From A Storehouse of Knowledge

Science is a branch of philosophy that attempts to understand everything in a systematic way.

There are several branches of science: Physical science attempts to understand the universe by examining its properties. Biology, physics and chemistry (collectively known as the natural sciences) are what many people mean when they refer to 'science', but science also includes computer science, and the social sciences, which include history, linguistics and sociology.

Science holds that no statement about anything is true unless it can be verified independently.^[Fact?] To determine what is true, the scientific method is employed. The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.
2. Formation of an explanation for the observed phenomenon.
3. Use of the explanation to predict other phenomena, or to predict the results of new observations.
4. Independent testing of the predictions by properly performed experiments.

It is by this method that science has renewed its views, even when such a renewal means the abandonment of a long and widely held belief; for instance, the Michelson–Morley experiment in 1887 was an attempt to determine the nature of the luminiferous aether (the supposed medium through which light travels). No evidence of aether was found, and the theory had to be abandoned. This discovery ultimately opened the way for the revolutionary new theories in physics in the twentieth century.

Contents 1 Boundaries of science 2 Philosophy 2.1 Christian origins 2.1.1 Quotes 2.2 Atheistic influences 3 Further reading 4 References

Boundaries of science

While science is an extremely powerful tool, it is also very limited in scope. Specifically, the scientific method can only be applied in the repeatable testing of falsifiable hypotheses. If a question is not falsifiable, science is powerless to test it, and the question (and all opinions on the question) are outside the scope of science. For instance, science can say nothing about of the beginning of the universe, because hypotheses about those events cannot be repeatedly tested. Similarly, the origin of life is outside the scope of science, because hypotheses about that event or events cannot be repeatedly tested.

However, just because something is outside the scope of science does not make belief illegitimate. For example, we cannot scientifically test the hypothesis that the ancient Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, because there is no possible experiment to test that hypothesis. We can only rely on historical accounts, and interpretations of evidence, which are not themselves falsifiable. Nevertheless, one can reasonably believe that the events occurred as reported in history texts, not based on "science," but based on "history."

Those holding a materialist philosophy often argue that assertions about things beyond the scope of science (such as creation) are "unscientific" because they cannot be tested. In making this argument, however, they are applying a double standard, because their own views on the same topics are also impossible to test. Thus, they argue that an unrepeatable, unfalsifiable hypothesis that life arose spontaneously is "science," while an unrepeatable, unfalsifiable hypothesis that life was designed is "not science."

In making this argument, they are conflating science and materialism. In other words, they are claiming that "science" proves a thing (like the non-existence of God, or the absence of free will) which science cannot prove, because the question itself is not capable of being repeatedly tested in a lab.

Similar arguments are made against the existence of free will, and the soul. For instance,

... the view that prevailed among scientists of the late 19th century was to look for the causes of our behaviour in the brain alone.^[1]

Some psychologists^[Who?] disagree with this viewpoint, asserting the existence of an eternal soul which transcends the physical world. Yet they still seek to apply to the study of the human mind the same principles which astronomers and geologists apply to their study of the heavens and the earth.

There has also been research into reports of life after death, an idea which assumes the possibility of supernatural phenomena.

There is an ongoing debate whether Science is limited to physical science^{[Citation Needed]}, or whether it can study things that cannot be directly observed (such as the functioning of the human mind) and things that are not even physical.

Some philosophers, such as René Descartes (1641), suggest there are two kinds of substance: matter and mind. This leads to a division between the study of deterministic matter -- "natural philosophy", later called "natural science" -- and the study of volitional mind -- which falls outside the domain of "natural science", into the domain of "social sciences" and the humanities and theology -- and the "formal sciences" of mathematics and logic. The techniques used and the amount of certainty in the results obtained vary widely from one field of knowledge to another.^[2]

Philosophy

Christian origins

Science ultimately rests on a number of axioms which cannot themselves be scientifically tested.

For example, one axiom is that we are able to trust our senses in making observations and running tests. Another is that the universe which scientists are investigating really exists, and is not just a figment of our imaginations.

Some cultures would not allow science, because they consider nature itself to be divine, and therefore inappropriate to study.

It is for reasons such as these that modern science arose due in large part to Christianity, as Christianity holds the following beliefs:^[3]

Monotheism

Many pagan gods were themselves part of creation, and this didn't allow for a God who was capable of creating everything. Also, this meant that the heavens were created by the same God as created the Earth, so principles such as motion which were studied on Earth could be applied to the heavens.

Lawgiving God

The theologians and early scientists reasoned that God was a law-giving God, and this would include the Laws of nature.

Rational God

Because the world was created by a rational God, the world would make sense, so studying it would not be a waste of time. Some pagan gods were capricious, so one could never be certain that things would stay the same.

Nature separate from God

Nature, being distinct from God, is not itself divine, and is therefore allowed to be studied. Many pagan religions considered nature to be manifestations of the gods, and therefore improper to study.

Man created in the image of God

Because Christians believed that God created man in His own image, we could, as Johannes Kepler put it, "think God's thoughts after Him". This also means that we could trust our senses to make meaningful observations and had the ability to reason.

Existence was linear

Much pagan thought revolved around the idea that things kept repeating themselves in cycles. So there was never anything new. But Christian thinking was that the universe had a beginning, proceeded through a number of unrepeatable events (such as the Fall and Jesus' death and resurrection), and would one day finish (with Jesus' return). This made possible the idea that we could learn new things; things that had never been known before.

