Belief and the limits of science

In the seemingly endless tug-of-war between Bible 'truth' and scientific 'fact', most people think the scientists are on the non-emotional down-to-earth side. That, after all, is what science is about, isn't it?

Facts are facts, and there is no room for interpretation based on tradition or how we 'think things should be'. Others can have the luxury of denying the obvious or interpreting data to fit a preconceived worldview, but the scientists should remain cooly detached from such sentiments. They build their argument on facts, whatever the consequences. Right?

So, why is it then that two scientists can look at the same set of scientific facts, theories or hypotheses, and interpret them in very different ways? Surely, if the facts are accurate, then the scientific interpretations and conclusions based on them should be at least very similar. Nevertheless, as an analytical scientist, and a Christian, I know that that is easier said than done. The interplay between personal belief, or worldview, and the limits of scientific discipline, can interfere with the objective interpretation of facts. ¹ This seems to be especially the case when those of us with a scientific background attempt to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God.

The definition of science

Science is inductive by nature. That means it observes physical phenomena by various means and then seeks to explain them ---- preferably via 'laws' of science and/or mathematics. As a scientist, I work with two basic kinds of information:
1. Qualitative - that which can be observed, whether visually or directly.
2. Quantitative - that which must be mentally assesed and measured.

From such qualitative and quantitative information, we scientists develop our ideas about matter, energy, the existence of life, etc. This is true not only for what are known as the 'hard' sciences, like Physics, Chemistry and Biology. It is important to realise that fields of study such as Psychology and Social Science also qualify as science using the above criteria, even though they deal mainly with information and conclusions that must be deduced rather than directly observed and measured.

We should also consider the Philosophy of science. This is a separate subject. It explores areas such as: 'Can Science tell us anything about origins?' or: 'Can Science tell us anything about the existence of God?' This involves abstract reasoning about 'reality', based on information gained from science itself. The philosophy of science can encompass moral and ethical discussions. (For example, certain medical practices may be possible, but are they permissible?)

Some scientists claim that such moral and ethical discussions are outside the realm of science. They reason that morals and ethics depend on religious belief, social factors, philosophies etc. They say that science does not deal with questions of morality and religion, and so is cannot be expected to answer questions about meaning.

That is not to say that such questions do not arise, or that they should not be taken very seriously.

Most scientists agree that technological and scientific advances should not be accompanied by moral and ethical debate ---- particularly in the Biosciences. But it is important to understand that this is not the same as information gained by qualitative and quantitative analysis. We must not make the mistake of confusing ideas developed in a philosophical discussion with a scientifically provable fact. Unfortunately, because scientists, like all human beings, are subject to emotion, we often do.

Theories and God

This is highlighted by the discussion concerning two important areas of science which are still posing some difficult and which could be considered ultimate questions. These are:
The origin of matter and energy.
The origin of life.

Great progress has been made in studying both these subjects in the last few decades. Our knowledge of the physical universe has been transformed. Some once-popular ideas have been transformed. Some once-popular ideas have had to be jettisoned, while challenging and controversial new facts and theories need to be understood.

You may have heard, for example, of 'String Theory'. It is a good example of what an innovative scientific theory can tell us and what it cannot. String Theory has been advanced as a possible 'theory of everything' (TOE) concerning matter and energy. It has been excellently described by Brian Greene.² The theory provides a possible answer to major questions concerning the four fundamental forces of the natural world and how they interact with each other to make the Universe work as we experience it. These forces are:

The Strong nuclear force - which is responsible for keeping the particles in the nucleus of an atom together.

The Weak nuclear force - which allows the radioactive decay of large atoms, e.g. uranium.

The Electromagnetic force - responsible for forces like electricity and magnetism.

Gravity - the attractive force between all matter in the Universe.

Scientists suspect that all of the four forces are in some way inter-related, and were united in the first instance after the creation of the cosmos ---- popularly known as the 'Big Bang'. They have shown how this was the case with the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic forces, but to connect these with Gravity is proving elusive.

The laws that govern what happens at the sub-atomic level of reality should be consistent with how things work on the macro scale of interstellar space. But they don't seem to be, and scientists want to know why. String Theory appears to be able to unite these forces at the moment of the creation of the Universe. Mainly for this reason, many physical scientists have accepted it as a 'working theory.

