Five Things Science Can’t Explain

Written by Darren Hewer

How to fill the void and find purpose.

Science has contributed innumerable benefits to human life on planet Earth. We should be deeply grateful for the hard work of scientists who dedicate their lives to loyal study of this discipline and the advantages scientific advances grant us.

Due to its success, there is often a tendency to think that science can explain everything. However there are actually many things that science cannot prove. Here are five categories of truth that cannot be proven using the scientific method:

1) Existential Truth: Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real.

2) Moral Truth: Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is.

3) Logical Truth: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.

4) Historical Truth: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

5) Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

None of this is meant to criticize science! There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing the kinds of things it was meant to test. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. There are more intellectual tools available to us than just science, and as the old saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail!

For the kinds of truth listed above, science is not deficient in any way; it’s just not the right way to find those particular kinds of truth. To try to do so would be like trying to ascertain whether a banana is tasty by sticking it in your ear and listening to it; it’s simply the wrong method!

There is one other kind of truth that cannot be proven or disproven by science. That’s because it is comprised of all of the other kinds of truth mentioned above mixed together: Religious truth. It does have a certain amount of overlap with science, when religion makes explicit claims about scientific fact, and when science makes explicit claims about religion. But the overlap tends to be rather small; in any case, true science and true religion, because they both aim to describe reality, can never be in conflict. (Read “Science & Religion: Conflict or Coherence?” for more on this topic.)

Why then does science often seem so straightforward and uncontroversial, whereas religion can be so difficult and contentious?

It may have something to do with a fact hinted at earlier: Religious truth is multifaceted. It is comprised of science, logic, philosophy, history, ethics, and experience, all mixed together. It is, in a sense, a different kind of knowing, not ignorant the other kinds of truths, but requiring that they be studied together carefully.

Rigidly applying the same methodology used for studying mundane things would be deficient when considering divine things. This shouldn’t be too surprising, considering that if God truly does exist, God is in a different category from every created thing that we can grasp and study under a microscope: God, unlike every created thing, is in the “uncreated things” category. Science, and each of the other kinds of truths, will have something to say about God. But none of these individually can tell us everything. All are necessary, but no single approach by itself is sufficient.

If that is the case, where should a person start a serious investigation into religion amidst all the complexity? Where should a person begin?

In his suspenseful novel Five Sacred Crossings author and religious scholar Craig Hazen presents through his narrative five “sacred crossings,” or compelling reasons to consider Christianity first. This is merely an exceedingly short summary of what Hazen explains (and argues for) in much more detail in his book:

1) It is testable. Christianity does not make merely esoteric claims; it makes claims about logic, science, history, philosophy, and ultimately reality itself.

2) It paints a picture of the world that matches reality. It does not force a person to deny that our world is real. Rather it cohesively explains why things are the way they are.

3) It makes a non-compartmentalized life possible. The Christian faith does not require a person to live one way when thinking about “religious” things and a totally different way at all other times.

4) It presents salvation as a free gift. Every other religion in the world presents some sort of works-based way to re-connect with God. But at the heart of the Christian message is grace, not more demands to somehow work our way to God.

5) It has Jesus at the center. Jesus is the most compelling (and controversial) figure in history. Many other religions claim to respect him, but Christianity is founded upon his life, teaching, and identity. Why not begin by getting to know him?

One man who took on such a challenge was Dr Alister McGrath, who earned two doctorates at Oxford University, one in molecular biophysics, the other in theology. He described his spiritual and intellectual journey to the Christian faith in this way:

“At Oxford – to my surprise – I discovered Christianity. It was the intellectually most exhilarating and spiritually stimulating thing I could ever hope to describe – better than chemistry, a wonderful subject that I had thought to be the love of my life and my future career. I went on to gain a doctorate for research in molecular biophysics from Oxford, and found that immensely exciting and satisfying. But I knew I had found something better – like the pearl of great price that Jesus talks about in the Gospel, which is so beautiful and precious that it overshadows everything. It was intellectually satisfying, imaginatively engaging, and aesthetically exciting.” 1

How to find a clear purpose and meaning to life.

