Defining Science

When people talk about science, they infer and imply many things. They may be referring to scientists, the scientific method, the popularly accepted ideas of the day, or any number of perceptions about what constitutes “science” these days. Many times, I talk about science in the context of the act of scientific inquiry, that is, the act of applying our five natural senses, taste, touch, smell, sight and sound, or technological extensions of those senses, in order to inquire about world around us. These are the only tools acceptable to science and there are inherent limits in their application which prohibit them from tackling some very important questions.

When people talk about science, they infer and imply many things. They may be referring to scientists, the scientific method, the popularly accepted ideas of the day, or any number of perceptions about what constitutes “science” these days. Many times, I talk about science in the context of the act of scientific inquiry, that is, the act of applying our five natural senses, taste, touch, smell, sight and sound, or technological extensions of those senses, in order to inquire about world around us. These are the only tools acceptable to science and there are inherent limits in their application which prohibit them from tackling some very important questions.

The tools, our senses, were granted us and operate according to the laws of the environment in which they exist. That is, your eyes see the visible light of energy. You can touch matter. You can smell the product of chemical reactions. Tying all these things together is the environment in which they exist. For God to have created our reality, he must have existed outside of it. Or, you might think of it as one bubble, the universe, existing inside another, bigger bubble, God’s universe. Either way, it still holds that the tools of science can not be assumed to apply to observing or experimenting on that which is outside of our bubble.

This is what I often allude to in discussions about origins. This is, also, what should cause you to reconsider what you are told by popular science. There is no empirical way to prove the non-existence of God, though, it seems, people like Hawking and Dawkins try hard to do so.

The next step in this argument is to debate whether it is more or less illogical to believe in an omni-present God or an omni-present material reality (universe; multi-verse; big bang repeating cycle; etc). I say “illogical” because, according to the laws of this existence, all effects have a cause, and an ever-existing God and an ever-existing reality have no initial cause hence they appear illogical.

Notice, also, that you are now no longer debating in the realm of logic but in the realm of the illogical: Whose premise is less illogical than whose? This should prompt you to pause and think a little bit. What you will discover is that the former must cease to reason according to the laws of his reality and begin to reason under a new set of conditions. The latter, however, still reasons according to the laws of his reality.

There comes a point in all of this when one needs to reconsider starting assumptions. The one who finds the limit of his own tools and reaches beyond discovers new insights while the one who refuses to acknowledge these limits spins around and around in his own concentric series of smaller and smaller circles of reasoning.

Leave a Reply