The Narrow Path Ministries

In response to the recent interest generated by the subject of the nature of science on Steve's show, I wanted to start a thread on that topic. In what follows I am going to discuss both the nature of science and the nature of the supernatural.

First, I want to say that there are many issues to sort through that are related to the nature of science. This is especially true for Christians, as we sometimes feel that the culture views us as being at odds with the discoveries and proclamations of the scientific community. Or, for the good many Christians who are scientists and sometimes leaders in their various fields (Francis Collins is a popular example), there is unavoidably a question of how to integrate or adjudicate the supposed problem of having two authoritative sources of knowledge --science and scripture. Amongst the various concerns that we could address, what I specifically want to focus on here is the following question: What is science? Since I take this to be at the center of so many points of controversy, I think that it would be helpful to begin trying to answer this question in a way that might lead us to resolve some of the problems that extend from a lack of clarity on the nature of science.

Let us be clear then about what we are asking for. In the circles that discuss the nature of science under the academic heading of the philosophy of science (a sub-discipline of academic philosophy), this question roughly translates as the demarcation problem, which asks: How do we distinguish genuine science from non-science? In order to answer this question, philosophers typically go about offering a definition of science. It is relevant to observe, at this point, that it is the job of philosophers to define science and not the job of scientists, though I recognize that this is a controversial statement. It will suffice to say, for my purposes, that the question "What is science?" cannot be answered by any scientific investigation and can only be addressed by scientists when speaking philosophically--that is, as philosophers. As such, philosophy is actually authoritative over science in this way (and in others) because it is the job of philosophy to investigate and provide a definition of science (if one can be found). There is much more that could, and in fact should, be said on this point, but it would distract from my main goal.

To demarcate science from non-science is to provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions by which a thing can be considered "science" or "scientific." A necessary condition is a requirement that something must fulfill in order to be science, and a sufficient condition occurs when we have stated all of the necessary conditions (or all of the individually sufficient conditions) for something to be science. One fairly uncontroversial necessary condition for something to be science is that it involve observational evidence. A sufficient condition for something to be science is that it be published in a scientific journal (though this of course doesn't specify what counts as a "scientific" journal and in that sense begs the question, though we can ignore this for the time being).

A caller to the show (I think his name was John) was talking about the nature of science and in the course of things he ended up advocating three different definitions of "science" without quite realizing it. Here are the three definitions he offered:

1. Science is an investigative methodology.
2. Science is a set of assumptions about the world.
3. Science is an attitude.

Definition (1) is the most popular because people usually talk about "the scientific method" as if there were a clearly identifiable methodology that was unique to the sciences. This includes things like proposing hypotheses, setting up experiments, gathering data, evaluating data in the light of one's hypotheses, and then drawing conclusions. The problem with this definition of science is that it doesn't do what most scientists want it to do. One important thing it doesn't do is that it doesn't rule out supernatural explanations for phenomena that are observed during the process. There is nothing about prescribing this method which rules out what kinds of causes I am allowed to appeal to when drawing conclusions--whether natural, supernatural, or otherwise. It also ignores the history of science in which many "scientific" conclusions were arrived at by methods that leave out at least one of these steps. Lastly (to state one problem among many more that could be included), it doesn't state anything about the goals of science. Does science try to provide explanations or models of understanding? What about the discovering of natural laws and how they feature in scientific accounts of the world? If science is simply a method, it seems that one could do a lot of different things with a method we wouldn't want to call all of them "science."

The second definition usually appeals to ideas like the claim that all natural phenomena have natural explanations, or that nature is a closed system, or that the best explanations appeal to natural causes and laws. This view also has some rather obvious short-comings. First, what are we supposed to do with these assumptions? Write them down in our personal journals and read them as devotionals? The point here is that it makes no mention of science as an attempt to learn something about the world. Rather, to go this route is to turn science into a set of beliefs about the world that a person must hold in order to do science. Many people implicitly assume this definition when they say that science "looks for the best natural explanation" without realizing that they are requiring that one make assumptions about the nature of the world in order to do science, yet I doubt that they would want to deal with the consequences of assuming such a view.