Further Reading:

A Scientist’s Search for Truth – Astrophysicist Hugh Ross describes his journey to faith.
The Uniqueness of Jesus – What made Jesus so special anyways?
What Does your Soul Crave? – Destiny? Intimacy? Meaning?
Contact us with Questions – Talk with someone confidentially via email.

1 Alister McGrath, The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath & Daniel Dennett in Dialogue (London, England: Fortress Press, 2008), 27.


133 Responses to “Five Things Science Can’t Explain”

  • Tom Tom says:

    Thanks for your comments on this blog. Sorry that no one has responded to your posting. Possibly it’s because you gave many personal opinions and statements but didn’t necessarily ask any questions. However, allow me to make some comments regarding some of what you wrote. (Keep in mind that I’m not addressing the original blog article, but your response statements to it. Therefore, I’m not necessarily agreeing to everything in the article.)—

    You state that science is a search for truth. I would suggest that science is less a search for truth and more a search for understanding about how things work in the universe. God gave Adam and Eve the mandate to subdue the earth and to rule over it (Genesis 1:28). Science is the natural response to this mandate as man seeks to understand God’s creation so as to better “take care of” the world.

    There is a great difference between scientific theories and scientific facts. While science may postulate theories about things based on initial evidence, scientific facts are those things which have been observed and replicated/duplicated to the extent that the same results can be relied on no matter when or where the event may occur. To be scientific, the “thing” being studied must also go through the process of “falseifiability.” In other words, the scientific method supposes that varying input could be falsified and therefore bring differing results, so the scientist notes the things that could bring changes to the end result, thus showing that using proper data and methods rather than the false ones will always bring the same results.

    You state that memories can be false. That’s true. However, the actual details of an event are true, no matter how they are observed or remembered. Varying memories don’t change the actual truth of something. You seem to suggest that nothing can be known for certain because we can’t positively believe the evidence. However, because an all-knowing and all-perfect Creator designed and implemented everything, we can be assured that there is absolute truth. He cannot lie and therefore His truths never change. What’s more, because He made man in His image and gave him the dominion mandate, He also expects man to seek and find the absolute truths (realities) of things. He made our eyes to see the truth. He made our brains to analyze the information we see and to come to the understanding of the truth. Problems arise when sinful man wanders away from God’s truth and starts to formulate their own “truths.” When man’s truths contradict God’s truths, it is man’s truth’s that are false.

    You state that “Moral(ity) is subjective, essentially made by individuals.” Not true. Morality, absolute morality as defined by God is NOT subjective. His standard for morality is perfect (just as He is perfect) and therefore never changes. At the same time, because He is perfectly logical, we also can know the rules of logic and that they will never change.

    I can’t say that I agree with your statement regarding history. In the real world, a great deal of history can be categorically stated as true because of the overwhelming amount of credible evidence for it. For example, a person can deny that George Washington was the first president of the United States, but they would be discounting ALL the evidence to the contrary. Certainly, there are many historical events that may not be 100% accurately described/portrayed today, I’ve talked with some Matrix people who say that you can’t believe anything is even real, but what’s the purpose for that? The Bible reveals that God created the universe and had a reason for doing so. We can deny all the evidence for that if we wish, but that doesn’t change the truth of it. Oh, and by your definitions/ideas, a time machine wouldn’t be worth using either because you couldn’t know the machine even existed or that it wasn’t just a parlor trick. What’s more, you couldn’t believe your senses once you got back to a historical event, could you?

    You are correct that one’s reality is not necessarily “the” reality. Everyone has their own ideas, views, opinions, and beliefs, but that doesn’t make any of them right/true. That’s why having the foundation of creation as a worldview is so important. Without that foundation, no one can “know” anything for sure. There would be no reason for rules of logic, no truths, and no unchanging standard of morality. What’s more, without these things, there would be no science either, because science depends on rules of logic, truths, and the ability to “know” things

    Again, TF, thanks for writing!

  • TF says:

    Why isn’t anyone replying to my post (dated November 6)?

  • Tom Tom says:

    I’m curious as to what your view of or definition of the “scientific method” is. Are you referring to historical science which tries to look at the present and interpret what happened in the past, or observational science (the most generally used and referred to science) which refers to those things which are observable, repeatable, and falsifiable?
    Since emotions (such as love, hate, and evil) cannot be scientifically repeated and measured in the lab, they could not be classified as “scientific.” However, these things can be explained using the Bible’s definitions of each. The Bible gives the absolute truths necessary in order to have a basis for what love, hate, and evil are, as well as the rules of logic, non-contradiction, morality, knowledge, and truth (all things necessary for science to work.)
    A further explanation of your position and/or beliefs would be helpful.

