Word Count: 1361

Contact James Barringer

On the tension between faith and science

by James Barringer  
2/02/2010 / Christian Apologetics

We live in an age where many people believe there is a great tension between faith and science. Modern science is based on what is called "the scientific method," the forming and testing of a hypothesis, which in turn is based on something called empiricism. This what I want to spend some time talking about today, because empiricism is the belief that we can figure out the universe by interpreting data we gain through our senses.

In short, if empiricism is flawed, then the entire basis for modern science is in error.

Empiricism hinges on the belief that our senses provide us accurate information about the universe, and that we as humans can examine what our senses tell us and thus make correct deductions about the nature of things. However, our senses are fallible. Have you ever thought you felt your cellphone vibrate, or thought you heard it ring, when it really didn't? I've thought I heard my text-message tone when I knew for a fact that my phone was off! Or maybe you've been out late at night and seen dancing shadows that looked like a person, only to find that they were swaying tree branches or something else similar. Perhaps you've heard of people who saw the "image" of the Virgin Mary in a jar of peanut butter or something similar. What they really saw was a random collection of lines that their brain, on its own, spontaneously interpreted as a religious image. Have you ever been fooled by an optical illusion, or seen a mirage? It's very easy to trick the senses. They are not very reliable.

Empiricism depends on the reliability of the senses, but the senses are easily fooled. They malfunction on a regular basis, yet scientists still continue to insist that they are reliable enough to give us accurate information about the world. How patently untrue.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, though, that the senses are useful for gathering data about the universe. Empiricism holds that the next step, after gathering data, is to interpret the data. However, there are two major errors with this belief as well.

The first error is that there is no way to render a truly objective judgment. Every human brings to the table all manner of biases, previous experiences, and other things which guarantee that any judgment we make about empirical data says more about us personally than about the data. Consider this scenario. You're walking down the street late at night when a large man comes out of an alley and shouts, "Hey you!" Your reaction will probably be fear - but why? The objective facts of the situation are merely that there is a man trying to get your attention. You are the one who brings the bias that large man plus alley plus night equals fear. You're making a judgment based on your past experiences and biases, not based on objective evaluation of the facts. Perhaps he is flagging you down because his wife just collapsed in the alley and he needs to borrow a phone.

This is the case in all forms of science. The thrust of the scientific method is that I form a hypothesis, then experiment to either prove or disprove my hypothesis. Either outcome is considered positive, because even if my hypothesis is wrong, at least I have learned. Yet how often do you hear of a scientist admitting that he was wrong? Somehow, scientists who believe in global warming conveniently manage to have every experiment prove that they're right. Scientists who develop a new drug will conveniently devise tests that prove the drug does what it's claimed to do. Even other experiments, like political surveys over the telephone, can be manipulated through the use of "leading questions" intended to get a particular response, poorly-worded questions that are simply misunderstood, an inaccurate sample or inadequate sample size, etcetera. There is no such thing as objectivity in science. Every scientist understands this, yet every scientists continues to do experiments and render judgments as if true objectivity really does exist. It's hypocrisy, doublethink in action, and it's what the whole of empirical science is built on.

The second error I spoke of is very difficult to put into words. Basically, empiricism hinges on the belief that we can analyze data and come to true, logical conclusions. But how do we know this is the case? How can we prove empirically - with just our five senses - that we have the ability to accurately analyze the universe? Even if our senses were reliable (and we have already shown that they are not), how do we know for a fact that our minds are capable of correctly and logically analyzing the data provided by our senses? We don't know for a fact, and we can't prove it empirically. But empirical science requires it to be the case; science works on the unproven presupposition that we, in our finite human minds, can look at data and reach accurate conclusions about it. In fact, our brains frequently malfunction, making inaccurate conclusions. Have you ever been reading too quickly and mis-read a word? Have you ever thought you've seen a man standing in the corner of a dark room, when it was really just a hat rack? This is not your senses being fooled; it's your brain making wrong conclusions about the things your senses tell you. Yet empiricism rests on the belief that the brain makes right conclusions. We can see the contradiction quite plainly.

In closing, let me also say that science has no ability to make any kind of judgment about God. Empirical science is only equipped to analyze those things that can be examined with the senses. As such, it is utterly unable to make any kind of judgment - including existence or non-existence - about a spiritual reality beyond what can be perceived with the senses. Any scientist who says there is no God is overstepping the bounds of science, asserting something which cannot be proven nor disproven with the senses and thus is not empirical science.

Further, science has major limitations. Even if it could explain everything in the universe, even if we bumped the upper limit of human knowledge, science is unable to answer questions of why it all exists. "Why" cannot be proven or disproven and thus, as I have said, is not science. Unable to speak to whether there is or isn't a God, unable to explain whether there is or isn't a meaning to life, science is grossly limited in terms of what it can give us. It can tell us how to build an atom bomb, but not whether it is ethical to use one on civilians. It can give us the ability to communicate with strangers on the internet, but can't tell us whether or not we should use this ability to cheat on our spouses. Science is not a philosophy, not a religion. It complements faith by helping to explain all the things that God created; it is not stand-alone truth. Even if science explained everything within its scope, there would still be unanswered questions. In fact, if science did explain everything about the universe, I think it would bring the spiritual questions into even sharper relief. "Okay, so we know everything. Now what?" Only God can provide the answer to "Now what."

I am skeptical of science because it rests on the reliability of unreliable senses. It insists that it can render objective judgments when everybody knows there is no such thing as true objectivity. Further - and this is the fault of overeager scientists, not of empirical science itself - it often oversteps its bounds and attempts to render judgments about God which have no basis in actual science. Science is a tool which we can use to make sense of the world God has given us. It is the means to an end, not an end itself - it was never meant to be. Let's use it as such, and let's gently correct those who try to use science to invade the space that rightly belongs to faith.

Jim Barringer is a 38-year-old writer, musician, and teacher. More of his work can be found at facebook.com/jmbarringer. This work may be reprinted for any purpose so long as this bio and statement of copyright is included.

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com-CHRISTIAN WRITERS

If you died today, are you absolutely certain that you would go to heaven? You can be! Click here and TRUST JESUS NOW

Read more articles by James Barringer

Like reading Christian Articles? Check out some more options. Read articles in Main Site Articles, Most Read Articles or our highly acclaimed Challenge Articles. Read Great New Release Christian Books for FREE in our Free Reads for Reviews Program. Or enter a keyword for a topic in the search box to search our articles.

Enter comments below. Due to spam, all hyperlinks posted in the comments are now immediately disabled by our system.

Please type the following word below:

Not readable? Change text.

The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com.

Hire a Christian Writer, Christian Writer Wanted, Christian Writer Needed, Christian Content Needed, Find a Christian Editor, Hire a Christian Editor, Christian Editor, Find a Christian Writer