Which will it be, science or philosophy?

I often hear: “You should not let science trump scripture.” It is a surprising criticism, because I would never let science trump scripture. If in some hypothetical circumstance science and scripture were shown to be truly irreconcilable, then I would immediately abandon my faith because such a circumstance would constitute irrefutable proof that Ggod is a god of chaos, confusion, and misdirection—and not worthy of worship.

A more sensible criticism is this: you should not let science inform your interpretation of scripture. 

Fair enough, though I utterly disagree.

But what about this: you should not let Aristotelian philosophy inform your interpretation of scripture. Have you ever heard that? I don’t think I have. And yet we can see quite clearly the influence of Aristotle in many ancient theologians. Aquinas and Anselm come to mind. And much modern “Doctrine of God” theology is based on Aristotelian thinking applied to scripture.¹

I am not saying this is wrong, just that it is.

Is it obvious that allowing Aristotelian philosophy to inform your interpretation of scripture is somehow “safer” than allowing science? I don’t think it is obvious. Science is objective, falsifiable, and its domain is creation, i.e. general revelation. Aristotelian philosophy is subjective, unfalsifiable, and its domain is primarily secular (i.e., the human condition.) I trust science to arrive at something closer to the truth than Aristotelian philosophy. It’s safer.

---

¹ This is manifestly true. However, many will deny any influence from Aristotelian philosophy, as if it might somehow taint their conclusions. They are delusional, and less honest than scientific believers who readily admit that they allow science to "bend without breaking" their view of the first chapter of Genesis.