  • Nick Meisher says:

    Nonsense. You made a strawman (your view of the scientific method which is not correct) and then created arguments using religious or emotional words (love, evil, etc) about how your version of the scientific method can’t be used to provide answers to certain problems. The real scientific method can easily provide the answers as long as you can define what love is and what evil is first and then it will not be a problem to create a model. But unfortunately since what’s evil to you and what’s evil to Stalin is likely very different, the answers provided by the scientific method will be relevant only for you, since there are few absolute truths when dealing with non-tangible things such as one’s own feelings.

  • Elkay Elkay says:

    There’s a lot of bouncing around here between science and Christianity so maybe look at a couple of Christian fundamentals because what science can and cannot prove about the natural world, or the supernatural world for that matter, is not all that relevant to a fundamental tenant of Christianity. Hebrews 11:6 is clear that “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is.” Faith is not (scientific) proof and 2 Cor 5:7 goes further to state that a Christian “walks by faith and not by sight.” A Christian can thus comfortably live in the ever evolving world of scientific knowledge because his beliefs and trust are based on faith, not sight nor proof. You may think this is foolishness but read again what Alister McGrath said in the lead article and recall Paul’s warning that “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor 2:14)

  • TF says:


    First of all, let’s touch on the philosophy of science. Science is a search for truth, but not certainty. All human knowledge is fallible and therefore it is uncertain. See point 1 below. A scientific theory is empirical and always open to falsification if there are new evidence.

    1. Memories are manipulatable and can be potentially false. What we remember about an event is different from the person standing next to you simply by the act of looking at it from a different angle. We can later claim that we remember the same thing through our communication of the experience; while your memory is “true”, but it is neither an accurate witness nor a representation of reality. Now it is true that we may not never figure out the truth about existence. But why stop at existence? Why not dwell on the fact that our eyes – the instruments for observing the world – is flawed? We may never know the true appearance of a said object because our eyes are all that we have to see. For instance, we can make hypothesis and research about the perception of animals, but at the end of the day, we are still looking at the result through our eyes and perceiving it through our brain. So, until we can successfully transplant the eyes and brain of another living thing in place of ours, the so-called “truth” that we arrived through years of scientific methods and many even general consensus of our sensory experiences is all that we have.

    2. Moral is subjective, essentially made by individuals, therefore, an universal truth is not easy to define, but I would say the golden rule of “don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you.” is closest to any sort “truth”.

    3. Your understanding of logical truth is insufficient and the usage of the term is somewhat haphazard. Read: logical truths are merely analytic, they are true only because of their inherent structure and not due to the facts of the world. Read my opening statement about the philosophy of science. Consider using a better statement to highlight your point.

    4. To paraphrase Mark Damen: “History encompasses at least three different ways of accessing the past: it can be remembered or recovered or even invented. All are imperfect in some way… History is not just what-really-happened-in-the-past, but a complex intersection of truths, bias and hopes.” Science cannot prove a historical truth, but one may use various scientific methods, for instance, an investigative compare-and-constrast of separate accounts of a single event (for the purpose of context), to research on the events of the past in order to bring about an unbiased reasonable conclusion. But it does not take a genius to realize the limitation of this method. A better method would be an actual time machine. A collection of books is not a time machine, it is a bunch of opinions. However, one may come closer to the truth when you start to take it accounts of other literature.

    5. Great point on experience. For example, if I have a dream of an apple, there is no way people can know whether I really dream of an apple or an orange. Of course, the apple is imaginery, but the dream of the apple is real. I may write it down in my journal, publish an article about it, paint a picture of it, reconstruct it in video form in the most accurate manner possible, but they will not work as proof in the scientific approach. In constrast to an actual event, no one is able to account for my experience. Can we agree that one’s reality is not necessarily the reality? It is not false, but in a way, it is your truth, rather than the truth. You can try to validate your “truth” with a bunch of people, but it is still not indicative of reality or the truth. I will call this contentious, with implications of psychosis.

