When you hit reality

"Where do we come from?" and "What is real?" are two of the most puzzling and debated questions in the history of philosophical thought.  Today, the philosopher does not have the the microphone as in the past.  Today, it is the scientific community that has been given the reigns of authority when truth is in question.  In the past, the Christian community had some authority, but a paradigm shift occurred with Darwin's publication of the "Origin of Species" in 1859.

What does the scientific community have to make it the supposed bearer of truth?  With the medical advancements and the continued progress of science, it is easy to see why many would turn to science for answers.  But, what about the big questions of life, does science have absolute authority to answer?

One of the primary driving forces of science is the idea of empiricism.  Empiricism deals with sense experience.  In other words, all knowledge is driven by sense experience alone.  This makes the natural world the only world by which knowledge can be achieved.  Supernatural, therefore, is confined to superstition and fairy tale status.

If science is indeed king, then it follows that science should answer all, or at least point us to the truth of what is real.  Does the scientific method or science in general meet the criteria for answering all truth claims?  No, for the statement itself is not able to be tested in the lab, by the scientific method, or by any scientific means.  There are many instances where the field of science can do nothing but make subjective statements, because the answers to the questions fall outside the scientific community.  For example, the laws of logic, a human's first person awareness, the moral law, and mathematical entities all lie outside of scientific explanation.

Today, unfortunately, the culture has caved in to the idea that science is the purveyor of truth.  Before giving science the scepter of truth, shouldn't we first confirm if science matches with truth?  Truth is what happens when you hit reality, because truth corresponds with reality.  Science can in no way hit all reality to justify that it is the sole possessor of truth.  Many have opinions about science, but opinions don't count unless they match with truth.   Truth is objective and knowable.

When looking at the big questions of life, maybe we should be cautious and consider all the evidence, even if the evidence falls outside the realm of science.  Maybe we should be open-minded and follow the evidence without pre-conceived ideas.  When we do so, we are able to see more clearly the answers to the big questions of life.

Seeing is believing

Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, who was the first person in space said, "I looked and looked but I didn't see God." Gagarin and others have the view that seeing is believing. In other words, God has to be empirically verified in order to believe in his existence. Empiricism is the philosophical belief that, "All human knowledge is derived ultimately from sense experience."[1] The late philosopher Thomas Hobbs introduced many aspects of empirical knowledge and it seemed to have crystallized during the time of Charles Darwin. The interesting thing at accepting only empirical knowledge is that Darwin's theory has very little empirical evidence. Can God only be known by way of sense experience? Is the only way to obtain knowledge through empirical means?

Much of what we call scientific knowledge comes by way of non-empirical means. For example, the fields of Biology and Geology are largely based upon an inference to the best explanation. In Geology, finding many polished stones in an area can best be explained as being the result of water action. Likewise, an arrowhead found by an Archaeologist would represent a rock that had been worked on by past humans. No one would infer that the natural elements of weather carved out an arrowhead. The point is, many aspects of science are not based on empirical knowledge.

If one has to see to believe then we should throw out the belief of black holes, electrons and quarks. There is a reason why black holes are called black. Against the backdrop of space, black holes are invisible, but why do we believe in their existence? We can observe the gravitation pull that black holes have on other aspects of matter. Likewise, electrons and quarks, though unseen, exhibit certain properties to confirm their existence.

Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God;the skies proclaim the work of his hands." The Apostle Paul states, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.(Rom. 1:20)" Paul and David have made statements that knowledge does not necessarily have to be obtained in an empirical way. I would contend that the properties of God are observable such that we can reasonably believe in His existence, though He can't be seen. We can believe in that which we do not see. Some individuals are bent on non-belief in God simply for the reason that they want to be in position of a god.

In the book of Luke, there is a story of a rich man who was placed in Hades (away form the presence of God). Luke says the rich man was in torment and requested that someone from the dead return to earth to warn his family about Hades. The response given was, "'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.(Luke 16:31)" Some will not believe even if the overwhelming evidence for God's existence is present. Seeing is not always related to believing.

[1] Nash, Ronald, Life's Ultimate Questions, p. 388