Science is an approach to understanding the natural world

Science is an approach to understanding the natural world.

Because it is a tool, it supports no particular philosophy, economic system or ideology (well, it assumes that the world exists, and behaves in a way that can be made into rules).

Because it is a tool for understanding the natural world, it cannot discover things about religion or the supernatural.

This limitation is a real limitation, and not a philosophical one. Science proceeds by suggesting a method of action (a hypothesis), and then testing to see if results can be obtained inconsistent with that method of action. If so, the proposed hypothesis can be shown to be false. When no one can think of any more ways to demonstrate that it is false, it can be generally accepted as true.

A supernatural action cannot be studied or described, and supernatural actions cannot be invoked on demand in such a way as to make them repeatable. So supernatural causes cannot be tested. So far, the world seems to work without the need to posit supernatural agents.

It is assumed that the end results of supernatural events can be studied. So far, studies on prayer, and attempts to identify systems so complex that they had to have been designed by an intelligence have not been conclusive. Even if such end results are identified, because no method of action can be identified, their cause has to remain speculative.

Because future states cannot be known in total, it is possible that at some time, an accepted hypothesis can be demonstrated to be false. So science is said to be provisional. In practice, when enough states have been tested, the hypothesis becomes a theory, and the results can be relied on to be true.

The conclusions reached via science may be applied to religious or irreligious ends, and in ethical or non-ethical ways (within the meaning of any religion or ethical framework).

Some people of faith seek the failure of science, in the hopes that that failure will present a compelling case for a Creator. They hope that the gaps in understanding will prove to be so wide as to prohibit any natural explanation, leading people to assume that God did it.

So far, there have been no such gaps found. Because there are lots of things left to discover about the world, many still hope for a gap that cannot be explained.

The science community encompasses people of faith, people who would like to catalogue such gaps, and people of faith who doubt that such gaps will ever be found.

This search for gaps is a uniquely religious search, and many in the science community do not share this hope for the failure of science. Even a gap that will not yield to an explanation is not proof of God - because science cannot offer such proof - it is only proof of the limitations of current theories.

At the same time, the existence of gaps, or the failure to find gaps does not mean that science has proven that God does not exist. Again, science can prove nothing of the supernatural.

Science usually runs afoul of a religion when the output of science contradicts the contents of a religious revelation. For example, the age of the earth, the “special creation” status of humans, and the historicity of the Genesis flood for Young Earth Creationists. There is no doubt that the earth is billions of years old, that all life shares ancestors in common with humans, and that there was no global flood in or around 2500 bc.

Because these finding are in conflict with the way YEC interpret the bible, there has been a persistent campaign to oppose science. The normal tactic is to look for disagreement among scientists, and use this as an argument against one of the offending conclusions of science. Because those trying to defend the faith often do not understand the science, or because they are looking for anything to support their position, quotes are taken out of context, misunderstandings and rumors are repeated, and writers work to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of conservative Christians.

Of course, all Christians interpret the Bible, and the church has had to deal with revisions to biblical interpretation due to increased knowledge before and survived. Faith should view science as a tool to discover more about the world God made. For people of faith, science describes how and faith provides the Who.

Faith & Science - What's the Conflict?

One more time, just to make it clear what is going on here:

1. The bible provides information about how old the earth is, and when a global flood happened, and how humans came to be created.

2. Science has been not able to confirm these bible teachings, even though most early scientists assumed them to be true. In fact, it has become clear that the earth is older that 6,000 years (much older), that there was no global flood in 2500 bc, and that humans are related to, and evolved from, other life on the planet.

3. Therefore, some Christians believe that science has to be made wrong, in order for the bible (and their fatih) to be proven right.

Because science cannot "back up" bible claims, its assertion that it does not make theological statements is viewed as suspect at best, and simply untrue at worst. Because science cannot confirm these bible truths, science must be "anti-god."

The solution is for scientists to learn to communicate more effectively about what is known about the world, and what it means for science to limit itself to descriptions of the "natual" world. More moderate Christians need to speak up, and no longer allow themselves to be silenced by the fervor of YEC-ers, who make believing their dogma the litmus test for being a real christian.

Faith and science actually dovetail beautifully, because Christians believe that God created the world, and called it good, and that it reflects the glory of God. Christians should be able to enjoy science as an explanation of "how" God did his work - it is in no way a threat to faith.