    This article uses the word “truth” loosely at times, but I understand it did not claim to be neutral to begin with.
    Nonetheless, stating the limitations of science still does not prove the existence of a creator.

    Note: I did not thoroughly proof read this.

  • Barbara Alpert Barbara Alpert says:

    Hi ahmed, thank you for sharing. I’d like to refer you to a link for further study about knowing Jesus personally. Here is the link:

    It is a four part series.

    1. Understanding Your Relationship With Jesus Christ
    2. Experiencing God’s Love
    3. Power for Living
    4. Growing in Your Relationship with Christ

    I hope you have time to go through each part.

  • ahmed says:

    as a Muslim I believe that God is real, Jesus Christ is a messenger of GOD, Mohamed is the last messenger sent by GOD too if you want to see the really and life read the holly Qur’an…… you will find in it mentioned all what science is discovering each day….and I am sure that many Christians have questions in which their saints avoid to be asked. all these questions that stirring your minds have answers. so that break though the barriers and just try to read the Holley Qur’an in a way that you are looking for reality and answers

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Billy, thanks for the link to Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s presentation. I am not sure that his hypothesis that a belief in the existence of a Creator God has stopped discovery is an accurate assessment of the history of science. Quite the opposite, many of history’s greatest minds have pursued scientific endeavours because they have sought to know God better. Johannes Kepler described science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” It was because of a faith that Creation came from the ordered mind of God and therefore could be known that the pursuit of science was born. Verses from the Bible like Psalm 19 have inspired many to study the stars in order to better hear and know the voice of God:
    “The heavens declare the glory of God,
    and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
    Day to day pours out speech,
    and night to night reveals knowledge.
    There is no speech, nor are there words,
    whose voice is not heard.
    Their voice goes out through all the earth,
    and their words to the end of the world.” (Psalm 19)

    The idea “God did it” does not stop people from wondering how He did ‘it’. The discovery of the forces of nature does nothing to diminish the wonder of God’s ability to imagine and set those forces into play. Isaac Newton did not stop investigating the movements of the planets even though he came to the place of saying in his work Principia, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. ..Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.” I would suggest that for most people, the knowledge of how our universe works does not reduce the beauty and the mystery of it in the same way that a greater knowledge of who my wife does not lessens the mystery of our love for one another. The deeper we go in our understanding the more we become enamoured with the wondrous beauty of the mind behind it all.

    Tyson ended his presentation with a question “why 15% of the National Academy [of Sciences] don’t [reject God]?” What I would like to know is how many of those 15% have discovered their faith in God through their work as scientists. As Werner Heisenberg–the 1932 Nobel Prize winner in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics–said, “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” (Deutschlands Admirale, 1849-1945: Die militarischen Werdegange der See-, Ingenieur-, Sanitats-, Waffen- und Verwaltungsoffiziere…, Hildebrande, 1988, 10)

  • Lan says:

    Billy your points seem to show that there is still an absolute truth when knowledge is gained …for instance the wall is truly NOT solid just believed to be until the truth is discovered.

  • Chris Chris says:

    jeremiah…amen and amen!!

  • Billy says:

    Ofcourse it is easier to believe ‘God did it’ to whatever you do not understand. Listen to a more brilliant mind than mine explain the phenomena. (Neil DeGrasse Tyson)

    Life is all about paths taken based on current realities. Yes, over many millennia many realities have forced life into specific directions. Once you understand it, it is no longer mysterious. At this point it is only called ‘the theory’ of evolution out of scientific formality, because we did not witness it with our own eyes at every stage and to replicate it would require millenia. Rest assured, it can be artificially replicated (under controlled situations). That’s how certain evolution is fyi.

    I am not saying there is no god. I am just certain god is not what most believers believe god is. It is not that ever receding pocket of ignorance (Things believes do not understand/”God of the gaps”).

