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.
Jeremiah, I think your use of the word ‘faith’ is somewhat misleading. On one hand you use ‘faith’ as a belief in something unprovable. Then you use it interchangeably with ‘religion’ (i.e. Muslim Faith or Christian faith). That doesn’t mean that everything about those religions are unprovable.
There are a tremendous amounts of facts that contribute to Christianity. History clearly affirms that there was a man named Jesus who lived in the first century in the province of Palestine. Not only Christian documents but other writings from the time acknowledge that He had a reputation as a miracle worker. Again, documentation outside the Bible records the incredible impact that Jesus had throughout the Roman Empire as His followers spread His teachings wherever they went. These are all historical facts that contribute to the Christian faith.
The dictionary also defines ‘faith’ as a verb which means belief or trust. We exercise faith every day in many different ways. I have faith in my fellow drivers when I venture out on or near a roadway. It is an act of faith when I sit down on a chair trusting that it will hold my weight. Both of which are unprovable until I actually act on my convictions. Trusting in the existence of God and His character of love is unprovable until I actually take that step and accept that He is and who He is. Once you have done that there is little need for more proof because His presence with you becomes a tangible reality.
interesting article
I feel I should note that much of what you speak of has been proven by science. The fact that we are not just some brain a jar is something Kant talked about, namely as a way of proven that Hume’s point about there being no prof for reality as false. Also, I think you are deeply narrowing the scope of science. History, philosophy, and psychology are all sciences. The methods and procedures are simply far too large for the simplicity of your observations. You are incorrect to say that we cannot know historical truths. The fact is, we can. That is the entire basis of philosophy. How do we know what we know. And please don’t link science and religion together. If religion at any point describes something real, then it is not faith, its facts. Far too many people try to cross the two, with disastrous consequences. Science is based on facts, reason, experience. Faith is based on things unprovable. So when Anselm tried to prove God’s existence through a logical proof, then he was practicing science, not religion. And finally, Christianity is no more based on objective truth as any other religion. Those elements that are truth aren’t religion, and those that aren’t are part of faith. Just because it is better at siting real events doesn’t make it more true than another belief. The point of religion of faith in the unobservable. All faiths are even in that respect.
You forgot magnets…
So Luke why don’t you prove for us that you exist or that there is moral truth or choose one of the other three things identified by the author. I don’t mind you disagreeing with the article but I would appreciate less ‘name-calling’ and something substantive to your argument. The intent here is for civil conversation where people can explore ideas together and make their own determinations. Your post has not contributed to that type of discussion.
This is the worst article i have read i cant even get througth the first or second one. If you are going to write sometime at least do it cleverly. Even my relgious Muslim and Christan friends would agree that you can actually prove many of the above scientifically…what so psychology and philosophy is not a science??? idiots…..
Hi Ashley, thanks for your input in this discussion. I am interested in knowing how I misunderstood the point of the Good News. I asssume you are referring to my comment to Jan when I wrote “I base my life not only on the Good News that Jesus proclaimed while He was on the Earth”. Where did I miss the point?
And…. I think you missed the point of what “The Good News” is.
Jamie. I like your thoughtful questions. I never considered that before that God often referred to Himself as the son of man.. He also referred to himself as God though in many places in scripture. There has to be a biblical understanding of the *plan of salvation/redemption* and the *Holy Trinity* to properly understand the notion behind His phrase and the usage thereof. Please read the following link:
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html
Jamie, I don’t think you are understanding the concept of science. Science is the collection of observed evidence and research. It is only valid until a better explanation comes along. Take for example the Darwin theory. This was believed and taught to many because it seems from the evidence collected “the science” that it was true. It has sense been thrown out of consideration by new evidence. Yes the evidence seems to state that germs cause illness. That is what our human observation tells us; the evidence points that way. The answer is repeated over and over and we come to no other explanation. Can you tell me how I have seen someone healed in the Name of Jesus? Is there any evidence to say that lack of faith in the one true living God was not the reason that they where sick? Is there any evidence to say that God’s thought are beyond our own and He wanted to use this situation to build future faith in times of turmoil? Is there any evidence to say that He did not want, desire, cling, to the notion that we would turn to Him in prayer? In my biblical opinion, yes God has wrath, yes God loves His creation and hates our disobedience, YES God is forgiving, YES God offers mental, physical, spiritual, soul healing but without the redemption plan of God put into place and the shedding of blood of Jesus to show us how hurtful sin is to God, us, and those around us than there is no faith and to the unbelievers they are left with no solid evidence and no Hope.
That is an interesting point of view General Grant. It makes me wonder how we know that germs cause disease, or that the moon has less of a gravitational pull than the Earth? I thought for sure that those things had been proven through scientific investigation.
Science doesn’t prove ANYTHING. That’s the whole beauty of the scientific method. You focus on certain things that science cannot prove when in actuality, it doesn’t matter what science investigates, it DOES NOT PROVE. Scientists collect evidence that merely support or don’t support a hypothesis and nothing more. It is the preponderance of evidence, either supporting or not supporting a hypothesis that ultimately determines whether a hypothesis will be largely accepted by scientists in the field. And, as you say, there are some mysteries of life that the scientific method cannot attack at all. The beauty of science not being able to prove or disprove anything is that it creates an open invitation to re-visit and visit again any theory or hypothesis you don’t believe in, and re-test it. In that sense, the scientific process is one of inviting endless appeals and opportunities to find evidence that goes against prevailing thought. Because of that ‘open door’ policy, those theories and hypotheses that scientists either generally accept or refute are powerful ones indeed.
