In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.
Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
- The existence and attributes of God
- The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all
- The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
- The truth of Catholic moral teaching
- The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II
In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.
Is Science The Enemy of Faith?
Atheists and Modernists will reject the supernatural based on the alleged "contradiction with science." (Atheists reject the supernatural in its entirety, whereas Modernists will reduce faith to "feelings" and deny Revelation and miracles). If you ever come up against such a person, they will say to you, "Faith is superstition. People needed it to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. Now, science has done away with the need for God."
In this post, I will equip the reader on how to respond to this attack on the Faith. (Please note that this post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. Some material was from my post-graduate work in science for my Masters degree, when I was a science teacher. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).
What is Science?
Through the centuries, humanity has derived many benefits from the scientific enterprise and there is promise of even greater ones to come through its extension in medicine and technology. It is no wonder that science has been granted such a privileged place in many cultures. Modern science stands as one of the most impressive intellectual undertakings that humans have achieved.
However, while science has some roots in the ancient world, science in its present form is a relative latecomer on the scene of human intellectual history. Modern science emerged in full form in Christian Europe around the middle of the seventeenth century. In the ensuing 400 years, it has risen to such great heights that it now enjoys unprecedented societal esteem and generates great respect and expectations. For many of the world’s intelligentsia, modern science is the supreme mode of acquiring knowledge. Some even view science as humankind’s greatest achievement. It might rightly be said that science has been placed on an intellectual pedestal. So, what is science?
According to the National Academy of Sciences, science is “the use of evidence to construct testable explanation and prediction of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.”
(See nationalacademies.org).
A more popular source (Wikipedia, which should not be used for serious research, but is commonly used by those seeking "quick answers") offers a very similar definition: "Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe." In other words, science as a basic practice is limited to obtaining knowledge about the natural world.
Why has such honor been bestowed upon the scientific venture? There appear to be two basic reasons. First, many people perceive science as intellectually neutral and independent from underlying belief systems. Second, science’s amazing achievements and beneficial results have imparted great credibility to the practice and practitioners. Let’s explore these two factors in some detail.
Is Science Intellectually Neutral?
Many people, scientists included, seem to think that the scientific method functions independently of any formal, underlying beliefs. I have even heard scientists say that as a scientist they have “no beliefs.” This alleged intellectual independence imbues scientific results with trustworthiness.
People believe that the level of independence and objectivity that the scientific enterprise putatively enjoys leads to reliable knowledge. Meanwhile, knowledge rooted in religious and philosophical beliefs is more often regarded as supposed. However, science’s total independence from beliefs is clearly false. The scientific method depends deeply on critical underlying assumptions or beliefs that science itself alone cannot validate. If scientists are to go about their work with any confidence, they must, for instance, believe in such profound presuppositions as:
- The objective reality of the cosmos
- The basic intelligibility of the cosmos
- The order, regularity, and uniformity of nature
- The reliable effectiveness of mathematics and logic to describe the cosmos
- The basic reliability of human cognitive faculties and sensory organs
- The congruence between the human mind and physical reality
- That acceptable criteria for an adequate hypothesis exist
- That what is observed in nature can provide clues and indicators of unobservable patterns and processes
(See John D. Barrow, The Universe That Discovered Itself [2000], pgs. 26– 29).
These eight profound and amazing assumptions are just that— assumptions. That is, these preconditions for doing science are not first proven by science. Rather, scientists assume these ideas to be true before carrying out their work. The success of science somewhat serves to confirm the truth of these extraordinary preconditions of reality, but the scientific method itself did not establish or justify them. In a sense, scientists operate on faith in the necessary prerequisites of intelligibility.
Successful engagement in scientific research is deeply dependent upon belief and trust in foundational philosophical truths, yet these truths cannot wholly be derived from scientific experiments themselves. For science’s basic empirical (observational, experimental) venture to work and thrive, certain non-empirical assumptions about reality (including abstract ideas, the world, and humans) must be true. It takes a certain kind of world for science to even be possible. In fact, assumptions concomitant with the Catholic worldview are what initially allowed science to emerge and flourish in seventeenth-century Europe.