  • Jeremiah says:

    One question how did anything come into being. Science say the Big Bang theory theory meaning can not be proven. But the truth is how did anything begin. I choose God because he is the beginning and the end. Science can’t even find a beginning because they have to find the end to know where the beginning is. It’s a question people will argue till the end of time. But according to science all these one in a billion coincidences happened to start life then more one in a billion coincidences continued happening to sustain and evolve life. To me it’s easier to say god guided creation in his infinite wisdom and knowledge than to say I’m here cause the universe keeps making mistakes. Anyway can debate for a life time every human can feel something great out there some of us call it god some are still looking for it. It’s your choice always has been. Just as our choices are free as Christians. To say you do not believe in god cause of evil is worse cause you could not know good without evil and vice averse.

  • Chris Chris says:

    billy jeanPierre….i pray you would simply open your heart to jesus. ask him to show himself to you. i can guarantee you he will. blessings!

  • Billy JeanPierre says:


    Which means, the title “Five Things Science Can’t Explain” is a plain idiotic, ignorant thing to write.

    200 years ago, these 5 things could have easily been ‘How/why do we see in color?’ (rods and cones); ‘What is a star?’ (A sun in another solar system); ‘Why/how are skin tones, eye color, hair color, different’? (melanin/DNA) and thus be burned at the stake for having red hair and claiming the earth goes around the sun.

    Or 5 years ago saying, ‘why can’t science put a 24mp camera on a phone?’.
    All idiotic questions/arguments for the existence of god.
    Believe as you will, but know there is no logical argument for ‘belief’ in god; just gut feeling, conjecture, postulation, and interpretation of ancient texts which have been badly translated from their original versions and wordings…

  • Billy JeanPierre says:

    Neil deGrasse Tyson and Neil Gaiman – Religion vs. Science, God of the Gaps

    Atheism, God and Education.

    The ultimate point supported by these three utube videos is that God is an ever receding ‘frontier of ignorance’. That is ‘What we not yet know must be god’ and recedes each day, week, month, or year with each new scientific discovery (‘God of the gaps’.

    As Neil put it, your faith should not stem from what you are currently ignorant of, because as evident through history those ceilings will all sooner or later shatter. If your faith is biological, coded in your DNA and are incapable of alienating that from who you are; embrace that forsaken all disparaging argument.
    But god should not be -inserted- to fill a temporary gap in current human knowledge and collective intelligence. Nor should belief pass as science. God/belief and science can never be reconciled nor is it necessary.

    Please view the videos before commenting.

  • Alfred Alfred says:

    Hi Ronaldo, Apparently fossils of dinosaur footprints and human footprints have been found over-top of each other, proving that people co-existed with these huge animals.
    I would not call God an “Old Man”, for He is the great “I AM”, always in the present tense! We can approach Him only in “now-time” (not in the past of future), for HE is not bound time as we know it.
    What if God had made us to respond positively to Him unconditionally with no opportunity for rejecting Him? Then we’d be robots! God, in His wisdom, has given us the freedom of choice because He wants us to respond according our will. We are to think, reason, and choose.
    Who can appreciate peace, except as contrasted by war, or appreciate light except as contrasted by darkness? What is true love, unless contrasted by hatred? So, God is not stopping us from wrong choices, but has built in a system of rewards and punishments. The Bible has been proven to be true, and contains many examples of warnings, punishments, and also rewards. It is not only “a rule-book” but is also “God’s love story” for us! Yes, many wrong choices have been made. God made the first move in offering us forgiveness, but it is again our choice to accept His offer or reject it – and live with the consequences.
    Does that make sense, Ronaldo?

  • Chris Chris Landwerlen says:

    angela juarez-wollos….there is really only one thing that God asks of us, to believe his Word as any faithful father would ask his child to do. the only way to please God according to the bible is by exercising faith in his promises to sustain us, save us, forgive us, care for us. jesus said man doesnt live by bread alone but by every Word that comes from the mouth of God. that is how to live, by faith and not by sight. anyone can live by what they see. Gods children are distinguished by believing what their savior says to them and that is how jesus is glorifed in them, his invisible attributes being viewed through human flesh. blessings!

