FASTLY - Faith & Science Teaching

Zero-Sum Games

In Brief

Sometimes apparent conflicts between faith and science are spoken of as if they were a zero-sum game where each side can only gain by making the other side lose. This activity challenges this assumption, and helps students to see that interactions between science and faith can also be win-win situations in which important truths are revealed through both disciplines.

Thinking Ahead

In game theory, a zero-sum game is a contest in which every gain by one side is a loss by the other. For instance, one player’s +1 is balanced by the other player’s -1, so the sum remains zero. A boxing match is a zero-sum game where one fighter can only win if the other loses. A decision about whether to grow flowers or vegetables need not be a zero-sum game because it is usually possible to grow both, even in the same plot. Many interactions are not zero-sum games. Parents who have a second child do not find that they have only half as much love to offer each child.

Regarding the science-faith interaction as a zero-sum game implies that when both science and faith have something to say about a given topic, to the degree one is correct, the other must be incorrect. Therefore, the only way for one to gain social status or explanatory power is at the expense of the other: if science gains, faith loses and vice versa. It is not surprising when Christians who assume science and faith to be in a zero-sum conflict thereby regard scientific claims with skepticism, and vice versa.

If science and faith are both gifts from God, their interaction cannot be a zero-sum game. Christian theologians often refer to two kinds of revelation: general revelation from God’s world and special revelation from God’s word. Both types of revelation bring truth to us from God, and both can be misunderstood, and there can seem to be conflicts. However, they work together to give us a more complete perspective on reality and a greater appreciation of God’s greatness.

The purpose of this activity is to challenge the assumption that we have to choose between faith and science and to suggest that another option exists in which science and faith both win. Both perspectives might be right; each tells a different but important part of the story. Teaching FASTly involves looking for ways both science and faith are given what is their rightful claim. Consider how this activity relates to your own rhetorical practices in class. How do you speak with students about faith and science issues?

Preparing the Activity

Needed:

• Zero-Sum Games slides and a projector

Teaching the Activity

Tell students that they are going to engage in some careful thinking about the relationship between science and religion. Show the first slide from Zero-Sum Games. This activity begins with pairs of statements. It asks students to consider the differences between the pairs in which one statement logically determines the other, and ones in which it does not. Reveal the sentences one by one and discuss as a class which of the pairs allow us to predict the second sentence. These are not trick questions. Students should assume that the pair of sentences describe the same event.

• Jose won the game of chess against Ben; Ben ………… the game of chess against Jose.
• In the school production, Herbie played Macbeth very well. Laura played Lady Macbeth very ……………
• Jenny played superbly for her soccer team in the last game. Rachel played ………….. for the same team in the last game.
• Micah beat Tony in their wrestling contest. Tony …………. Micah in their wrestling contest.
• Kari’s painting of the house captured it well. Akira’s photo of the house captured it ………….

On the next slide show the definition of zero-sum games, and ask students which of the pairs of sentences from the preceding discussion represented zero-sum games and which did not. Confirm that the students understand the concept. Point out that many relationships are not zero-sum games. In contrast many relationships are “win-win situations,” in which both parties can gain. For instance, when parents have a second child, they do not have to love the first child half as much as before or choose which child to love. Questions whether I should eat carefully or exercise are usually answered by “both.” Allow students to brainstorm some further examples of win-win situations and zero-sum games.

Project and discuss the third slide with a focus on faith and science. Start the discussion with the statement:

• The scientific view of the issue under debate turned out to be true. The theological view of the issue under debate turned out to be……….

Ask whether this is a zero-sum game. Allow debate understanding that the discussion itself may clarify that there is more than one possible outcome—true, false, uncertain. This is not a zero-sum game.

After brief discussion, move on to further examples, in each case asking whether we have a zero-sum game or whether both claims could be true. Encourage discussion. It is not necessary to assume that all Christians would accept that both statements are true. Christians may disagree. However, the question here is whether one claim necessarily excludes the other. It is good to acknowledge complexity throughout this discussion.

