Five Things Science Can’t Explain
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.
Love For a Lifetime: How I got past the parental rejection of my childhood
Feeling stressed out? Try this interactive study
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
If you’re interested in starting a faith adventure today, here are some suggested next steps:
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.
Take a look at Isaac Asimov’s “The Relativity of Wrong”
I am sorry that you were disappointed by this article Heath. I think Darren (the author) addressed your sentiment when he wrote “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.” Often scientists have made statements opposing the existence of God because of their inability to observe Him and test those observations. Darren’s point is “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”. In order to discover God a different manner of investigation is required. Much of the investigation is experiential in nature. Jesus’ invitation “Come to me, all of you who are weary and carry heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28) is an example. For those who have come to Jesus and placed the weight of their heavy burdens on Him they have experienced rest. It can only be observed by those who put aside their confidence in themselves and instead put their trust in Jesus.
Heath, if you are interested in knowing God, let me invite you to go beyond the scientific method and investigate the truth of His promises to give you rest from the heavy burdens that weigh you down. Have a look at http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/discoverpurpose to find out how you can investigate the difference Jesus can make in your life.
Oh for … sake. These are the things Science cannot prove!? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO SCIENCE. Seriously, we got from Einstein to the likes of people writing this article and we wonder “whhyyy have we not made such great advances of Newton etc.”. Here’s some things science REALLY cannot answer… 1. The human brain 2. Gravity 3. Origins of Life 4. Origins of the big bang. Makes sense? Maybe not for the person who wrote this silly article, but THESE are what science is yet to answer.
Gstar,
Thank you for pointing out the error. It has been fixed.
-Power to Change editorial team
You won’t be able to prove Obama won the 2009 election no matter what you do… That’s because the election was in 2008.
Thank you, Matt, for explaining how scientific evidence supports or provides a lack of support for a theory, rather than proving that evidence is true or false. The scientific method does set out to show us in an impartial manner whether a claim can be supported or not. One statement that you make I disagree with, and that is the following:”Religion, for better or for worse, is always a choice. We believe what we most want to believe, and we select evidence to support it.” Is science also not setting out to attempt to try determine whether or not a theory holds out or not, a theory that is chosen? In the case of religion, or what I prefer to call “relationship” in the case of Christianity, many set out to “prove” that Christ did not exist, only to come to the opposite conclusion, which is what happens in many scientific experiments if one is open to seeing something other than the result that one set out to test. You are right that faith is a choice, an exercise of the will, but there is also great evidence to support that choice, or there would be no faith maintained, with the exception of blind faith. Fortunately, for me, my experience with Christianity has been much more than blind faith.
Thank you for your comments. They are very informative and thought-provoking, and I appreciate them.
Science doesn’t “prove” ideas. That is a misconception of the layman. What it does is “support” ideas, or remove support for them. It can’t “prove” that rape is evil because that is not its purpose. What it can do is demonstrate evidence that rape has been criminalized in many human cultures, including those with no contact with Christianity. Science (in this case Sociology or Psychology) can offer an explanation as to why we as a species generally feel a certain way about “universal” evils such as rape, murder, and theft. But we tend to feel that way without Christianity or any of its cousins.
The difference between science and religion lies in how conclusions are arrived at. Science is only ever a “best guess” based on available evidence. Religion, for better or for worse, is always a choice. We believe what we most want to believe, and we select evidence to support it.
Al, you have a lot of opinions which I’m sure a lot of people agree with, so thanks for raising them here for us to think about. But I’m not sure they’re accurate, and they certainly aren’t self-evident. It doesn’t sound like you’ve actually read the article, but are perhaps reacting to the title. If you have read it, do you disagree with any of the five things listed? If so, why? You referred to “propaganda” but I’m not sure which part of the article could be construed as such.
If the Bible was intended as a science textbook, and science textbooks were the only valuable books around, then I would agree with your conclusion that “There is nothing of value in the bible.” However, would you say that your phonebook, or great works of literature, or a history book all have no value just because we learn nothing about science from them? We shouldn’t judge the Bible for not teaching us about science since that was never its primary (or even secondary) purpose.
You claim Christians “desperately try to hold on to your gods and superstitions by means of illogical arguments.” But in my case, I was not a Christian until the age of 23, and was an atheist at many times in my life, and was convinced to change my mind to believe that God is real and Christianity is true, in large part by logical philosophical arguments and historical research. In my free ebook “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament” I give five different tests that can be applied to gauge the historical accuracy of ancient texts and then proceed to apply them to the New Testament. I also address such concerns as the “copycat theory” in one of the chapters. I invite you to take a look and come to your own conclusions.
