Science’s emphasis upon “observation” sometimes leads the average person to believe that scientists make all of their conclusions based upon what they actually see with their own eyes, and some scientists, who seek to make scientific observation the only or best way of knowing, speak in ways that clearly encourage that misunderstanding.
Consequently, some scientist classify belief in God as a fairy tale since He cannot presently be empirically observed. In other words, belief in God is faith, but science follows observable evidence, and is therefore fact. Well, not so quickly. Actually, science makes conclusions and pronouncements based upon things that it cannot observe, and that is faith.
At times, scientists do the same things that people who believe in God do. We all see observable events and accept unobservable causes for them. Therefore, truth be known, science really believes in many things that cannot be actually seen, but rather must be assumed by inference. ((The following quotes are from Alister McGrath’s book, “The Reenchantment of Nature”))
“We habitually speak of entities which are not directly observable. No one has ever seen a gene (though there are X-ray photographs which, suitably interpreted, led Crick and Watson to the helical structure of DNA) or an electron (though there are tracks in bubble chambers which, suitably interpreted, indicate the existence of a particle of negative electric charge of about 4.8 x 10 -10 esu and mass about 10 -27 gm). No one has ever seen God (though there is the astonishing Christian claim that “the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (John 1:18)).”
19th century German physicist Ernst Mach rejected the existence of the atom because it could not be seen, touched, or heard. “As Mach’s premature dismissal of the atomic hypothesis made clear, there is more to reality than what can be seen. Atoms really were there; they just could not be “seen” with the technology at Mach’s disposal. The same is believed of genes, electrons, and God.”
“Modern philosophy of science, particularly the forms of critical realism that are currently ascendant within that discipline, insist that a rigorous distinction must be made between epistemological and ontological issues–that is, between how something can be known and whether something is actually there. The philosophy of science lying behind Mach’s view holds that if something cannot be perceived, it is not there. A critical realist position holds that something can be there without our being aware of it. It is not necessary for something to be seen before it exists. Roy Bhaskar, perhaps the most significant advocate of “critical realism,” argues that much that is wrong with more old-fashioned philosophies of science results from a gross confusion of epistemology and ontology. Bhaskar designates these errors as the “epistemic fallacy,” which rests on the false assumption that the structures of the world depend upon human observation. For Bhaskar, reality does not depend upon human observation to come into existence. It is already there; the question is how we discern it, coming to know what is already there, in advance of its being known. We may not be able to see it–but that does not permit us to conclude that it is not there.”
“What we can observe is governed by our location in history. Before the invention of the telescope, the moons of Jupiter could not be observed, their orbits determined, and their relevance for “celestial mechanics” understood. Yet those moons were there long before we noticed them. Before the advent of multistage launch vehicles in the 1960s, it was impossible to see the far side of the moon. It is therefore necessary, as philosopher of science Rom Harré points out, to note that there are many things that are “presently lying beyond experience but are nevertheless anticipated to be objects of experience at some point in the future.”
“This is the inevitable outcome of the inductive method of scientific investigation and theorizing, which may lead to the proposal of certain unobserved entities to explain the behavior of those that can be observed. A simple example of this is provided by movements of the planet Uranus, whose orbital characteristics proved to be anomalous in the light of the predictions of astronomical theory. It was, of course, possible that Newton’s entire theory of planetary motion would need to be discarded, and replaced with something different. However, a simpler explanation lay to hand–that there was a hitherto unknown planet beyond Uranus, whose gravitational pull was influencing Uranus’s orbit. The anomalous orbit parameters of Uranus could be explained by this hypothetical planet exercising a gravitational pull on Uranus. But this was just a hypothesis, an inference from experience. In due course, the hypothetical planet in question (Neptune) was discovered independently (but on the basis of the same calculations) by Adams and Leverrier in 1846. Mathematical analysis, followed by intense observation, led to the discovery of a planet.”
“Yet Neptune already existed and was known through its effects (the influence on the orbit of Uranus) before its existence was confirmed. Neptune had not been “seen”; its existence was, however, widely accepted, due to the coherent explanation that it offered for what was otherwise a puzzling series of observations.”
“So what is the relevance of such reflections for religion? To appreciate the point at issue, we may consider Darwin’s Origin of Species and the many observations that lay behind it. In his important work, Darwin offered an explanation of reality that he believed to be the best way of making sense of the world. It allowed him to account for many otherwise puzzling features of the world, such as the distribution of species and the existence of vestigial organs. Darwin lacked the resources to prove his theory but believed that it made enough sense for him to hold it with confidence. One day, he was sure, anomalies would be resolved, loose ends tied up. By the very nature of his theory, experimental analysis was impossible. What he proposed seemed to him to be the best explanation. It could not be verified as it stood. This did not, as we have seen, prevent Darwin from trusting in his theory.”
Therefore, it is undeniable that science has and does believe in things it cannot see–genes, electrons; before it was atoms, until the telescope Jupiter could not be observed, or the other side of the moon before the multistage launcher in the 1960s. The movements of the planet Uranus could not be explained without the gravitational pull from another planet that could not be seen, which later was seen and named Neptune. Neptune was known by its effects long before it was known to exist by observation.
We know God today by His effects in this world, by Him being the most plausible answer to the most important questions of life, and one day He will be known by observation and faith will not be required. To determine the existence of…based on our knowledge of it, is a confusion of epistemology and ontology. ((Epistemologyanswer questions about what can be known and how can we know, whereas ontology answers questions about the nature of the object of inquiry)) To determine that everything that can be known is known through the five senses is a confusion of science proper with naturalism, which is a statement of faith.
Concerning objectivity, N.R. Hanson pointed out “we do not simply ‘see’ things; we see ‘things’ as something.” “There is a covert process of interpretation implicit within the process of observation. We observe nature through a filter, a set of assumptions, which conditions what we think we are seeing.” This is true of the scientist, naturalist, atheist…and theist as well.
Unfortunately, by the time God is seen directly, it is eternally too late!!