I love the way you describe some of the ideals of the Christian faith Jan: “Christianity is supposed to be about love, not fear; equality, not suppression, and justice, not revenge. Christianity is supposed to be about caring and compassion.” That certainly does capture much of what Jesus described what the lives of His followers should look like.
However, I do have to point out the misunderstanding that Jesus never referred to Himself as the “Son of God”. It is true that the title He used for Himself was most often “Son of Man” (which was a significant title used in the prophetic writings of the Hebrew Bible for God’s Messiah) but many times He either used the title “Son of God”, agreed when someone else used it of Him or did not correct those who did use it to refer to Him. One example is John 5:25-27 “And I assure you that the time is coming, in fact it is here, when the dead will hear my voice– the voice of the Son of God. And those who listen will live. The Father has life in himself, and he has granted his Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge all mankind because he is the Son of Man.” You will notice in this quote Jesus uses both titles for Himself (Son of God and Son of Man) showing that they both apply to Himself and in some ways are interchangeable. Another example is “Why do you call it blasphemy when the Holy One who was sent into the world by the Father says, ‘I am the Son of God’? Don’t believe me unless I carry out my Father’s work. But if I do his work, believe in what I have done, even if you don’t believe me. Then you will realize that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father.” (John 10:36-38) Here Jesus based His claim as the Son of God on the fact that He was able to do the miraculous things that everyone had seen Him accomplish. An example of Jesus affirming someone else’s use of Son of God to refer to Himself is Matthew 16:16-17 when His disciple Peter declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus’ response was, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Here Jesus not only agrees with Peter but tells Peter that God the Father was the One who had proclaimed it. I could give many other examples of other similar references.
Jesus’ claim is a unique one and does not allow for someone to diminish His importance. One cannot look at His life and applaud Him as a good person, profound philosopher, or wise teacher alone. How could we respect a person who makes such outrageous claims? How could someone be considered wise who mistakenly thought that He was the Son of God? That person is a lunatic! How could we call someone good who fraudulently ascribed to Himself divinity? That person is a liar! The only way that we can call Jesus any of those things is if we also accept that He was (and is) the Son of God sent to Earth to save people from the penalty of their rebellion against God. If a person rejects that claim of Jesus as the Son of God then they are fool to accept anything else that He might have said. Why would you want to follow the teachings of someone who was insane or a liar?!
I base my life not only on the Good News that Jesus proclaimed while He was on the Earth, but more importantly I base it on the messenger because He is the Message! His message is that God loves all of humanity and the fact that He, the Son of God, humbled Himself to the point of becoming one of us and then dying in our place so that we could receive forgiveness for all of our sin is the living out of that message. And because I have believed that His message is true and I have experienced the freedom of His forgiveness, I want to live every day in a way that follows Him. I want to share His message with those who are still trapped in trying live their life without Him. I want my life to exude the qualities that you identified: love, equality, justice, caring and compassion just as Jesus did.
I invite all to go have a look at http://powertochange.com/discover/faith/discoverpurpose to discover for yourself how the life and message of Jesus can forever change your life.
Every holy script and book is tainted by man. Look beyond what doesn’t fit to find the actual truth. Do not take every word to be the word of god because like the Bible can be edited many times by man and the Koran taken to support the killing of innocent children for the glory of Allah, religion and science can be used as a weapon to suppress and hurt people… keep that in mind.
Humanity has probably had religions of one form or another since we began to communicate. We had questions long before we had the knowledge to answer them properly, so we created religions. “Is the world flat?”; “Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?” or “What causes an eclipse?”
There was no science to answer the questions, so we created religions to answer questions about the unknown.
We had philosophy before we had real science. Long before Christianity, there were discussions as to what is “right”, and what is “wrong”. There were societies that developed moral codes of conduct that were not based on religion, such as the Greeks and the Romans. They developed legal systems that were not based on religion. Philosophers and early scientists, like Pythagoras and Archimedes developed objective truths, i.e., based on scientific data that was measurable.
Religions developed subjective truths, e.g., the earth is at the centre of the universe. This led to conflict between scientists, e.g., Galileo, and religion, i.e., Christianity. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.
The reality is that societies need codes of conduct if they are to last. History should have taught us that societies that have inequities in the distribution of wealth and power will not survive. In spite of this, there are “Christian” societies that ignore the needs of the poor, the sick, the hungry and the powerless. The United States is the most glaring example of this.
Christianity is supposed to be about love, not fear; equality, not suppression, and justice, not revenge. Christianity is supposed to be about caring and compassion.
Jesus was not the first to expound these beliefs, and we do not have to look far back in history to see that he was not the last to expound a more egalitarian society. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and the Dalai Lama
Jesus never referred to himself as the “Son of God”; he referred to himself as the “Son of Man”. Did he die for our individual sins, or the sins of man, i.e., societal sin?
Christianity, as a religion, has done little to improve the lot of the common people. Feudalism was acceptable to Christianity, as was slavery, racial discrimination, and the general oppression of the poor. It is the powerful who should fear “God”, not the meek. “God” is within each of us, in that we collectively have the power to change the world into a better place for all.
Someone who tries to live a “Christian Life” out of fear of damnation has missed the message. It is “living” for humanity on a day-to-day basis that is important, not living a life fearing the consequences of a judgement day.
From my perspective, how one conducts one’s life should be founded on a message (or a philosophy), not the messenger. We have the ability to think for ourselves, so it should not matter if Jesus was the Son of God or merely a philosopher well ahead of his time.
If we are to be judged, we will be judged on how well we exercised our free will, e.g., chose to follow a message. Those who followed out of fear that the messenger was divine abrogated their free will, thus denying the greatest gift, and therefore denying the presence of “God” that is within us all.
“Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens”.
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.