  • ronaldo says:

    yes science, we can prove how things happened bye looking at recorded documents, or look for evidence,and we prove if someone loves one another by a lie detector, and it’s stupid that an old man is responsible for everything, if he were real then he would have stopped all massacres, why didn’t he stop Adolf hitler from killing over 20 million people, and when storms hit, and why didn’t he protect the dinosaurs, so he killed all innocent life 65 million years ago just so we would be created, why couldn’t dinosaurs live with us, god does not exist

  • If God exists, why doesn’t he simply appear and stop all the pointless debating? If we are all being “tested” to see if we have faith that is a ridiculous notion that I refuse to entertain. Look to the cosmos christians. Your answers lie there.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi Calladus, you are right. But there are experts who do have models of how the geological evidence points to a catastrophic world-wide flood. John Morris is a Phd in Geology and he sees evidence for a flood in the geological formations Steve Austin is another Phd in Geology who interprets the geological evidence differently

    Because there are factors that we don’t know about, clues that we find in the geological formations can be interpreted differently. Assumptions are made which influence the way the evidence is understood. If the assumptions are incorrect the interpretation of the evidence is also going to be compromised.

  • Calladus says:

    > Hi John, I am not geological expert at all, but I do see evidence for a catastrophic world-wide flood in the layers of rock in the world.

    The first half of your sentence refutes the second half. If you are not an expert, then your observations mean very little against the tens of thousands of experts who have verifiable evidence against your “gut feeling”.

  • Mifka says:


    The question is WHY?

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Hi John, I am not geological expert at all, but I do see evidence for a catastrophic world-wide flood in the layers of rock in the world. I think the distinct layers of rock that we see are better explained by a catastrophic world-wide flood than by gradual build up over billions of years. I don’t know if you have ever seen one of those sandscapes where different kinds of sand fall and create unique layers of colour ( – I am not promoting this product but just giving an example) but I think those look a lot like what we see in the rock layers.

  • John says:

    Jamie, we can disprove the flood. Scientist have looked at rock layers that go back centuries, if there ever was a flood on a grand level there would have to be proof of it in these rock layers, yet there isnt.

  • Billy says:

    Areeew, I am in intellectual love with you.
    I seldom read comments with which I agree with almost every word. However, I would qualify your argument on love as ‘Love is complex, but the idea is simple’: Complex in terms of the evoking the correct amounts of neurotransmitters and neuromodulators to make you feel “in love”. Simple in that, Love is a simple matter of biology.
    There is a truism in telling a beloved “I love the way you make me feel”. It is just that; meeting the right person who induces the production of the right brain chemicals in the correct amounts in you (Biology/Psychology/Neuroscience 101). AND THAT’S LOVE FOLKS!

    Just because you don’t know the answer to something does not make it mystical. That is a very arrogant way to see the world. One would first have to begin with the thought ‘I am brilliant and if I don’t know it, it must be beyond logic and explanation – now, or ever’.

    And Areeew, though I 100% agree with you that morality is a societal construct, I would caution against implying that rape is not wrong even in a philosophical debate. And while you’re at it, stay away from race as well; and only peripherally speak ill of religion. Remember, for those in ‘the matrix’ it is their reality and they will do almost anything to remain there. More men have been undone by not heeding these warnings…

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Wow Areeew, you are somebody I want to know. Love is complicated? You think you have figured out a way to scientifically prove why people fall in and out of love and how to predict when that will happen? That’s a pretty amazing claim. That assumes that love is just a chemical response to certain stimuli. I don’t think anyone has been able to make the claim that they have proven that. What about choosing to love someone even though they are no longer attractive physically, or emotionally? Why do some people choose to love when their spouse contracts a disease like cancer and others leave for someone that is healthy? Love is not complicated? I don’t think you have experienced love if that is your perspective.

    Rape isn’t morally wrong? That seems like a dangerous idea. I think if you asked anyone who has been taken advantage of by another human being like that they would say that their distress was based on more than just a response conditioned in them by our culture. Just because people and cultures have lacked morals is not evidence that there are no moral absolutes. In fact, if morals were the result of evolution shouldn’t we expect that the natural tendency for humanity would be to abide by those morals? Instead we see the opposite: children need to be taught morals. Parents don’t teach their children to lie.

    President Obama’s election win in 2012 was very different than his win in 2008. It was not repeated in the scientific sense of the word. We can investigate and gather clues but we cannot set up an environment where history is repeatable.

    The claim of this article is not to discredit science but rather to realize that it has limits. Science establishes those limits for itself. There are things that are true that cannot be verifiable through scientific method.