• The Sistine chapel ceiling is made of atoms. The Sistine chapel ceiling tells the story of creation.
• Biology says all humans are mammals. Theology says all humans are made in God’s image.
• Meteorology says that rain comes from water vapor cooling and condensing. The Bible says that God sends rain as a blessing.
• Chemistry says water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Theology says the water of baptism means death, cleansing and rebirth to a new life.
• Physics says the universe began with the Big Bang. Theology says that the universe began because of God’s act of creation.
• Science says that dead people do not come back to life. Theology says that God raised Jesus from the dead.
• Some scientists believe that faith in God is misplaced. Believers hold that faith in God is well placed.

With the first four statements, it seems possible to affirm both sides at once since one statement does not rule out the other necessarily. A number of the students might feel the statements to be in tension when interpreted in particular ways. Even with the sixth statement, which looks more like a conflict, Christians do not deny the scientific view. It is precisely because in the normal order of things dead people do not come back to life that the resurrection of Christ is regarded as a startling exception that signals something more than a normal process at work. The fifth is more controversial for some Christians. The last one is more like a zero-sum game, not between science and theology per se, but only between the views of particular scientists and believers.

If you have time, discuss these or other examples in more depth. For example, from the Bible alone, we would not classify bats and dolphins as mammals. The Bible does not discuss the usefulness of hair, mammary glands, warm-bloodedness, DNA, and so on for grouping animals, nor does it discuss how cellular and biochemical similarities between mammals make organ and tissue transplants between them possible.

Based on our bodies alone, science classifies us as mammals, and lives have been saved by the medical use of products from other mammals including organs, tissues, proteins like insulin and immunoglobulins. On the other hand, the claim that humans are made in and called to be the image of God is not a matter open to scientific methods of study. It is not based on particular biological characteristics or the capacities that humans possess. Taken together, science notes that humans have mammal bodies, and faith affirms that we are more than bodies and that our lives have particular meaning and purpose.

Point out that recognizing the complementarity of science and faith does not mean they never disagree, especially when science and faith are taken to mean individual scientists and individual Christians, since particular Christians and particular scientists may hold beliefs that are incompatible. However, many scientists are Christians. Faith and science are not necessarily a zero-sum game. Disagreement and conflict is not the only, or even the primary way that science and faith interact.

Conclude this activity by asking students to consider how it might affect our character if we refuse to assume a conflict when we hear different perspectives and opposing claims. How might it change the ways in which we respond to others? Why is it tempting to settle for zero-sum debate rather than pursuing more nuanced answers? How might patience, humility, and courage be involved in pushing past zero-sum answers?

Galileo and the Sun

In Brief

This activity explores the notorious Galileo affair and engages students in questioning whether or not it was a simple matter of innovative science versus religious dogma. The episode offers a case study for students to consider the complexity of the ongoing relationship between faith and science.

Goals

Students will be able to critique popular misconceptions of the Galileo affair.

Thinking Ahead

What do we see when we look at the sky? For most of human history, people looked at the sun, moon, and stars moving across the sky and assumed that Earth was stationary and circled by the heavenly bodies. This assumption also seemed to be reinforced by statements in the Bible (e.g., “The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises,” Ecclesiastes 1:5). Geocentrism seemed to fit the observable evidence and continued to enjoy scientific support from astronomers at the time of Galileo. The notion that medieval Christians believed the earth was flat is a myth propagated along with the late 19^th century view that science and religion have always been in conflict.

How do we see Galileo’s role in the history of faith and science? The story of Galileo’s conflict with the Roman Catholic Church has become iconic in certain strands of popular culture as an instance of scientific progress triumphing over backward-looking religious dogma. It can seem like a paradigm example of conflict between science and religion. Students may have encountered this version of the story, and so this activity begins by asking them to identify their own assumptions. Making one’s assumptions explicit is an important first step toward questioning them.

As you teach the activity, be careful not to belittle student views that may at first be too simplistic since such views are common. Think about how to help students experience the unit as a time to deepen their understanding and also as a gentle way to reveal their shortcomings and misunderstandings. Your role as their teacher is to give the invitation, “let’s look closer,” but not to communicate, “see, you were wrong.”

Related Book Review: Galileo Goes To Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion edited by Ronald L. Numbers.

Preparing the Activity

Needed:

• Copies of Galileo and the Sun 1 and Galileo and the Sun 2

Directions:

If you include the Bible activity you will need to display Galileo and the Sun.

Teaching the Activity

First, display the terms “geocentrism” and “heliocentrism,” and establish that the class understands the meaning of these two terms. Draw out the students’ initial assumptions by asking them to choose which of the following statements accurately describe what was happening at the time of Galileo with regard to science and religion.