There is still much work to do, as the theory is studied to see how it correlates with other theories and facts. But so far, it has shown itself to be a likely candidate for helping us understand how the four fundamental forces were interrelated at the moment of the creation of the Universe.

Some strings attached

So can String Theory tell us anything directly about the existence or non existence of God? The answer is 'No!' The question of the existence of God cannot be answered by String Theory directly. Any interpretation of this ---- or any other scientific theory that addresses the question of a 'first cause' ---- lead us straight into the arena of belief, and that almost automatically colours how we feel about a theory ---- any theory.

As Stephen Hawking famously said: 'It will tell us something about the 'mind of God' ---- if God exists.³ But it is not direct proof for the existence of God. This is true of all scientific facts, theories and hypotheses. But in their enthusiasm to grasp at any evidence to prove (or disprove) the existence of God, scientists on both sides of the question sometimes paint themselves into a corner.

With respect to the 'Origin of Life', we see the same kinds of belief paradigm. Scientists spend vast amounts of time looking for answers in this area. Some scientists who are Christians have advanced the 'Intelligent Design Theory' as proof of God. This theory states that because the natural world seems to be designed in exquisite detail, there must be a designer behind it. For a believer, this makes excellent sense, but the unbeliever will still seek a 'naturalistic' solution based on their 'unbelief'.

The major difficulty is to explain how the first living cell got started. The cell is so complex that its every function is dependent on every other function. So, if it came into existence gradually, from whence came the first cell? And how did it work? Scientists like me, who are believers, can say with confidence that 'God created the first cell'. But we must realise that this is a statement of belief, and as such, is not scientific. Therefore, we should not expect it to be a satisfactory answer for unbelievers. A sceptic will counter with : 'there must be a scientific answer ---- we just haven't found it yet'. Such a paradigm ---- or belief ---- is the only one possible, once one rules out the possibility of then existence of a creator. So in absence of any compelling 'scientific' answers, the already living cell remains an important, and as yet impenetrable frontier for research into the origin of life.

Believe it or not

The question of belief should never be allowed to influence a purely scientific argument. In science, believers and unbelievers must be bound by the same rules. Whereas it is unscientific to approach a question with the presumption that there is no God, it is just as unscientific to do the opposite. The believer does not have a built in advantage. To put it another way, a belief in God has the potential to distort scientific thinking just as much as an atheistic worldview.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not downgrading the importance of belief, any more than I am disparaging the results of careful analytical scientific enquiry. Both have their place in our understanding of the natural world and the nature of God.

Those who believe in the God of the Bible will often quote Paul's Epistle to the Romans: 'For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse'.⁴

However, no matter how many times you tell an atheist this, he or she will not accept it because their own belief paradigm ---- that there is no God. We should not be suprised. Hebrews 11:3 makes it plain that it is by 'faith' that we understand that the Universe was created out of 'nothing' by God ---- but we only believe that if we believe in the God of the Bible. A similar point is made in 2 Peter 3:5-6. What one learns from the 'general' revelation of God in nature depends on one's state of belief or unbelief. Those who are unbelievers cannot see God's handiwork in the natural world, and must continue to look for a 'naturalistic' cause.

Theoretically speaking

A purely naturalistic, scientific interpretation depends on:
(a) proved scientific facts, and
(b) well-established scientific theories -
and now I need to explain what we scientists mean by 'a theory'.

Those who are afraid their belief will be undermined by science often misrepresent this. They will try to dismiss some important scientific ideas as 'just theories' that have not been proven, and are thus suspect. But what do scientists mean when they say something is a theory?

A theory is how we refer to aspects of the material world that we cannot observe directly. For example, take Atomic Theory. Experimental data strongly indicates that matter is made up of tiny particles called atoms. Atomic theory was developed from the data and atoms were accepted as fact even tough we could not see them directly. This theory is still being refined many years after it was first put forward. nevertheless, its basic assumptions regarding atoms are unchanged, so it is 'well established' and accepted by the entire scientific community. And incidentially, by you because all those wonderful electronic gadgets we have come to depend upon ---- televisions, microwave ovens, mobile phones and CD players ---- all rely on the application of atomic theory.