  • Areeew says:

    Scientists can prove your spouse loves you. Love isn’t complicated. Its all in our brain. A lifetime of knowing someone has nothing to do with love. Love is being attracted to someone.

    There are no moral absolutes. None. Rape is only wrong because we have decided it is. In some cultures sacrifice used to be morally fine; cultures that most of us are descendants of. Our ideas have evolved. Morality is made up from past and present experiences.

    We can scientifically prove Obama won the election. Elections use science. We can gather evidence: votes, talking to people, video, paper records. It was repeated after his first 4 years.

    You’re right. Some things can’t be proven with science yet. That means we DON’T KNOW. get that? We… don’t… know. It does not mean we make something up or assume anything.

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Well now hold it Billy, you wrote, “Wielding the Bible as an accurate historical document from cover to cover is such a non-fact.” You write off the historical accuracy of the Bible so I assumed that you had sufficient evidence of it’s inaccuracy. I just wanted to point out that over and over again the biblical records of events, people and places have been proved accurate despite those who wish to dispute it’s claims. It’s accuracy has been such that some scholars–no matter what their religious convictions–view it as a key piece of their investigation in the ancient world. Sir William Ramsay actually set out to prove the inaccuracy of the writings of Luke specifically but over time came to say, ‘Further study . . . showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement’ (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85 as quoted on

    Not only have the authors of the biblical documents been accurate in their re-telling of historical events but they have also been precise in their fore-telling of future events for which is our history. The writings of Daniel so accurately depict the rise and fall of Empires in the Middle East that many have surmised that someone added those words in the 2nd or 1st Century BC. But there are way too many historical evidences of Daniel’s writing these during the Babylonian and Medo-Persian Empires to give any credibility to those speculations. One of the most amazing specific prophecy in the Bible is Isaiah naming the Persian king who would return the Jews back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple in 520 BC. He spoke this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born and 80 years before the Jews were even taken into captivity in Babylon.

    Now I am not saying that every person, place, event described in the Bible has been conclusively established as historical fact but there is staggering amount of conclusively proved elements that one needs to be cautious when disputing any of the claims contained within its pages. You see, the Bible has a unique feature that you failed to address: yes, there is a great diversity in the authorship of all of the documents within the Bible. Over 40 different identifiable authors, from diverse backgrounds, written over the stretch of some 1500 years, in three different languages. But the Bible makes a claim about itself that gives it great credibility: “All scripture is ‘God-breathed’…” In other words, while it is true that many different people were involved in the writing of the words of the Bible and in it compilation, there was One who was inspiring and guiding those authors so that the words they wrote was the revelation of God Himself. Now I know anybody can claim such grand authorship but how can it be proved. Well, I point to the accuracy of the prophecy, the precision in historical record, the amazing consistency of the message of the Bible despite it’s diverse authorship, the clear evidence of it’s miraculous preservation in word and form over the many years and the clarity with which it speaks of the human condition and God’s solution for it as compelling reasons to take seriously that claim of divine inspiration.

    If you want evidence of the existence of God I challenge you to look closely at not only the message of the Bible, but also test the uniqueness of that claim of divine authorship and I am sure you–like many others before you–will be gripped by the voice of God speaking to you for those beautiful pages.

  • Billy JeanPierre says:

    Ahh Jamie, ‘I thought I was done but you pulled me back in!’ _Coppola “The Godfather”
    Since you’re using quotes from ‘pop-fiction’ to make an impact, I thought I would as well.

    “You question the historical accuracy of the Bible. I am curious which parts you have proof did not happen“

    This quote just made me laugh for a whole 5 minutes. With this one statement you just rewrote the laws of the universe, of logic, of science, of research, of debate, of truth.
    You might as well as proclaimed, “From this day forth, let us not start with the defeatist attitude that everything is false and untrue until proof is given, but instead begin with the more optimistic view that everything as TRUE until proven FALSE”. You just changed my world view and thousands of years of human discourse.

    Well, no one has ever conclusively proven false that there isn’t this little civilization near the north pole populated by small statured residents working in a sweatshop 24/7 ruled with an iron fist by this bearded fat man who only works once a year. Children of the world you stand vindicated! SANTA IS REAL!