Does Revelation Trump Science?

One of the fundamental questions we have to answer when we think about faith and science is the relationship between the natural world and revelation. Gnosticism is the belief that the "real truth" about ourselves and the world is hidden, and available only to those with special knowledge (gnosis). One the other hand, the Christian faith has been "out in the open." The gospel is plain, freely spoken, and God is the creator and animator of the world - He made it, and called it good.

When we discover things about the world that seem to be at odds with what the bible teaches, we have two options - we can decide that the Christian faith is really a kind of Gnostic religion (the world looks old, but we know it is really not), or we can respectfully ask if we have been reading the bible right. The difficulty is that if we cannot trust what we discover about the world, we have no way of knowing if our faith is true, either.

How was the revelation you base your faith on received? Well, it is based on the bible, you might say - the word of God. On what basis can you trust it, if you cannot have faith in how the world works? For example, think about your ideas as regards written words holding their shape and meaning over time. On what basis do you know that what was written in the 1st and 2nd century is what is displayed on those manuscripts now? Is it possible that the gospel writers wrote one set of words, but over time they drifted around to form different words altogether?

Nonsense, you think. Of course the words haven't morphed! Ink and parchment make a chemical bond... oh, that's right - if I can't be certain about the natural world, I am adrift when it comes to revelation as well. Science does discover true things about the world.

Now what do we do about the age of the earth? Well, some people dismiss uniformatarianism - the belief that the world always worked the way it does now. That way is madness. And has been demonstrated to be wrong. So some people take another approach and attack science - call it wrong, and provisional, and in the hands of godless atheists. This is also wrong - and very shortsighted. The other option, supported by the bible, is to view the world as telling us accurate things about God. If the world is old (and it is),then we have to deal with this, and in humility, let this fact help us interpret our bible - instead of insisting that God can't do this or mean that.

One of the Real Tragedies of Creation Science

Just been reading about drug resistant bacteria. We are living in a time when we face a host of technological problems - from lack of clean water to environmental degradation, epidemic disease, famine, energy shortages, antibiotic resistance, pandemics - just to name a few.

The result of these problems will be mass suffering on a scale we have never seen before, unless technological solutions can be found. This is not the time to be denying foundational truths of science in order to support a literal translation of the bible. Not only is it a colossal waste of time for so many people to spend so much time denying the obvious - it also punishes people who pursue science careers, and dissuades people who should be entering the fray.

Young Earth Creationism is not true, and all the energy being spent in debating it is diverting time and energy from solving critical problems. What is worse, by branding scientists as liars who are perpetrating fraud with their "godless theories," we are hampering the work of science just when we need it the most.

So What is Up With Evolution?

For most Christians who are concerned about the subject, evolution is troublesome because it contradicts the "special creation" status of humans, as well as reinforcing the inaccuracy of claiming an approximately 6 to 10 thousand year-old earth. For ID proponents like Behe, who seems to accept that evolution does in fact work as described, the complaint is that evolutionary processes, in themselves, are insufficient to account for certain (highly complex) steps. Note there is nothing in his complaint about the unguided nature of evolution. ID is "religiously agnostic," while the YEC movement (which provides most of ID's support) is up in arms at the (inaccurate) portrayal of evolution as being a purposeless and unguided process.

As well, the theory of evolution DOES NOT claim that evolution is purposeless and unguided (in a "ultimate" sense). True, this is what YEC-ers say about evolutionary theory, because it suits their purpose. Science has no comment on any kind of ultimate or spiritual purpose or lack thereof for evolution. Science has no tools to detect and comment on the supernatural. Science limits itself to a description of what happens, and teaches that several things guide evolution, including the concept of reproductive advantage. It is true that science has found no reason to believe that the "purpose" of evolution is the human race, but again, this is not a refutation of purpose, just a description of the fact that science does not (cannot, should not be made to try to) detect God.

Further, science does not stop religion from proclaiming that "God did it." Nor does it deny that God did it. Science proper has nothing to say about God at all, for or against - because science is about the properties of the natural world.

So why is there a problem? Because science does demonstrate that the earth is billions of years old, and that all life came from common ancestors. This conflicts with YEC religious belief. This is the only sticking point. Note that when there is no religious conflict, YEC proponents are happy for science to produce the advances that we have all come to depend on (electricity, cell phones, computers, increased crop yields, medicine, ...).

