Can Science Explain Everything?
by Randy Everist
Scientism is the view which claims science can account for any and all truths; science is the sole means by which we gain truth and knowledge. In its pure and extreme form scientism is easily defeated, since one may just point out it is self-refuting; the claim that all knowledge can only come from science itself does not come from science. However, some feel that by rewording the claim they can make a separate argument and hence avoid altogether any discussion of theistic argument.
The claim is reflected in this post’s title: science can account for everything. The typical atheist line here is that science has accounted for everything thus far, and hence we should expect it will continue to do so in the future.[1] Since no God is needed to explain anything, science can, has, and will continue to explain everything in terms of physical or natural causes. Is this correct?
| ‘Like’ The Poached Egg on Facebook! | Follow @ThePoachedEgg | Join our Support Team! |
It seems not. Science cannot inherently account for several things. First, logic and math cannot be proven by science. Science must presuppose both of these things. Without logic science cannot even make basic inferences. Even the law of gravity would never be inferred without logic. Yet if logic is divorced from science and science attempted to prove logic, it would either be completely unsuccessful or reason in a circle.
Second, statements of moral value cannot be proven by science. If objective moral values exist science cannot possibly tell us the origin of these truths since they are not physical or naturalistic in any scientifically testable way. Some atheists may object that scientists have discovered the origin of some kind of moral gene; but this doesn’t tell us anything about the origin of objective moral values themselves (only how we come to know them).
Next, aesthetic judgments cannot be accounted for or proven by science. Things considered beautiful are not themselves subjected to the scientific method. There is no way to know or to gauge the (quite natural) view of beauty. Science can dissect one’s responses to perceived beauty, the brain function, et al., but it can never account for the concept of beauty itself. Even if one claims aesthetic judgments are not in any way objective (which one can easily admit), this doesn’t get science off the hook. The scientist has to make philosophical inference to account for it: he must ask and answer the question of “why” in non-scientific terms…
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO CONTINUE READING >>>
Possible Worlds: Can Science Explain Everything?
Ratio Christi’s The Poached Egg Apologetics and Christian Worldview Network is a nonprofit ministry in need of your financial
and prayerful support to keep us going and growing. Please join our support team with an ongoing monthly or a special gift here.
And yet, our brain is composed of little tiny robots. And we’re all made of atoms. But we don’t explain art or love in terms of atomic force formulas. That’s not what science advocates for.
For example the realm of general art criticism is a better forum for critiquing art in general. The brains of artists remain made of little tiny robots. No god from Kolob (the Mormon God), nor even a Giant Termite (the mysterious invisible Anglican/Catholic god) who emits Universes out of itself, can account for that. It’s giant termites all the way down? That’s a cop out.
Science wants to search for answers, via critical peer review of evidence & theories. By being willing to thoroughly test the ideas of our peers. And scientists who disprove parts of past theories get ahead. That’s the power of science.
Your god didn’t “make math,” or aesthetics. How does one “make math” in the first place?
As a kid in the Mormon Sacred Grove (while on vacation there with my parents – http://goo.gl/maps/ulx8g ) I remember being confronted with the recursive nature of Mormon theology regarding godhood. God had a father, and he had a father, and so on, and so on… Hmmm. I couldn’t wrap my brain around the concept – and for good reason.
Now, having a multiverse around which creates universes like floating bubbles, a multiverse that always existed, ok, that’s an interesting idea. But let’s not rename that multiverse “God,” “Elohim,” “Jesus,” or the “Giant Termite,” ok? There’s no need.
Related links that come to mind:
Science Is Not Your Enemy – by Steven Pinker
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114127/science-not-enemy-humanities
Daniel Dennett on the issue
http://edge.org/conversation/dennett-on-wieseltier-v-pinker-in-the-new-republic
Moving Naturalism Forward with Sean Carroll – relevant discussions about not mixing levels of understanding or getting tripped up by claims of such.
http://preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/video.html