The Fundamental Assumptions of Science

As mankind stretches their understanding of the universe, both on the macroscopic and microscopic levels, a strange thing happens: people talk themselves out of religion using the theories of men.  This isn't to say that everyone does this.  I am personally very comfortable with being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and with learning science; they fit together quite nicely and science tends to confirm my faith.  So what’s the difference? Why are some people moved to agnosticism and atheism while others become firmer in their faith?

Of course there can be a conscious choice there, but I want to focus on a more subtle choice; or maybe it’s more like an unconscious awareness of a specific fact about science, namely, the scientific method is based upon several fundamental philosophical assumptions.  There are three of these assumptions, any of which needs consideration on a deeper enough level that is not given a thought.  More astounding is that the implication of all three taken together may garner little or no consideration at all.

The first assumption is that reality is objective and consistent.  In other words, how we see it or how we feel about it doesn't change it and it always acts according to the same laws.  This is one that may not be thought about deeply enough.  Yes it may operate according to consistent laws, but I believe that the laws we observe are themselves subject to higher—and perhaps simpler—laws which we may never be able to observe.  Taking these into consideration may mean that “reality” is a little less consistent on our level than we want to think.  Thus some “supernatural” occurrences defy explanation in the context of secular science, but become clear within religious contexts.  I can’t really say more about this first assumption without giving away the next two assumptions, so let’s move one.

The second assumption is that we can perceive reality accurately.  I tend to think that there are parts of reality beyond our perception.  Also, our perceptions are only half the story of science; the other half is the assumptions and hypotheses we make based on our perceptions.  In a way the scientific method is good at regulating, refining, and/or refuting erroneous assumptions because of its use of every observation, but the trend toward militating science against religion smells like a systemic bias to me.  Once again we may need some deeper thinking on this one.  If you always remember that there are alternate explanations for everything, that religion and science both have a lot of unknowns, and that scientific laws are not reality itself but rather a model of what happens in reality, then we may be on the right track to letting science and religion get along.  In perceiving reality we tend to extrapolate why things happen.  This tends to come about by the discovery of a more fundamental mechanism behind some known part of the universe.  This mechanism, instead of being viewed as a smaller cog in the clockwork of things, is instead thought of as the motive force of the timepiece itself.  But a cog is never a motive force, simply a transferrer or translator of some other force.  These cogs are used to build a model that looks like the universe on the face (and sometimes even in many of the details) but which is missing the driving force behind it all: the “Why.” Thus whenever very fine details of a system are put in the place of the “why” of a system, we lose the accuracy of our perceptions of reality.  When we realize that the why is still unknown and that we've simply uncovered more details, then we remember that what we have is simply a model and may be the most inaccurate model possible on the inside despite returning exact, real results on the face.

By now I’ve already started talking about the third assumption: rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These rational explanations are the models we build.  But perhaps on a deeper level these rational explanations should include the “why” of things working.  If so, science cannot supply these explanations, because science cannot supply the “why.”

So what is the implication when all of these are taken together?  I seem to recall that when I first heard these fundamental assumptions explained to me, they were rolled into a single statement.  It was something along the lines of “anything that can be known can be learned through the observations of science.”  Hopefully you’ve got a sense that perhaps there are things that can be known beyond the scientific method, that the way the fundamental assumptions are generally thought about limits what science accepts as truth, distorting it along the way.  So what if we broaden and deepen the assumptions as I've tried to show?  Then the very nature of science has to change and the scientific method has to be reworked.  Alternately science could retain its current habits and methods, but change its tone of voice to be more allowing and less cynical of the “whys” provided by religion.

While this article may seem to come down pretty hard on science itself, it is really aimed at those who understand and use science in the narrow way I've described.  It’s also aimed at the masses who are increasingly educated at the hands of mass media and cynical, secular society.  There is a broader way of thinking, one that takes everything science has to offer then adds the fortitude, understanding, and resilience of faith.  This way of thinking waits patiently for further discoveries and understanding, not jumping to unnecessary conclusions but rather withholding judgment on apparent contradictions until sufficient knowledge is obtained. The man who thinks this way sees every remarkable coincidence of life as a carefully planned gift to mankind.  He looks at the mystery, majesty, and beauty of the universe with awe and wonder, seeing the art and the science interwoven down to the deepest fibers and wonders “How close is God?” because these are His handiwork.