The last definition was only brought up in passing, but I have heard people unintentionally advocate it by saying something like this, "What science does it is says that we need to not stop looking for the explanation of something just because we can't find one. Science keeps trying to look for a natural explanation in terms of natural laws rather than assuming that God did it or that we just can't know certain things." This is all well and good but the person who says this doesn’t realize that they are actually advocating the definition of science as an attitude, not an investigative methodology nor even as a set of assumptions about the world such as what kinds of explanations are the best. In order to be doing "science," all we have to do is have this attitude.

Now, I realize that people don't entertain these last two definitions of science as serious candidates for distinguishing science from non-science. And the reasons for why should be obvious because they are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for doing science. That is, one can do science without believing that natural phenomena always provide the best explanations, and also without the rather chipper attitude (which I don't necessarily have a problem with) of "We'll find an explanation if we just keep looking!" And as for the first notion referring to "the scientific method," I have hopefully said enough about this view along similar lines of criticism.

Without going too much longer on this point, I will forego further discussion of demarcation (as I trust that people can bring it up if they want to) and simply state my own view. I think that there have been no successful demarcation criteria proposed to date. This means I think that there are no hard and fast rules about what count as "science" and "non-science," or "scientific" and "non-scientific." In addition, I believe that the question of defining science naturally raises the question of scientism --the view that only science provides true knowledge of the world--and actually shows that there are many sources of knowledge besides science which we can use to learn about the world. One of these sources of knowledge is scripture. Another is reason or logical intuition, upon which much philosophical reflection is based. In fact, I think that philosophy as a discipline provides conclusions which can correct those arrived at by the scientific community, because science itself requires certain philosophical assumptions and as such is incapable of justifying those assumptions by appeal to "scientific" investigation. Science is but one method of learning about the world, and it is not even the best method at that.

Now I want to briefly address the question of the supernatural, which was also raised by the caller to Steve's show. It is often said that supernatural explanations are in some manner "unscientific" because they appeal to non-natural, unobservable causes. This is said to lead to intractable problems such as the explanatory equivalence that exists between competing supernatural explanations for a given "supernatural" event (the resurrection of Jesus comes to mind). This, in turn, is supposed to cast doubt on our ability to know anything about the supernatural because, if we cannot directly observe it, then we cannot know that, say, God raised Jesus from the dead rather than Zeus or some other deity. I will respond to these each of these points briefly. First, supernatural explanations are only "unscientific" insofar as methodological naturalism is the reigning paradigm of scientific investigation. Methodological naturalism requires that scientists only cite natural causes for phenomena that they investigate when drawing conclusions about them in "scientific" publications. Independent justification of this kind of naturalism is required beyond the fact that "it's what scientists do," and therefore one cannot look to the sciences for support for the claim that supernatural causes are "unscientific." They are "unscientific" because scientists do not allow themselves to appeal to them, not for any reasons independent of assumed scientific practice. Second, supernatural explanations may in fact face difficulties of explanatory equivalence, but this same problem besets many scientific theories. Anti-realists about atomic phenomena claim that atoms, subatomic particles, and the like do not exist but are convenient fictions that help us make predictions about the world. The problem for scientists is that they cannot directly observe atomic or sub-atomic phenomena but must observe their effects, so they cannot disprove the anti-realists. We are thus faced by an explanatory equivalence in that the data is equally accounted for by realist and anti-realist views of very small physical phenomena. Therefore, explanatory equivalence is not a sufficient reason for disqualifying supernatural explanations. Lastly, the context of a supernatural event (an event in the natural world that is caused by a supernatural entity) often provides a means of gaining knowledge about the cause. Thus, if Jesus predicted his death and resurrection and was casting out many demons, then it is unlikely that Satan would have raised him from the dead (as it would have been rather counterproductive). We then have a reason to believe that it is more likely that Jesus and the supernatural being(s) that would endorse him were involved in his resurrection rather than those who would oppose him, as a resurrection seems like a vindication of one's claims.

In any event, I have written enough by now and need to stop.

Timm001,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Since "science" is no specialty of mine, I will leave it to others more knowledgable than me to add meaningful comments.

What is science? Since I take this to be at the center of so many points of controversy, I think that it would be helpful to begin trying to answer this question in a way that might lead us to resolve some of the problems that extend from a lack of clarity on the nature of science.