As Claire pointed out, literally billions of people have found transcendent, life transforming, and practical value in the Bible. It not only has great explanatory power about the world and why it is like it is, there are good reasons to put our trust into its truth and the solutions it provides for the cravings of our souls.
I could ask you why, in the 21st century, you so desperately try to rip religion out of the hands of people who take comfort in it? You have some pretty strong opinions about the Bible I am sure you will not be surprised to hear that I do not share them. You may not find anything of value in the Bible, I do. How fortunate that here in the 21st century, I have the right to my beliefs just as you have the right to yours. We could argue it out, but it’s unlikely that either of us would be swayed. We make no attempt to hide that this is a site run by people who believe that there IS value to be found in the Bible, and truth for modern living. If that is not what you are looking for, there is a whole wide internet to choose from and I am sure you will find something more to your liking.
This is the 21st century! Why do you desperately try to hold on to your gods and superstitions by means of illogical arguments that fall under their own weight? This kind of propaganda is detrimental to society; and it is very clear that you do not understand science and/or it’s principles.
It’s almost entirely pointless to reference anything from the bible. Most of the bible is plagiarized from sources that originally had little or no relation with each other. It was merely strung together through fantasical fables.
There are religious texts that do contain important scientific and medical methods, discoveries and inventions but the bible is NOT one of them. There is nothing of value in the bible.
Cody, thank you for your reply. I’m not sure where in my reply that I say that anyone “should believe something just because it was written down.” I don’t think that is quite accurate, though it’s probably a common opinion. I think a person should believe things because they have good reasons to believe them. Religious truth is based on trust, but I don’t see good faith as being “blind”; I would define it as being trusting in something trustworthy founded on a firm foundation which leads to practical, good actions. This is no different than the rationale for believing many other things in life.
It’s an interesting choice to proffer Taoism as the first religion a person should investigate. Why did you choose that particular one? It would seem like it is a religious philosophy that is entirely untestable. For example (and the following is based on my admittedly limited understanding of Taoism so please excuse me if I make any errors) it makes no historical claims so those cannot be tested, nor any particular claims about science. It makes moral claims, but what is the foundation (grounding) for those claims? This is, I think, what Hazen is referring to when he talks about elements of religious belief being testable.
Darren, I hope you know your rebuttal simply means I should believe something just because it was written down, hopefully in good taste.
And once again you base the religious truth on trust. If it were true, there would be no trust involved, hence no faith. It would be self-evident. Which sadly, it isn’t.
I’d rather the first religion be advocated for is Taoism.
Hi everyone, thank you for taking the time to comment! I normally wouldn’t write such a long response in a comment, but since you have taken the time to write, I think it’s only fair for me to do the same.
I think we actually agree on many points, and because of the number of comments received recently it wouldn’t be efficacious to respond to each one individually, so I’ll try to make some general clarifications and responses wherever necessary to the thoughtful comments posted (and ignore the snarky ones).
Roughly speaking the article can be divided into three parts, summarized here:
1) There are certain things that are reasonable to believe but can’t be proven by science.
2) Religious truth is a particular kind of truth that is complex because it is multi-faceted (comprised of many elements from other kinds of truth.)
3) There are reasons to consider Christianity first among a multiplicity of potential religious options.
There seems to be agreement regarding section 1. As Cody pointed out, “science cannot answer those types of questions because they lie outside of the scope OF science” which was entirely the point, or as I said in the article, “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.” It doesn’t sound like anyone is disagreeing with this. (Note that this does not imply that the types of truth listed can be conclusively proven (ie, beyond probability or inference to the best explanation) using any other method.)
Section 2 (regarding the difficulty of discovering religious truths) doesn’t seem like it has generated much response, so I will assume we agree about that too.
Section 3 seems to be the most contentious. It is also the part that did not originate with me. :) It’s regarding Dr Craig Hazen’s “Five Sacred Crossings.” (Note btw that Hazen isn’t commenting as an outsider to the field of religious study, his PhD is in religion from University of California, Santa Barbara.) The summary presented here is a brief list of the main ideas presented in the book. There is not the space here to fully elucidate each point (nor was that the aim). However I’ll make a few brief comments:
When Hazen says Christianity is testable, he means according to the same kinds of tests that could be applied to claims made about any other kind of truth. It is testable (he says) in a way that, say, Zen Buddhism is not, because a religious philosophy of that sort does not make the same kind of claims re logic, science, history, philosophy, etc. For example, are there any reasons to believe the New Testament is accurate? (I would say yes, see my free ebook.)