Thus, we see that, instead of functioning independently or neutrally of religious or philosophical beliefs, science has relied on such beliefs to nurture it at its foundation. The scientific method is not, and never has been, competent to stand alone as the only legitimate basis for believing something to be true. Hence, one reason for our culture’s high regard for science is really a misunderstanding of how science functions as an intellectual enterprise. Science isn’t a mere neutral practice that “just works.” It is an operation that has deep presuppositions about the very nature of reality and truth— and these presuppositions cry out for an adequate metaphysical explanation.
Believing in Science
Virtually all people have benefited from recent (in the last century or so) advancements in science, technology, and medicine. But this reality prompts the provocative question we considered before: Why does science work? That is, why is the scientific enterprise so effective in delivering critical and reliable information about the natural world that can inform and benefit humanity?
I like to ask science teachers and scientists that question and have asked it of many I have met through the years. The answer is usually something along this line: “It just does. Science is unique. It works.” I think the reason that most scientists don’t venture to tell me exactly why science works is because the why of science has more to do with the philosophy of science than with the formal practice of science itself. While the general practice of the scientific enterprise focuses on the what and how of science, the philosophy of science has a lot to say about the whys of science.
A Science-Conducive World
What kind of universe that is conducive to science? Science's preconditions can be reduced into three networked factors.
- The Right Kind of World. A world conducive to science is one that is real and has a mind-independent existence of its own. It is uniform, where the laws of nature reflect order, patterns, and regularity throughout. The world must also be intelligible and reflect an inherent rationality in the forms of logic and mathematics that can be studied.
- The Right Kind of Human Being. The humans who carry out the scientific pursuit must have keen intellectual faculties. Human cognitive abilities (brain-mind) and sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc.) must be basically reliable and trustworthy. Humans must be able to use their faculties to track the world’s intelligible qualities and achieve a depth of understanding.
- The Right Kind of Congruence between the Two. The two previous requirements mean that there must be a basic congruence (compatibility, connectedness) between the world itself and the humans who study it. The world must carry an inherent intelligibility and humans must be able to track and apprehend, to some extent, that intelligibility.
For science to work, these three factors must be valid and operative in the universe and in humans. There must also be a consonance (harmony) between the universe and humans. In other words, for science to work, reality itself must be rational, predictable, and accessible to human reason. The intelligible world and the minds of humans must be networked together, so to speak. If they weren’t, then science wouldn’t be possible.
Is the Network the Result of Necessity, Chance, or Design?
So what is the best explanation that all three factors (the world, humans, and congruency) are just right to allow for science to be possible?
First, our science-conducive universe (a fine-tuned cosmos) wasn’t necessitated by the laws of physics and could’ve been much different. Namely, the world could have been a disorderly chaos instead of an organized cosmos.
Second, mathematician Roger Penrose has said the statistical probability of arriving at a science-conducive universe (a fine-tuned cosmos) is wildly inconceivable if not impossible. (See Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics [1989], pgs. 339– 345).
Third, a Divine Mind (design) behind the universe with the attributes descriptive of Christian theism could plausibly be the actual cause of our science-human-congruence world that makes science possible and successful. If so, science works because the Creator networked Himself (the All-Wise and Infinite Giver of Laws and Logic) with the intelligible world He created and with the humans He made in his image and endowed with great intellectual abilities. Therefore a science-conducive world appears to point to the Christian God as the most plausible explanation.
Science points to God. How could it be otherwise when He is the Creator of the universe we seek to understand. The problem lies with not science but scientism.
Enter Scientism
Most atheists and Modernists have adopted a science-oriented philosophy known as scientism. According to scientism, science alone gives genuine knowledge to humanity. Scientism has two forms: (1) strong scientism says science is the only path to knowledge and (2) weak scientism says science is the best path, and really the only reliable path, to knowledge.
Strong scientism tends to depreciate the belief that knowledge can come from moral, aesthetic, and religious experience, and other sources. It also generally accepts two foundational affirmations— one metaphysical (relating to reality) and the other epistemological (relating to knowledge). First, metaphysically speaking, strong scientism asserts that the material, physical universe is, to quote astronomer and secularist Carl Sagan, “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” ( These were the opening words of the television series Cosmos (1980) hosted by Carl Sagan, originally broadcast on PBS (US)---Introibo).
