HOW Science and Faith Coexist

Introduction

Science has undoubtedly been incredibly productive in the last few years, and many consider it one of the greatest intellectual achievements of the past 500 years. This success has led to a great deal of confidence and optimism about the power of science. One extreme form of this confidence is known as scientism. Bertrand Russell, one of the last century's great atheists, articulated this view well:

"It is true that science cannot decide questions of value; that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable must be attained by scientific methods, and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."

Initial Reaction

As a scientist, my first reaction to this statement is one of agreement. The idea that "what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" sounds like a strong argument for increasing funding for scientific research and respecting the field of science. The emphasis on scientific methods as the ultimate path to knowledge is indeed compelling, especially considering the countless advancements and discoveries science has brought about in fields like medicine, technology, and understanding of the natural world.

Further Reflection

However, upon deeper reflection, several issues with this perspective emerge:

Non-Scientific Nature of the Statement: The statement "what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know" is itself not a scientific statement. This raises the question of how we can know it is true, leading to a circular argument and a sort of philosophical conundrum similar to the paradox of the statement "this statement is false." The self-refuting nature of such a claim highlights a fundamental issue in relying solely on scientific assertions to define all forms of knowledge.

Existence of Non-Scientific Knowledge: Many of us believe in things that are not described by science. For example, the famous assertion from the Declaration of Independence: "These truths we hold to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," is widely accepted but is not a scientific statement. This assertion is rooted in moral and ethical beliefs that transcend scientific validation. It points to a deeper understanding of human dignity and rights, which cannot be quantified or tested in a laboratory but are nonetheless integral to our social and political lives.

Value Questions: Bertrand Russell acknowledges that science cannot decide questions of value. This is a significant caveat. Entire fields of study—philosophy, history, English, the arts—address questions and truths that are important and valuable, yet they are not scientific. Science cannot answer personal questions like "Should you break up with your partner?" or "Why is this sonnet by Shakespeare beautiful?" or "Why is Mozart's symphony moving?" These are areas where science falls short, yet they hold immense value and importance in our lives. The beauty of art, the ethics of our actions, and the emotions we experience are all vital parts of the human experience that science alone cannot fully explain or appreciate.

Moreover, the methods and frameworks used in these non-scientific fields provide different ways of understanding the world that complement scientific knowledge. Philosophy, for instance, helps us ponder existential questions and ethical dilemmas, offering insights that are crucial for making sense of our lives and the choices we make. History allows us to learn from the past, understand the present, and shape the future, providing context and meaning to human progress that raw scientific data cannot offer.

Conclusion

The limitations of scientism highlight the need for a broader approach to understanding knowledge and truth. While science is incredibly powerful in discovering and explaining the natural world, it is not the only way to gain knowledge. Ethics, aesthetics, and personal experiences are also vital aspects of human understanding that lie outside the realm of science. Recognizing the value of these other forms of knowledge can lead to a more holistic and nuanced view of the world.

In conclusion, embracing a ore integrated perspective that values both scientific and non-scientific forms of knowledge enriches our understanding and appreciation of the complexities of life. It allows us to navigate not only the physical world with precision and accuracy but also the moral, aesthetic, and existential dimensions of our existence with wisdom and sensitivity. This balanced approach fosters a more comprehensive and empathetic worldview, where the insights of science and the wisdom of the humanities and arts together contribute to a fuller and more meaningful human experience.