Points two and three are closely related. Regarding point two, consider for example that modern itself science came out of a Christian (or at least theistic) worldview, as Dr Rodney Stark (sociologist, Phd from UC Berkeley, and NOT a Christian) argues in his book “For the Glory of God“. (Dr Michael Bumbulis’ article on the same topic is available for free.) But the main point of part two is that the Christian worldview is holistic: It presents a self-sufficient view of reality. (You are of course free to disagree with that assertion if you feel there are good reasons for doing so.)
There has unfortunately been considerable misunderstanding regarding point three. The idea of a “non-compartmentalized life” has nothing to do with the passages that were quoted. Of course embracing a different worldview will lead to a different kind of life. The point is that Christianity does not require a person to hold certain beliefs “on Sunday” and different ones every other day of the week. Of course, all Christians do unfortunately live in a compartmentalized way to one degree or another, but that is a deficiency in people, not the worldview.
There is also considerable misunderstanding of point four. Salvation IS a free gift. This has always been the historic teaching of the church. All other religious systems require work to attain it; Christianity presents it as something God does, not us. (As C. S. Lewis said when he was asked what makes Christianity unique among world religions: “Oh, that’s easy. It’s grace.”) It is in response to this free gift that a person’s life begins to change; not out of legalistic moral obligation, but because a person WANTS their life to become all that it was meant to be, to reflect our creator. “Worship of a deity” is the natural and appropriate reaction.
Paul explains this clearly as you likely know: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Eph 2:8-10) Here we see clearly that salvation is by grace, a gift, not by works, and also that a person who receives the gift will necessarily begin to then naturally do good works. I’m not citing this passage to prove that it’s true, just to suggest that it’s what actually is taught. So is that actually true or not? Seems like a good question for a person wanting to investigate religion to start with.
As I said, I am not about to respond to every challenge made above, several could be responded to but are irrelevant to the topic of this article. If I were making my own “sacred crossings” list (ie, why try/test Christianity first) it would be similar to Hazen’s list, although a bit simpler (again, this is a summary and not intended to be a full-argued case for each!):
1) There are good reasons to trust what the New Testament says (see my ebook whyfaith.com/nt).
2) It is the only religion where salvation is offered as a free gift by grace alone.
3) It is the only religion with Jesus at its center; He is compelling in a way that others are not.
That is my opinion; I was not brought up in the church and was an agnostic most of my life. If I am biased, it is only after a process of careful thought about these issues. You are free to disagree, but take care that you are as skeptical of your own skepticism as you are of Christianity.
1. Nothing can prove existential truth. Say you got a message direct from some god. All that would prove is that in your experience of reality, you got a message from some being that, again, in your experience of reality is a god. It doesn’t prove that reality has existence outside you brain, or that it isn’t all a lie concocted by a daemon, or shadows on a cave wall, or any of that. Existential truth is fundamentally impossible to answer.
2. Science doesn’t attempt to provide moral judgements. As you point out, science deals with “is” and not “ought”. It can provide information to inform an “ought”, but it makes no claim to be a moral system on its own. Why is this at all surprising? Why does it matter in the slightest?
3. Again, not a problem unique to science. No system of generating knowledge can prove its own validity. Try proving logic to be valid using logic, without initially presuming that logic is valid. Try proving religious experience to be valid using religious experience, without initially presuming religious experience to be valid. It is another fundamental impossibility not unique to science.
4. Again, why is this a problem? You don’t have to renounce science every time you want to study a historical event. In fact, science has an excellent track record in providing the tools with which you can perform historical analysis – see the entire field of forensic archaeology, for example.
5. Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the numerous neurological tests which can be performed to prove somebody loves you, or the equally numerous facial and behavioural indicators which can also prove it. Both of them scientific, both of them capable of proving love (and indeed any emotion).
As for the things specific to Christianity:
1. Which claims specifically are testable? Many claims in the Bible which were previously assumed to be true (e.g. the creation accounts) were subsequently shown to be false, so of course people started saying that they were figurative. When predictions of the end times occurring in the first century (of which there are plenty – all throughout the gospels and the epistles) failed, people pretended those verses didn’t exist, or meant something else.
This is an important point: modern Christianity bears no real resemblance to early Christianity (and that no real similarity to ancient Judaism), as, in order to survive the progress of knowledge and morality, it has had to change repeatedly. You may say it’s testable, but the only reason it hasn’t been discarded entirely is that the goal-posts keep being shifted.