The world view that produced these advances is the scientific one. The discoveries that made these advances possible came because we did not have to settle for "it is too complex" or "God did it."

What does it mean to study Mother Theresa Scientifically?

My thinking is that we could identify genes that have expressed in ways that maximize compassion, maybe even track the development of portions of the brain, measure brain response to stimulae, perhaps even measure levels of neuro-transmitters, etc. These would explain the "how" of Mother Theresa's compassion, but not the "why".

Of course, some folks say there is no why - the how is all there is.

One problem with supernatural explanations is that there is nothing to study because what happened was "not natural." As science has developed, we understand more - so, for example, we can describe the neuro-chemical changes that accompany love, and soon, I would expect us to identify the a genetic and / or developmental basis for the ability to experience an enhanced level of compassion. It may be supernatural, but even a miracle is manifested in the natural world- and so leaves clues that can be studied.

This is one reason that I am unsatisfied with the god in the gaps approach to faith. I think it is safe to suggest (though of course not proved) that everything we experience is mediated through some physical (natural) process. So far, we have not had to resort to the idea that some supernatural agency is required to keep everything going (though I've read that it gets a bit murky down in the quantum foam).

For example, I once prayed for someone with a bum knee. When I put my hand on the knee and he flexed it, I could feel roughness in the knee joint (felt like there was gravel beneath his kneecap). He told me that it hurt. After a few minutes of prayer, when he flexed his knee, it moved smoothly, and he told me that it did not hurt. I could have been mistaken, in the grip of some sort of mass hysteria, or the person with the complaint could have been a well-practiced fake. And I recognize that my story is just that- proof of nothing except that I said I had such an experience. All the same, if the right detection equipment were available, I would expect that each step of (what I believe to have been) a healing would have been measurable in the natural world.

If his knee was bum, and a few minutes later it was not, was that supernatural? Assume for a moment that it was not, and that bodies have some sort of untapped (at least in the western medical tradition) recuperative power. Shouldn't we study that and find out about it?

What if I was indeed mistaken, or he experienced some sort of placebo effect. I, at least, would like to know.

What if it was a miracle from God? What is the harm in trying to figure it out? What if we refused to look for natural causes, because "it was a miracle, and the healing cannot be explained without including God in the explanation." What good would that do us? I suggest we look at the facts and conclude 1. There was no healing. or 2. There was a healing, but we don't understand how it happened (but we might someday, by careful observation, figure out what happened, and apply the results to the practice of medicine, miracle or no). Of course there is a 3. it was a miracle, and no amount of science will ever tell us what went on. But how will we know if we don't try?

Not looking because it is a miracle, or giving up because "God did it" serves no purpose - this attitude would have prevented us from ever training a telescope on the heavens (after all, we would be peeking into God's realm).

So from a purely pragmatic view, methodological naturalism is the best approach to take as a scientist (and probably in most day-to-day activities), even if it does not encompass the entirety of a person's philosophy.

Where do we go when we die?

Some people wonder how humans got here, and if there is a purpose in life.

A parachurch organization was out canvassing people, trying to engage them in religious dialouge. One exchange went like this:

Q - "Do you know where you go when you die?"
A - "Uh, Pittsburg. I'll be buried in Pittsburg."

Not everyone asks "ultimate" questions.

Many religions offer an answer to the questions of where we came from, where we are going, and why we are here. If I am honest, I say that science also offers an answer. We came from organic molecules, and we return to organic molecules. We are here to pass on our genes (and we are being used by the bacteria in our gut so they can pass on their genes).

I also think that this answer is true. It is useful. It tells me all sorts of true and helpful things about me, the people around me, and the world I live in. Is it all there is? Is it the only answer? I don't think so. Can I proove it? Not in the scientific sense.

Does that mean science is a religion, or that science and religion are in competition? No. I think religion involves some sort of revelation (received truth) and postualtes the existence of the supernatural (but where does that leave some eastern religions?).

I think science constantly revises its dogma (but is full of the hide-bound, conservative, and the agenda-laden - that is to say- humans). What was believed about the world in the 18th century is different in many important respects from what science believes today. This is an admirable and fairly unique claim.

Because science claims to say what is true about the natural world, it will always run afoul of those who, for religious, commercial or political motives, wish to assert that the world is somehow else.