Steve Schramm
[Originally published as the second part of TCQ Week 2: What is Science?]
What Makes Science Possible?
In his book The Bible Among the Myths, Old Testament professor John Oswalt writes:
It was not until the biblical idea of one personal, transcendent, purposeful Creator was allowed to undergird them that science and logic were able to be fully developed and to come into their own. Without that undergirding, they fall to the ground under a barrage of contrary data … We in the last two centuries have shown the truth of this statement. We have tried to make logic and science stand on their own, and they have begun to destroy themselves.
Advertisement Below:
Oswalt is touching upon an undeniable fact of reality: The sheer possibility of science requires there to be a mind behind the universe.
Science requires something called the “uniformity of nature.” It’s the ability for scientists to test their predictions and come to repeatable conclusions. Without such uniformity, science would be impossible.
That is why it’s a fact of history that a methodology for science was not developed until there was a clash between Greek philosophy and the Hebrew concept of monotheism. Without the idea of a Creator God, there was nothing but chaos. It was a pantheon of gods fighting one another.
The Greeks brought the philosophy, and the Hebrews brought the stability. If it were not for Christianity, the scientific method would never have seen the light of day.
Couple this with biblical teaching that the world was not only created by God but is also upheld by him, and you have the preconditions for scientific inquiry. A uniform world that (1) is fundamentally logical and (2) can be explored using mathematics.
No God, no science.
Before we move to the next section:
Philosophy is the art of making distinctions, of separating this from that, of thinking about how we experience the world.
Philosophy is definitive and inquisitive. It gives definitions and asks questions to seek new definitions. But this is not a philosophy class. For our purposes here, I just need you to be able to identify the difference between a philosophical statement/conclusion and a scientific statement/conclusion.
With that in mind, let’s examine three major differences between science and philosophy:
Science Predicts and Tests — Philosophy Speculates and Explores
Scientists seek to understand. And so do philosophers. But they ask entirely different kinds of questions and seek entirely different ways of understanding.
For example:
Scientists are curious about how the natural world works. They ask questions that can be tested and measured, like “How does gravity work?” or “What causes a disease?” To find answers, they make predictions based on what they already know, conduct experiments, and observe what happens. They collect data, analyze it, and see if their predictions were correct. If they find new information, they might adjust their ideas and test again.
Philosophers, on the other hand, tackle deeper questions about life, existence, and what it means to be human. They ask questions like “What is the meaning of life?” or “What is right and wrong?” These questions often don’t have straightforward answers that can be tested in a lab. Instead, philosophers use logical reasoning and careful thinking to explore these big ideas.
Unfortunately, in our modern world, what tends to happen is that everyone can become an influencer, and these roles get confused. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a great example of someone who often draws philosophical conclusions from his scientific work. He’s a smart astrophysicist, but that does not make his opinions about, say, the compatibility of science and faith, correct.
Lawrence Krauss is another popular scientist who confuses these roles and therefore confuses his followers. His book A Universe from Nothing made waves years ago because it contended that yes, it was really possible to get a universe from nothing. (I.e., How could nothing create everything?)
In short, his book dealt accurately with the nature of quantum physics. But he drew an incorrect philosophical conclusion. Quantum physics requires the existence of a “vacuum,” which is a thing! By “nothing,” though, philosophers mean “the absence of anything at all” — literally, “No thing.” Krauss did not prove that possibility in his book, because it is impossible to prove. But that did not stop many from questioning their faith (or hardening in their atheism).
Science Asks “How?”—Philosophy Asks “Why?
Strictly speaking, science is mechanistic. It begins with what is already known and attempts to answer how things work. Once you start wondering why things are the way they are, though, it leads to philosophy.
Many of the world’s greatest scientists are trying to find the answer to the question, “Why do we exist?” We know this because there is an obsession in the scientific community with the possibility of finding a “theory of everything” (TOE).
Yes, the TOE would deal primarily with the unification of the four fundamental forces of nature:
- Electromagnetism: Described by quantum electrodynamics (QED).
- Strong Nuclear Force: Described by quantum chromodynamics (QCD).
- Weak Nuclear Force: Unified with electromagnetism under the electroweak theory.
- Gravity: Described by General Relativity.
But in so doing, scientists hope to open up entirely new ways of understanding reality. They are trying to do science to achieve a philosophical answer.
Will they ever achieve a TOE? Possibly, in a scientific sense.
But again, we mustn’t think that such a thing would — or even could — disprove the existence of God. It would simply, as science should, give us more insight into the mechanisms by which God controls and upholds our universe (Colossians 1:17).
When you’re having a discussion with someone who claims that science holds the answers to everything (which we’ll eventually discover), I would encourage you to ask them why they think that is the case.
You could provide them with examples of scientists gone wrong, like Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Lawrence Krauss. In stepping out of their field, they have shared their opinions (which of course, they are entitled to), but they’ve done so without doing the hard, rigorous work of the philosopher. And they’ve made mistakes because of it.
I’m not saying people can’t have opinions. What I am saying is that some of the loudest voices declaring science disproves God have not even faced the reality of science’s limits. They are a long way away from disproving Christianity or the Bible.
Science Looks for Patterns—Philosophy Looks for Weavers
It’s common to hear scientists refer to the “tapestry of life”. I like this phrase because it’s a subconscious admission that a tapestry must be woven. And for scientists, “nature” is the weaver. But here again, science has overstepped its bounds. It’s not in the nature of science to look for weavers — that’s what philosophy does!
