Does Science Give Us Truth?

Does Science Give us Truth?

Before we can answer the question “Does science give us truth” it is important to first define our terms. To start, we need to know what is meant by “truth”. Secondly, we need to know what is meant by “science”. Both “science” and “truth” can be words that are difficult to define. For example, when someone defines science, what makes such a definition authoritative in the sense that everyone must agree to the said definition. Even within our own day, there are competing views as to how science should be defined. How is such diversity of opinion to be settled? For one’s definition of “science” will no doubt make evident one’s worldview commitments. Likewise, providing a definition of “truth” will also reveal one’s worldview commitments. For example, if one were to define science in a way that does not allow an appeal to God in any way whatsoever, but rather limits scientific hypothesis to the physical only, such a definition already evinces a bias in regards to how knowledge is gained. Namely, on such a definition, it is implicitly assumed that knowledge about the physical world can be attained without revelation from God, thus displaying by necessity a bias against the Christian worldview, which clearly teaches that all knowledge is revealed knowledge. In regards to one’s definition of truth, it is likewise the case that one’s definition will display a worldview bias. For there are those who deny truth all together and contend that truth is relative. Furthermore, there are those who define truth as that which corresponds to reality. Further still, there those who define truth as that which corresponds or coheres with the mind of God. Depending on which definition is adopted, and which presuppositions undergird such a definition, the answer to the question “Does science give us truth” will differ. It may also be the case that while one affirms a certain definition of truth and science, they may wrongfully assume that science gives truth while the presuppositions which undergird their definitions prove to be inconsistent with their desired conclusion. Considering the above points, let’s examine the view of science often assumed by many unbeliever’s and often times (many believers).

Science as popularly understood by the majority of scientists and laypersons, is based on the “scientific method”, which is a systematized attempt to learn through observations, hypothesis, testing to validate or invalidate the hypothesis, and developing a theory (a principal generally accepted as true) that sufficiently explains the phenomena.” Although such a method is a reliable one, it must be asked: reliable for what? Is the scientific method reliable for providing “truth”? Does the scientific method help establish certain pieces of truth as it pertains to how the nature of reality really is? It is my contention that this is not the case. As a matter of fact, this is not such a radical position to hold. Consider the Oxford definition of science, “Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study (via the scientific method; this is my addition) of the structure and behavior of the physical  and natural world through observation and experiment.” Notice that the definition does not imply that science is an activity to discover truth, nor is it a means by which we gain knowledge; for the acquisition of knowledge would entail having a “justified true belief”. Thus as a “practical” discipline, science provides theories that work. However, the fact that a theory works does not entail that the theory is true. Theories that work are often overturned and replaced by better working theories. Consider this telling comment by one of the 20th century’s most prominent philosophers of science, Karl Popper, he says, “We know that our scientific theories always remain hypothesis…In science there is no knowledge, in the sense that Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.” Popper goes on to say, “It can be shown that all scientific theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely, zero.” Another quote by none other than Albert Einstein in regards to our knowledge of the universe, he says, “We know nothing about it at all…the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.”

Despite the fact that science does not provide us with truth, there are number of problems inherent in science itself that all the more affirm the above assertions:

1) Science based on empiricism is fallacious: Empiricism is an epistemological view which says that knowledge is gained through sensation and experience. This view of how knowledge is gained is woefully flawed. First, in its extreme form, it is argued that all knowledge is gained through the senses and through experience, however such an assertion is self-referentially false. For if all knowledge is gained through our senses of the external world and experience one could ask the proponent of this view: How do you know that all knowledge is gained through the senses and through experience? Did you physically sense that all knowledge comes through the senses? No. Did you experience that all knowledge is gained through experience? No. For no one can learn the limits of knowledge through the senses or experience and therefore if this view is true, it is false. If one’s scientific perspective is based on empiricism, then their entire scientific perspective not only does not provide truth, it could not provide knowledge or truth about anything whatsoever.

2) Science that relies on induction is fallacious: Empirical science necessarily presupposes induction. This is problematic on multiple levels. First, if one’s worldview is not based on an omniscient God who knows all things, then there is no justification for believing that induction is valid. For those who may not know what “induction” is allow me to explain: Induction “is the attempt to derive a general law from particular instances.” For example, “If a scientist is studying crows, he might observe 999 crows and find that they are all black. But is he ever able to assert that all crows are black? No; the next crow he observes might be an albino. One can never observe all crows: past, present, future. Universal truths can never be validly obtained by observation. Hence science can never give us true statements.” (Excerpt taken from Trinity Foundation article by W. Gary Crampton). Thus, induction is fallacious because it moves from a particular instance to universal application. In regards to scientific application, all “science” presupposes both induction and empiricism, thus making its ability to give us truth impossible.

Considering the above issues, it is important to view science and its abilities correctly so as to not wrongfully attribute abilities to science that it does not have. As mentioned in a previous post, everyone has a worldview, complete with three major foundations: metaphysics (theory of reality), epistemology (theory of knowledge), and ethics. One’s view of science and its ability will reveal an aspect of one’s view of reality and how we come to know things. However, if one’s view of how we know things is fallacious, then the entire worldview falls apart and destroys knowledge all together. Thus if this is the case, how should science be viewed from a Christian perspective?

Starting Point: In a previous post I made mention of “axioms”, or intellectual starting points. For the Christian it is necessary to have as our intellectual foundation the revealed Word of God. For the Christian, reality is defined as how God has revealed it. For the Christian, all knowledge is revealed knowledge. For the Christian, ethics is defined by the revelation of the morally perfect God of Scripture. Because scripture defines reality, how we know what we know, and how we should live our lives; our view of science and its abilities should be viewed and defined by our worldview which is based on the Word of God. Thus, because science does not reveal truth, but rather provides us with theories that work (practical), science should be viewed then as a means or method of dominating or controlling nature. Crampton sums this up quite well he says, “Science enables us to fulfill the mandate of Genesis 1:28: Then God blessed them (Adam and Eve), and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply; fill the Earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the Earth.” (Quote continued) Science gives us directions for doing this. It does not explain the laws of nature (for such an explanation is based on induction/empiricism), nor does it accurately define or describe things. Science does not discover truth; it is a method for dominating and utilizing nature; it is merely a practical discipline that helps us live in God’s universe and subdue it.” (Crampton, Trinity Foundation). So without undermining the practical importance of science, it is vital for the Christian who is to defend the faith against all attacks (1 Peter 3:15) to put science in its proper place, and correct and refute those who would pretend that science somehow rules out God, as though science tells us anything in regards to the nature of reality. For if science says anything that reflects reality, it is because it agrees with what God has already revealed.