    No one has also ever proven false that there wasn’t this little boy named Jack who found three magic beans which he planted and grew to the sky, once he climbed led him to a land of giants.
    Fairy creatures, sci/fi characters, and every figment of the mind you are now proclaimed real until such time your existence is successfully challenged with acceptable proof that you are not real!

    Sorry for my jokes, because your question was not a serious one. But just in case you were actually being serious;
    As far as I know, the bibles is a compilation of stories (‘books’, ‘texts’, ‘scrolls’) at different points in history groups of MEN has decided to ‘selectively’ choose from, compile, to form one book or ‘version’. Some of these stories may be truth, fiction, beliefs, opinions of the authors, cautionary tales, lessons to heed, timeless human values or values at the time they were written, etc. Which are which at this point are impossible to tell. It may be that all are true, it may be all are fiction; or it may be those who originally wrote them believed them to be true.
    Based however of what I know of our ancestors who lived 3 thousand plus years ago and what they believed for lack of proof and sophistication of thought, I am apt to believe that those fantastic stories of the bible cannot possibly be real. They called everything they didn’t understand ‘a god’ and saw everything beyond their comprehension as mystical. Can we seriously take at face value their accounts of anything – as written in the bible?

  • Jamie Jamie says:

    Well Billy, I agree that mass consensus can give life to ideas, laws, norms, etc. But there are some things that do not depend on the will of the people to be real. Even when the will of the people is contrary to a given idea the truth and reality of that still is true. The intrinsic value of human life is an example. Even though all cultures have undermined that intrinsic value at some point or another by conflicting ideas of superiority or other priorities that have taken precedence over the value of human life, it has never detracted from the actual value of every person.

    God’s existence is also not dependent on people’s belief in Him. One of the lines from Stephen King’s “The Stand” that has always stuck with me was Mama Abigail’s response to Nick’s statement, “I don’t believe in God.” Mama Abigail just bursts out laughing, “God bless you Nick, but it don’t matter. He believes in you!” ( God does need your belief to exist or to accomplish His purposes. Neither does your disbelief subtract one bit from His great power and love for you.

    You question the historical accuracy of the Bible. I am curious which parts you have proof did not happen. While I know there are some events that some have questioned and are still disputed, many of those things which once were thought inaccurate have been affirmed by new discoveries. There was a time when some scholars thought that King David was a character of legend and never really existed. But in 1993, the discovery of the Tel Dan inscription confirmed the existence of the ‘House of David’ which gives evidence of a real King of Israel named David in the time period that the Bible describes. Based on the amazing track record of the Bible’s historical accuracy in regards to people, places, events, nations it is wise to be careful of stating too emphatically that any event described in the Bible is fictitious.

  • Billy JeanPierre says:

    Jamie, I enjoy the way you express yourself; very concise logical arguments and trains of thought. I am saddened that I must disagree with you on every point. ‘Critical mass’ does give life to (make real, make true) social ideas (God, Beauty, good, evil…). For example: A law is just an idea written in a book, sitting on a shelf somewhere in an overly ornate building. Law books with or without the words written in them are simply paper, bound with glue and thread. In both states they would weigh the same, feel the same, and possess no discernibly different characteristics. What makes the words real are those who abide by them AND when they are enforced. If a law at any point is not being enforced or obeyed (Speed limit) an argument can be made that it is not real. Should doctor Neville have obeyed the speed limits around town in ‘I am Legend’? (Film – Will smith)

    Second example: Imagine erecting a paper wall to corral a herd of wild stallions (which is sometimes done). The wall works as a solid barrier because the herd collectively believes it to be solid. Once one rams and goes through the wall, the wall ceases to be a solid barrier in their minds and they will all breach the wall. So my general point is, the ‘truth’ of non-physical objects or ideas lies in the mind of the individual.

    If you believe god exists, neither I nor anyone else can successfully dispute that or convince you otherwise. I can only show you where that wall is breached a million times a day. And of-course you will point out those parts still left standing.

    Additionally, you cannot use unproven facts as proof of something you’re trying to prove. Wielding the Bible as an accurate historical document from cover to cover is such a non-fact.

    Disclaimer: Jamie, also consider these may not be my actual spiritual beliefs or stands on laws. Just philosophical arguments. At least I don’t believe I’m a ‘godless psychopath’.

Leave a Reply