Man's dominion

God provided nature for the benefit of mankind, so it is ours to study as we wish. We have dominion over creation.^[4]

Adam's fall

The founders of science believed that prior to the Fall, Adam had encyclopaedic knowledge, and science was seen as a way of recovering this knowledge.^[5]

Quotes

Numerous writers have pointed out that modern science arose specifically because of the Christian worldview:

The fact that science arose at all is powerful testimony to the truth of Christianity. As Louis Victor de Broglie says, "We are not sufficiently astonished by the fact that any science may be possible." This is especially true of the Marxist and the Secular Humanist. They do not understand that science could never have been conceived in a society dominated by their worldviews. Historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki says that "the belief in a personal rational Creator ... as cultivated especially within a Christian matrix ... supported the view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator." Man believed science possible because man believed in a God of reason and order. — David A. Noebel^[6]

The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. — Loren Eiseley^[7]

...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable. — Rodney Stark^[8]

Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.— Stephen Snobelen^[9]

As they believed in a law abiding creator God, even before the rediscovery of Greek thought, twelfth century Christians felt they could investigate the natural world for secondary causes rather than put everything down to fate (like the ancients) or the will of Allah (like Moslems). Although we see a respect for the powers of reason by Arab scholars they did not seem to make the step of looking for universal laws of nature.
...
The early modern scientists were inspired by their faith to make their discoveries and saw studying the creation of God as a form of worship. This led to a respect for nature and the attempt to find simple, economical solutions to problems. Hence Copernicus felt he could propose a heliocentric model for no better reason that it seemed more elegant.— James Hannam^[10]

Of course, it wasn't just any ol' religion that helped to birth modern science. In spite of the fact that the laws of science are universal, modern science was born in a Judeo-Christian context. For where is the Muslim version of Newton - the Muslim who also independently discovered Newton's laws? Where is the Buddhist version of Mendel? Where is the Hindu version of Kepler?— Michael Bumbulis^[11]

In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view.— Paul Davies^[12]

The victory of Christianity over paganism was the greatest psychic revolution in the history of our culture....It is often hard for the historian to judge, when people explain why they are doing what they want to do, whether they are offering real reasons or merely culturally acceptable reasons. The consistency with which scientists during the long formative centuries of Western science said that the task and reward of the scientist was "to think God's thoughts after him." If so, then modern Western science was cast in the matrix of Christian theology. The dynamism of religious devotion, shaped by the Judeo-Christian dogma of creation, gave it impetus.— Lynn White, Jr.^[13]

Although we seldom recognize it, scientific research requires certain basic beliefs about the order and rationality of matter, and its accessibility to the human mind . . . they came to us in their full force through the Judeo-Christian belief in an omnipotent God, creator and sustainer of all things. In such a world view it becomes sensible to try and understand the world, and this is the fundamental reason science developed as it did in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe, culminating in the brilliant achievements of the seventeenth century.— P. E. Hodgson^[14]

It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.— Peter Harrison^[15]

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.— Peter Harrison^[16]

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.
One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.
Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.
He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.— John Lennox^[17]

As I try co discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 or 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. This monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science.— Melvin Calvin^[18]

Modern science must come from the mediaeval insistence on the rationality of God.— Sir Alfred North Whitehead^[19]

…Christianity has been responsible for a lot of good, including science by the way, which is somewhat ironic…— Richard Dawkins^[20]

Atheistic influences

Despite the Christian foundations of science, atheists have managed to impose their own ideas, particularly in the area of origins science, specifically excluding God as a possible explanation for the origin of the universe, life, rock formations, etc.

• An early case of this was James Hutton's philosophy that "the present is the key to the past" in the study of geology. This view contradicted the biblical account which included past events, such as the great flood, which no longer happened in the present. Hutton's view was adopted by Charles Lyell, who said that it would "free science from Moses".^[21]
• Lyell's views influenced those of Charles Darwin, whose popularisation of evolution was an attack on the Genesis account. As evolutionist and science historian Michael Ruse put it, "...Evolution ... came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."^[22]

This desire to avoid acknowledging God continued into the 20th century.

• In 1929 evolutionist D. M. S. Watson wrote in Science that "evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."^[23]
• Edwin Hubble documented red shifts—indicating movement of stars away from us—in all directions. Although the most straightforward explanation of this—which Hubble realised—is that we are near the centre of the universe, he rejected this explanation because "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ...".^[24][25] Instead, he chose the alternative interpretation of a uniform expansion, which led to the Big Bang theory.
• Richard Lewontin admits that

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.^[26]

• Dr. Scott Todd wrote in Nature, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"^[27]
• In an interview, Richard Dawkins said that if we found evidence of life being intelligently designed, the designer would have to be an alien race, not God.^[28]
• Various scientists who fully accept the secular history of the universe have nevertheless been ostracised because they believe that God was the ultimate cause.^[29]

Nobody tries to invoke God as an explanation for empirical observations, such as chemical properties, measurements of the strength of metals, etc. But in the field of Origins Science, science is not the objective endeavour many atheists would have people believe.

Further reading

• Bumbulis, Michael, Christianity and the Birth of Science, 24 November 1996
• Hannam, James, Christianity and the Rise of Science, 3 February 2009.
• "What is Science?" by Richard Feynman
• "So what, exactly, is science?" – "A science checklist", part of "Understanding Science: how science really works" at UC Berkeley.
• Community wiki: What is science?
• Meatball wiki: What is science?
• The original wiki: What is science?

References