Scientific understanding should progress logically and systematically from hypothesis to theory to law. Here's another example.
By using a glass prism, scientists learned that what we call 'visible light' was made up of seven different colours. It was then hypothesised that perhaps the different colours had different wavelengths further experiments confirmed that this was indeed so. The hypothesis could then be advanced to the level of a Theory, from which ultimately came the universal Law that light travels at a certain speed and that nothing can travel faster than light. A theory in scientific language is not some flimsy idea cobbled together in the absence of hard facts.

Historical Sciences

Sciences which work with 'hard facts', such as physics, are easily amenable to interpretations based on those facts. But what about those branches of science that we call 'historical' sciences, such as archaeology and geology? In these arenas, the facts obtained are strictly historical. By that I mean a scientist cannot accurately replicate them in a laboratory. For example, the process by which a fish can be made into a fossil cannot be precisely replicated in a laboratory experiment ---- unless our scientist can live to a very great age!

Sometimes experiments can be set up to try to simulate ancient natural processes, but this is about as near as scientists get to 'proof' in many cases. Such historical facts can only be observed and interpreted, and that can get you into difficulties. Take, for example, the clay figurines unearthed at some Neolithic sites. An archaeologist can study the figurines and make comments about their age, what they are made of, and perhaps how they were made. But what were they used for? Were they for religious use or just 'decoration'? Just examining the figurines won't tell you.

The archaeologist can make an intelligent guess, but the interpretation is subjective (not provable) unless proof can be established by some other means. For example, future archaeologists might logically assume, from the great proliferation of crosses worn today, that early 21st century Britain was a very Christian society. That would be a reasonable assumption, but completely wrong!

In such situations, there may well be sincere differences of opinion amongst specialists. However, these interpretations are often severely coloured by the interpreter's worldview. People who believe that the six days of the creation week were literal 24-hour periods will insist that all fossils date from Noah's flood. Atheistic evolutionists will insist that that same fossil record shows no need for God. Both positions represent worldviews and are not necessarily in accordance with the facts. It is interesting to note that there are Christians, who are scientists, who accept evolutionary theory and find no contradiction in it. A good defence of this position is given by Berry ---- a Christian and former professor of genetics at University College, London.⁵

Science and Metaphysics

So do you see what I mean when I say the interpretation of the meaning of facts and theories in a 'metaphysical' sense are outside the realm of pure science? It involves speculation, philosophy and theology ---- none of which are scientifically testable as such. For example, you may have heard of the current speculation about 'multiverses' ---- that our universe is only one of perhaps many other universes. That may sound absurd to a layman, but a thoughtful scientists would not dismiss it out of hand. If it were true, it would resolve some awkward questions.

However, there is no way of finding out if it is true, because other universes cannot be tested scientifically, it must remain speculation. Speculation has a role to play in creative science, as long as we remember it as just that ---- speculation.

When a scientist says 'biological evolution proves that there is no need for God', it must be recognised that this is not a scientific statement. It cannot be scientifically proved one way or the other. It may be uttered with much authority, but it is still only a statement of that scientist's own belief.

But remember, the opposite is also true. If a believing scientist claims scientific evidence proves the existence of God, he or she is also stating an opinion.

Conclusion

In terms of science, there must be an attitude of always being ready to establish and to challenge current theories, using scientific facts. It should make no difference whether scientists are believers or unbelievers. All have a responsibility to interpret scientific knowledge and theories responsibility within the limits of science ---- that is what can be measured and observed. Theories which flow from these must remain within the boundaries of science ---- that is, putting forth theories that can be tested by scientific methods. Anything else is speculation.

The picture goes out of focus when a theory is accepted and taught as fact, when the theory itself is unproven ---- or in other words, it is still a hypothesis ---- or when 'metashysical' methods are introduced as scientific arguments. Neither have any place in pure science. The first is not scientific, the second moves into the realm of 'belief'.

In scientific enquiry, the believing scientist does not have a built-in advantage because he is a believer. All scientists must allow the facts to speak for themselves. If the facts are inconclusive, bringing belief into the argument is not helpful from a strictly scientific point of view.

You can neither prove nor disprove God's existence scientifically. That is not what science is for. We would save a lot of time and avoid a lot of argument if we all believers and unbelievers alike, would remember that.

^1.T S Kuhn, The structure of Scientific Revolution, Phoenix books, (1965).
^2. B Greene, The Elegant Universe, Vintage, (2000).
^3. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 12, published by Bantam (1996).
^4. Romans 1:20.
^5. RJ Berry, God and Evolution, Hodder & Stoughton, (1988).