Give students a copy of the statements on Galileo and the Sun 1 and have them mark each as “true,” “false,” or “don’t know,” and then keep this sheet for later reference. The goal is to make students aware of their existing assumptions.

• Galileo was a scientist who was persecuted by the church for his scientific findings.
• Galileo was a scientist who got into trouble for attacking the Pope.
• At the time of Galileo, the church believed in geocentrism and scientists believed in heliocentrism.
• At the time of Galileo, most scientists as well as theologians believed in geocentrism.
• Heliocentrism was a controversial new theory that the church rejected because it went against the Bible.
• Heliocentrism was uncontroversial and seen as a possibility but had not yet been proven, and some scientific arguments counted against it.
• The Galileo story is all about having to choose between religion and science.

Next, ask the class: “Is the surface of a sheet of sandpaper smooth?” Then ask the class: “Is the surface of a sheet of glass smooth?” Draw out the opinion that the former is rough and the latter smooth. Ask students how they know. Chances are most students have run their fingers across both surfaces at some earlier time. Then ask the students:

• If you went outside and asked a hundred people whether the surface of glass was smooth, what responses do you think you would get?
• How would you respond if someone—maybe the hundred-and-first person—came to them and said that the surface of glass is in fact extremely rough and not smooth at all?
• Furthermore: this person says that the way know that this is true is that they have invented a special device that no one else has. If you look at glass through this device, it is obvious that it is very rough, even though no one else but they can see it. Would you accept the idea immediately, or would you want to wait for additional evidence?

At this point, show an image of glass shown through an electron microscope (e.g., http://bit.ly/1VXvXom). Explain that this is a little like the situation of Galileo, who had developed a telescope that allowed him to gather new data.

Next, group students into pairs or groups of three and give them copies of Galileo and the Sun 2. Allow time for students to read through the article and then conduct a brief class discussion to ensure that students understand the main points. Then ask students to return to the list of initial assumptions from the first handout and test them against the article. How would they now rate the truth of each statement in light of the additional information?

Optional Extra

Display the slide showing Bible verses that were once taken to support geocentrism in Galileo and the Sun. Discuss with students: What might we conclude from these verses about the movement of the earth and the sun if we had no other evidence?

When it became clear that the heliocentric view is correct, how might people have begun to interpret these verses differently? It might be wise to help students explore the idea of accommodation—revelation communicated using the language and pictures of the culture into which it came—and the language of appearance—when we say that the sun rose, what do we mean? Are we making a scientific claim or describing what we see? Are our words not true because they are scientifically inaccurate, or are they true within the conventions of our conversations? Scientific advances have required some rethinking of how certain Bible passages are interpreted, however, reinterpreting these passages has not entailed abandoning the authority of the Bible itself.

Next, ask students to investigate the role of stellar parallax observations in arguments against and for heliocentrism. This is discussed, for example, here and explained in more detail here.

Draw students’ attention to the fact that the heliocentric theory predicted that an annual stellar parallax should be observable, and yet none was seen or measured until the 19th century due to the gradual improvement of equipment. Ask students to consider, if at the time of Galileo you realized that accepting heliocentrism meant having to explain away the problem of equipment, would they have found the theory persuasive?

Draw students’ attention to the parallels of both science and religion undergoing change. As heliocentrism became established it was necessary to develop 1) new ways of reading certain Bible passages, and 2) new techniques and instruments for observing the stars before everything made sense again.

Finally, discuss the following questions with the class:

• Why do you think many people still view the contest between geocentrism and heliocentrism as a battle between science and faith? How is this story used?
• In what ways was the contest between geocentrism and heliocentrism a battle between science and science, not science and faith? Consider that geocentrism had been accepted by religious people as the best science of the day. Now, one scientific view—geocentrism—was being displaced by another—heliocentrism. Yet it took many years for the evidence to be compelling and widely accepted. However, the Church had not accepted geocentrism for religious reasons in the first place, but rather as the best scientific theory and one that accorded with familiar biblical texts.
• What does Galileo’s story teach us about how we should approach the relationship between science and faith?
• How might it have required courage, humility, and patience for Christians and scientists, and Christians who were scientists to think these issues through at the time of Galileo?