Faith Well Grounded

Continued from A defense of science

I think it important to take science back to the invariable root question of cosmology, especially since this root question is at the heart of what makes science possible. Science is the process of finding out “what is the cause of the effect I am studying?” The Laws of Causation are the very foundation of our scientific methodology. If we throw away the ideal that every cause needs a sufficient effect, then we have thrown away the ability to apply the scientific discipline.

Therefore, all scientific questions lead back to the original, and greatest, of scientific questions. “How did all of this start?” What caused it? Since every indication is that the Universe began, then we must also accept the fact that it is an effect and thus needs a sufficient cause. Until we begin to apply every scientific question within the confines of that greater question, then we are hobbling the scientific method.

Since science shows us a definite point where nature began, then the cause of nature is supernatural by definition. Yet scientists seem intent on keeping the idea of the supernatural out of scientific possibilities. For instance, the design elements seen in the Universe are only apparent design, a priori. But how can an open-minded discipline make this assumption when the very foundations of our nature are supernatural by definition? How can biology claim the development of intellect as blind and unguided a priori? How can it disavow the possibility of an outside influence when (a) everything points to an outside influence that started the cosmic ball rolling in the first place and (b) the most logical conclusion would be that intellect would come from intellect?

It comes back to philosophical paradigms. It comes back to the worldviews of those who apply the methodology. Science is not the methodology of disallowing certain answers a priori. Science is not the practice of setting boundaries upon potential answers to the hard questions. In its strictest form, science is the process of making observations and finding the best answers to fit what we observe—what is apparent to us, if you will.

Empiricism is a philosophy. It is a philosophy that has been attached to science, but is not the philosophy upon which science rests. It can’t be if science points us to the supernatural, as noted above. If empirical observation points us to the knowledge of non-empirical evidences, then empiricism shows its own failure. As a matter of fact, empiricism needs no help in showing its own failure, as it can’t even live up to its own claims.

Hume stated the empirical philosophy perfectly when he defined that you can’t trust anything that is not either (a) self-evident, or (b) supported by empirical evidence. But empiricism is neither self-evident, nor is it verifiable empirically. So, empiricism fails its own test. There must be something greater to place trust in. Science ends where we lose the ability to quantify that which science points to.

Those who practice the scientific discipline should be more appropriate in what they speak of as scientists. And those who decide to lambaste the dogmatism of the religious groups should recognize their own dogmatisms in areas where empiricism has both indicated the greater truths, and where empiricism is failing them.

That was pretty long-winded, I know. And I realize that it came across as more of a meandering rant, so please forgive the format. But I wanted to put the subject to rest within my little blog-sphere here. I hope that my respect for science shines through. More so, I hope that I have finally made the proper distinctions in calling many in the scientific community to task.

Be blessed…

Technorati Tags: Cosmology Musings Physics Science