Scientists who adopt a more complex view of reality by affirming a multiverse or many-worlds hypothesis extend reality beyond the observable universe, but all reality is still material and physical in nature. Second, epistemologically speaking, strong strong scientism believes science is the only way of verifying truth claims about reality. Therefore, a belief that is not scientific or doesn’t pass scientific scrutiny is considered false or meaningless. The foundational question becomes, can you prove it scientifically? Given strong scientism, religious, moral, and aesthetic claims to knowledge are neither true nor justified. They can be items of belief existentially important to individuals, but have no bearing on reality.
The claims of strong scientism are both breathtaking and logically incoherent. For example, the assertion that the material, physical world is all that exists cannot be justified by science. Likewise, the claim that all truth claims must be scientifically verified cannot itself be empirically verified by science either. Many times an atheist will say, "There is no evidence for God." This is an example of scientism. If they mean, "There is no scientific demonstration that God exists," then we agree. However, not all we accept as fact can be scientifically demonstrated. Ask, "do you think your mother loves (loved) you?" If he says "yes," ask him what scientific demonstration proves it. There is no such demonstration, yet it doesn't mean you "have no evidence" or are irrational for believing your mother loves you.
Weak scientism’s claim of being the best path to knowledge also backfires for similar reasons. It depends upon preconditions that are not derived scientifically. Moreover, knowledge of the natural world, while valuable, has limited application to other critical areas of life as will be shown next.
Science’s Limitations
The scientific method involves a general inductive approach to obtaining knowledge about the world (involving weighing probabilities and moving logically from the particular to the general). Scientific data generally comes directly through observation and experimentation. Thus, science does a very good job of explaining the physical mechanisms of the material world. It relates well to the what and how questions of life. This practical aspect is what has made science so successful and a deeply valued endeavor on behalf of humanity. However, science falters when it comes to questions of meaning, purpose, and significance. These are the ultimate why questions that people naturally and necessarily ask. For example, revealing that something happened in the physical world doesn’t explain why it happened or what it ultimately means.
There are five key areas that illustrate the realistic operating limits of sciences. These realities can’t be proven scientifically, yet all people affirm them to be real and true:
Logic and Mathematical Truths. Logic and math reflect laws and principles necessary for scientific theorizing. These truths are foundational assumptions upon which science depends but cannot itself prove. Logic and math are conceptual (abstract) in nature rather than empirical (sensory). Science tends to provide a type of secondary confirmation of the truth of logic and math, but it can’t justify these foundational conceptual realities directly.
Metaphysical Truths. Metaphysical truths relate to reality or true being. These include ideas like the existence of a real external world (not a mere illusion or simulation) and the existence of sentient minds other than our own that are capable of understanding the natural world. These minds are able to utilize and access reason (math and logic). In other words, science depends on metaphysical reality (the world, mind, and abstract objects being arranged in a science-conducive way). Although science cannot verify metaphysical truths, it is totally dependent upon metaphysics as a foundation for the scientific practice.
Ethical Truths. Objective moral truths and values exist (right, wrong, good, bad). They even guide and shape standards of practice in science. For example, scientific experiments and the results they provide are only valid if they are conducted with exacting honesty, accuracy, competency, and fair-mindedness. The existence of morality is undisputed (though how it is to be grounded is a subject of debate between theists and nontheists). Science cannot operate safely or prudently without it— yet again, science cannot detect or ground morals through its mere observational and empirical means of operation.
Aesthetic Considerations. Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that refers to the nature and appreciation of beauty, taste, and art. Yet, without doubt, beauty abounds in the natural world itself. However, pure value judgments concerning the meaning and appreciation of beauty, taste, and art cannot be addressed by the scientific method. Again, value considerations about either morality (something is good) or beauty (something is pleasing) are outside the operating lane of science.
The Scientific Venture Itself. The scientific enterprise is based upon critical assumptions that can’t be derived by the scientific method as I stated above.
Conclusion
The foundation of science rests on truths that cannot be discovered scientifically. Science has real limits and the scientific enterprise cannot stand alone in providing comprehensive answers to life’s ultimate issues. This isn’t criticizing science, but rather recognizing its proper place in society. Science remains a critical tool to understanding the natural world, but scientism overstates its appropriate role. Hence, the edifice of scientism proves to be a structure without an adequate foundation.
Science, therefore, has not and cannot "do away with the need for God." Science depends on preconditions which show design and point to a Creator. True science and true theology can never be in conflict, as they both come from the One True God.