2. Nonsense. Wherever Christianity has made specific predictions of the nature of reality it has been proven wrong. What are some of these things that match reality?
3. That depends on your particular version of Christianity. The strong, fundamentalist variant requires compartmentalisation by necessity. The watered-down liberal variant is so meaningless as to never merit thinking about.
4. I have a hundred dollars to give you. All you have to do is worship me as a god, try your hardest to obey my arbitrary rules, make regular phone calls to me (confessing every time you’ve infringed upon my rules and seeking forgiveness), and preferably meet with other people who worship me and donate money to the group.
Is that free? Of course not. A free gift is given with no pre-conditions; you ask, “Do you want eternal life?” and I say “Sure.”, you respond “Great, you’ve got it. See you later.” Christianity on the other hand requires you to accept Jesus as saviour and worship a deity for the rest of your life. It’s not free, and any god that would put such a condition upon you not being tortured for eternity is not worthy of worship.
5. You can’t talk to the dead. Since you seem to like science, I assume you’re familiar with the research which shows that people automatically adjust what they think God believes when their own beliefs change (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html) and that a religious experience can be produced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (http://www.slate.com/id/2165004/)? What about the complete lack of evidence for a soul, and the way fundamental aspects of your personality can irrevocably change when you suffer brain damage?
As our scientific knowledge has increased, the purview of religion has steadily decreased. None of the supernatural predictions of religion have been confirmed, and many have been out-right disproven. If the track record is any indication, religion is worse than randomly guessing.
Hmmmm…1) It is testable. Christianity does not make merely esoteric claims; it makes claims about logic, science, history, philosophy, and ultimately reality itself.
Right. God has been tested,Jesus miracles have been reproduced,and there was no deviation in logic and history between the NT and the OT.
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.
Yes,the “reality” that an all powerful God created people with no moral compass and then eternally damned them for making a choice via freewill is totally real.
Contradicting premises and or statements anyone? If Christian truths were self-evident, then why are there repeated efforts that are being constantly made to ascertain what the truths are? testimony is nice,but if it is to be trusted,then all the erroneous statements in the NT would need to be removed,including the rewording and supposed statements made that are not found anywhere in the OT
seriously, do you need to conduct a scientific research that rape is evil? all you need is common sense. gosh, the writer of this article is definitely no common sense. pity….
In regards to “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.”
Might I refer you to Ephesians 4:22-24,which states:
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Also James 1:22-25 which states ,in short:But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like.
I find it quite absurd that you can claim such a thing,yet not realize that once you submit to such an ideology and or belief system,that you think you have any other choice outside of it? Clearly the scriptures,a Christians basis for knowledge,requires that you immerse yourself in this lifestyle 100 percent of the time? Certainly Jesus never led a double life,one foot in the material and one in the spiritual? he was preaching and teaching up until his death,so why aren’t Christians following this nowadays?
Skewed article. Of course Science cannot answer those types of questions because they lie outside of the scope OF science. As for Craig Hazen’s book on 5 crossings, they don’t advocate Christianity over any other religion at all. Christianity is NOT testable because it claims the supernatural nor does it paint a picture of reality because of the supernatural. It paints the reality of which it prefers or what the 30+ writers preferred at the time. As for 3, the various sects who feud over interpretation easily refutes this. 4 is the WORST claim, first the salvation has to be proven to exist, it just doesn’t exist because a book says it does and by no means is the salvation offered through the Bible free at all. If you read the Bible you’d understand you’d have to give up and do A LOT of things to attain salvation. Even then, your name in Heaven’s book was decided beforehand, thus any attempt at salvation was predetermined. And of course Christianity has Jesus at the center, what else would it have or be about? Islam is about Muhammad, Buddhism is about Buddha. The claims laid out in 5 crossings are gross, misrepresented and hardly worth mentioning.
A straightforward article, which all truth (genuine truth) is. I am ever amazed how Jesus didn’t care about ratings, popularity, numbers… He just told it straight and watched His listeners dwindle away. David Platt talks about this ‘Jesus virtue’ in his book, Radical. The church(es) need to start forgetting about all the hype and stay with the light.
Getting back to science, Science has become the religion of unbelievers in its strict natural methodology, because in this epistemological view it creates for them the safe illusion that their is no God. For the believer science is a tool, compatible with faith and pure religion.
One other thing science cannot prove – Evolution.