Science is fundamentally driven by patterns. When we notice patterns in nature, it leads us to form hypotheses, which we then test. As we’ve seen, science describes how things happen.
Storms are a common example. In the ancient world, you will see that the gods are usually associated with forces of nature, such as Baal, the Canaanite storm god, and Zeus, the god of thunder. Of course, we now understand why storms happen. They are not connected to the wrath of God or any gods (at least not normatively), but are naturally occurring phenomena caused by the interaction of atmospheric conditions. When warm, moist air rises and cools, it condenses to form clouds and precipitation. The clash between different air masses can create thunderstorms, with lightning and thunder resulting from the rapid heating and expansion of air.
However, does that scientific explanation invalidate God’s sovereign control over the storms? Or even the ability for a lesser (little-g) god to have some control over them? No!
We have examples from both the Old and New Testaments where storms were miraculously manipulated by God. Science has shown us a pattern — a mechanism for how storms work. But it can’t:
- Prove that storms would work this way absent God’s holding together of the universe
- Prove that storms are not at least sometimes the result of action by God or a lesser god
Richard Dawkins has illustrated a similar pattern when it comes to biology. Despite being an ardent atheist, he has famously defined biology as:
…the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
This is puzzling, since when design is suggested as an explanation, it is waved away as impossible. Unless, of course, it helps us avoid the God conclusion. For example, Dawkins is on record suggesting that something like panspermia is true. This is the view that life as we know it potentially arose from alien lifeforms “seeding” our galaxy with the fundamental building blocks of life. Where did the aliens (of whom we have no evidence) come from? Some Darwinian evolutionary process in a distant galaxy far, far away, of course!
Here again, we have a scientist using scientific conclusions (spurious ones, I might add) to venture into the realm of philosophy. When this happens, two inevitable conclusions result, which we’ll discuss in turn to finish out our lesson:
The Reification of Nature
Reification happens when one treats something that isn’t real or material as if it were. This often results in someone treating an abstract idea as if it has human qualities. It is not necessarily fallacious to do this. For example, the phrase “justice is blind” does not literally mean that justice is a material thing with no eyesight. It simply means that the rule of law is meant to be impartial and a standard that applies without any prejudice. This is intentionally used in a metaphorical sense to convey an idea.
Reification is fallacious, however, when it implies that a non-material force, idea, or abstraction has a will or power of its own. As it pertains to the subject of science and creation, we hear these all the time. Here are some examples:
- “Life finds a way.” — This quote is from one of the best movies of all time, of course, Jurassic Park. But it’s a great common example of fallacious reification. Life can’t find anything. It doesn’t search for a way to do things. It has no consciousness at all.
- “Science says…” or “Trust the science…” or “The science is clear…” — But science can’t communicate at all. Only scientists can, and scientists have worldviews and biases that affect how they interpret data and reach conclusions.
- “The evidence speaks for itself.” — But evidence can’t talk. Evidence always needs to be interpreted. That’s why we have lawyers. And frankly, scientists.
- “Natural selection has designed some amazing creatures.” — But natural selection is an immaterial process that has serious limitations. It’s a post-facto observation, not an agent with design intent or ability. It can’t design anything!
And the examples go on.
Now you might say, “But these are clearly metaphorical, right?” For a technical audience, these might be considered metaphorical. But the problem is that these are usually used in communication with lay audiences.
It gives the false impression that we can/should have confidence in something that we cannot, even in principle, take confidence in. This makes believing ideas like evolution or the mainstream scientific consensus more palatable to some, giving them an excuse to believe it even if the evidence isn’t nearly as strong as it seems.
What are the fruits of this? Ironically, a return to ancient paganism:
The Deification of Nature
We know that reification isn’t harmless. It has consequences. This has become clear, since “most people” who find themselves not believing in God swing almost the entire opposite direction into worship of nature.
If you’ve ever heard the term “Mother Earth” mentioned, the Gaia theory, or heard someone called a “tree hugger,” you know exactly what I’m talking about. There are people who worship animals or who worship other humans.
This is all connected. And it all stems back to deifying nature in some way. Treating nature as if it is a god. The most obvious modern example of this is people referring to “the universe” as though it were a person. Clearly, the starts with the reification of understanding that sometimes things seem to happen in a divinely orchestrated way, even for those who do not believe in God.
But now, it’s so common to hear people say “the universe” when clearly, just 25–30 years ago, that same person might have instead said “God.”
This is not biblically surprising. We learn from Romans 1 that this will happen:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25)
Make no mistake, even LGBTQIA+ theology (yes, I said theology) is deeply connected to this idea.
And notice, how much of this crowd weaponizes science against Christianity in many areas, but denies science when it comes to the fundamental premise of their religion — sexual identity.
Conclusion
No, science is not something secondary we ought not to worry about. God wants us involved.
Because when we’re not doing our part to advance science and a biblical worldview, we end up with the deification of nature. The idea that we don’t need God, because nature holds us in her hands. (Hopefully you caught the reification fallacy in that last sentence).
Science matters. It is the study of the natural world, but it has limits. And when those limits are violated, we end up creating a god out of it. That is a slap in the face of our wonderful creator who gave us the tools and command to study his world and give him the credit.
Let’s do our part to restore science to its rightful place.