I have understood science to a process of observation of physical and material stuff in the universe and the things they do and then developing systems and laws which define and predict based on these observations.
It seems to me that since science deals with material,natural and observable things and events it should not be expected to jive with the bible a great deal. What would science have to say about demons or resurrections or Angels? In certain cases where there are situations where both science and the bible state conclusions about the same thing like the age of the earth and the universe i think the open minded bible student and scientist should not get to dogmatic. Science is convinced the earth and universe are billions of years old which might be true but it is also true science has changed it's conclusions numerous times over the past when scientists had been convinced the original findings were correct. Bible students also shouldn't be to dogmatic about certain things like the age of the earth as i think there is room for discussion on this and other issues.

As you are formulating your understanding of science don't forget that in the first century there was no such thing as a differentiation between natural and supernatural, or normal and paranormal. All things were real to them (some might be invisible and mysterious, but that didn't make them immaterial).

Doug

steve7150 wrote: I have understood science to a process of observation of physical and material stuff in the universe and the things they do and then developing systems and laws which define and predict based on these observations.
It seems to me that since science deals with material,natural and observable things and events it should not be expected to jive with the bible a great deal. What would science have to say about demons or resurrections or Angels?

Steve7150,

I personally think that you are mostly correct about what science is. But then again I think only a rough definition of science can be given, so I'm not really one to dispute any particular offering. One thing I would point out, however, is that it is not clear that science is so concerned with providing explanations/predictions, though this is a common enough understanding that people have. Suppose that you wanted to do a "scientific" study of the solar system. What would that involve? Well you certainly could start with observations and you would probably, if you were successful, end up somewhere like Newton did in formulating certain mathematical formulas and tracking the orbits of planets. But the end result of your study might not be an "explanation" in any strong sense of the term. Rather, you could build a model of the solar system so that people could see how the planets stand in relation to the Sun and how their various orbits work. But you wouldn't necessarily be trying to "explain" anything so much as you would be trying to gain a greater understanding of our nearby cosmological neighbors. If you were trying to explain something, you would start with a question such as: What causes the perihelion shift in the orbit of Mercury? And if you were Newton, you'd be unable to explain it (we had to wait until Einstein came along). The fact that you didn't attempt an explanation would be no reason to call your study "unscientific," but instead would count as justification for broadening our notion of what counts as "science." Further, scientists who study the origin of the universe immediately after the Big Bang do not always attempt to make predictions based on their findings. However, their work is no less "scientific" because of this, even if it predominantly historical in nature.

I say this not to disagree or point out that you are wrong, but only to illustrate that science is not so easy to strictly define. Since science is seen as an authority on knowledge by our culture, then perhaps other disciplines are similar enough to science (and similarly employ enough of its methods) that they can have the same kind of authority. History is one example that comes to mind.

Also, I understand that you take science to be strictly limited to observations of material phenomena, but can you think of reason why this must be so? I personally cannot. If angels are real and are immaterial, it seems to be the case from the Bible that people are able to see them. While angels may not be a proper object of scientific study, there may be other immaterial objects that are.

Lastly, I am not sure why you think that the Bible and science would conflict because of the tendency of science to focus on material objects. First, though, I must assume that when you say "science deals with material, natural and observable things and events" you mean to add the further point that it tries to explain these with material, natural explanations. For if you didn't add this point, then there would be no reason at all for science to conflict with most religious beliefs. You give the example of the resurrection. But wasn't Jesus' body a material object? Albeit perhaps an unusual material object per Luke 24:36, but nonetheless material (c.f. Luke 42-43). Now, we might look for a scientific explanation of the resurrection and not be able to find one (because it happened through supernatural means). But this does not mean that science is "conflicting" with the Bible, only that it has nothing to say about the cause of Jesus' resurrection. Well, I personally think that supernatural causes may be admissible within scientific explanations, but it should at least be clear that the goal of explaining the natural world in terms of the natural world (insofar as we are able) is not somehow at odds with the Bible.

Where I think people find conflict is when they assume, per the third definition of science that I gave, that in order to be doing science we must adopt the attitude of, "It's best to keep looking for the natural explanation even if we haven't found one yet, because there ultimately is one." I think it should be clear that in order to be engaged in an investigative process, there is no need to make this kind of assumption. Therefore, I am not being "unscientific" if I go into my lab with my beakers and do science while failing to adopt this view. This attitude is indeed at odds with the Bible. But it is not the same thing as science!

