evangelicals argue that to accept science is to reject God (and biblical inerrancy), what is really being protected is a singular way to interpret scripture. Many evangelical parents are guarding the only type of literalistic interpretation that they themselves were taught because they fear that supporting scientific thought would negate the messages they have learned from scripture—when in fact, we can believe in the inerrancy in scripture without discarding scientific truths.

No Slippery Slopes | The BioLogos Forum.

I generally like Joel’s name argument, but this one doesn’t go far enough, in my opinion. I believe that he is essentially correct – why? Because nearly the same argument was used during the Reformation against the Reformers. The argument of ‘slippery slope’ is one used to preserve a subjective interpretation of Scripture against challenges.

This is a thought in the back of my mind, for now … when Christ said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, and if all Truth is God’s truth, then why is it that science cannot play a part in understanding the Text?

You Might Also Like

7 Replies to “Slippery Slopes in the Religion-Science Debate?”

  1. Slippery slope arguments in general annoy me. The fact that the slope is slippery doesn’t mean that I have to avoid it altogether; it just means that I should cross the slope carefully.

  2. I have issues with this in school. Some of my Christian students failed the chapters on evolution because they wrote it off completely. Not able to realize that they can learning about it without choosing to believe it. As a Christian science teacher, I really appreciated this post and agree with your final comments.

  3. Thanks, Nathan.

    One of the best teachers that I had in college (at Southerneastern Louisiana U.) was an atheist evolutionary biologist. I had to take him for Biology 101 or something. Anyway, when approaching evolution, he acknowledge what a theory was, and taught it as a theory, not to the exclusion of questioning, but even went so far as to say that the final answer to why? was the God Particle. He was honest and didn’t make us believe it his way.

  4. This also goes along with the argument made about Christians being ostracized in higher ed circles. Sometimes we need to be quiet and listen. There is nothing wrong with writing/testing/arguing for a view you don’t believe in. I really think in many cases that it’s that insistence of inserting your own view (beliefs) that gets so many into trouble.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.