*
*
*
Science seems to have become a spiritual religion that focuses on proving that spirits don't exist.

But the end result of your study might not be an "explanation" in any strong sense of the term. Rather, you could build a model of the solar system so that people could see how the planets stand in relation to the Sun and how their various orbits work. But you wouldn't necessarily be trying to "explain" anything so much as you would be trying to gain a greater understanding of our nearby cosmological neighbors. If you were trying to explain something, you would start with a question such as: What causes the perihelion shift in the orbit of Mercury? And if you were Newton, you'd be unable to explain it (we had to wait until Einstein came along). The fact that you didn't attempt an explanation would be no reason to call your study "unscientific," but instead would count as justification for broadening our notion of what counts as "science." Further, scientists who study the origin of the universe immediately after the Big Bang do not always attempt to make predictions based on their findings. However, their work is no less "scientific" because of this, even if it predominantly historical in nature.










I firstly want to be clear i'm only an interested layman commenting on what i've heard and seen on TV from scientists speaking about various subjects. So from what i have seen it seems to me that the process of science is a process of gaining knowledge through observation and testing of things that can be measured by the tools available to humans. Scientists may not always spell out the goals of science as they go through their processes but at some point they do seem to develop theories to explain what they observe. After all it is human nature to try to explain the things we encounter in the universe. Evolution is one example as even scientists will acknowledge there are relatively few transitional fossils to prove the evolution of one species into another but that has not stopped them from claiming the theory is actually science. Supernatural explanations are not on the table.
I think if scientists encountered the resurrected Christ they would acknowledge his material body was real but that would not be enough to convince them of the actual resurrection by supernatural means. Even the visual observation of an angel would not by itself be convincing to them of the supernatural IMHO. I think the largest concession that science would make to the supernatural would be that at this point in time science can't explain it, but given enough time it will be explained by science.

steve7150's posts can pretty much represent my understanding.

I would say that science is the classification and/or explanation of natural phenomena based on duplicatable experimentation and observation. Scientific methods can't explain, prove, or disprove a supernatural event/thing. If it could, then the supernatural event/thing would have to be redefined as a natural event/thing (which has of course happened in the past).

So it makes sense to me that someone would only cite natural causes when doing science. That's the game: X happened. Now come up with a natural explanation for x.

Scientific methods can't explain, prove, or disprove a supernatural event/thing.

True.

Neither can scientific methods prove or disprove a historical event. Scientists can and do attempt to explain historical events. But then so also do historians, sociologists, and theologians.

If scientists found an angel or a demon I guess they could tell you the biological properties of such, but they could not tell you ‘why’ the angel exists. The Bible can make ‘observations’, such as man was made from the dust (correct), the world hangs on nothing (correct), the sea is never full, etc. but scripture can also give ‘reasons for their existence’, reasons for their actions, what the design was intended for, and the designers future intentions for the creation, something science doesn’t or can’t do.

I have been trying to confirm something, and by chance if I find out someone is knowledgeable in science of some sort I ask ‘does science ever design anything?’ I am aware that designers and engineers use scientific data when developing a product, but I am trying to assure myself that there is a distinction between science and design.

My argument is that science doesn’t explain how things ‘come to be’ an assembled, purposeful, creation.
Of course I am trying to establish the point (in debating) that ‘science’ doesn’t create anything of itself, designers and engineers develop creations using their knowledge of such things but are not dependent upon the findings of science to pursue design, in fact sometimes design correctly defies science, and science has to catch up. Creation in fact could be said to inspire science, like an apple falling from a tree, after all creation was here first.

So, Science can’t tell us ‘why’ something exists, or what is its ‘purpose’ of existing. Why was there a Ford pinto, why did it need to exist? Why do we ‘need’ to exist? Why does anything ‘want’ to live? Science could tell you what the materials are of a car and a horse, and that an electric impulse fires the compressed mixture, and hay is a Carbohydrate, but why the horse? All these things came together for some ‘purpose’, there was intent, and science has to draw the demarcation point when it supposes ‘why’ things exist.

So my question is : Does science design anything? (I have not but given any reason to believe that it does)