In this blog post, we will look at what possibilities science and faith hold as two ways of exploring the truth, and whether we are missing any perspectives.
It was a Saturday evening. As I was walking through the shopping mall at the subway station to give a private lesson, I was surprised by the unfamiliar environment. This was because the shops in the mall were open and doing brisk business. Starbucks, Burger King, and countless restaurants did not close their doors.
These sentences may not make much sense at first glance. Why am I surprised? There is no context to explain why the shops in the shopping mall are doing business, so it is not surprising. However, if you add two more premises, the sentence will make sense.
Premise 1. I used to only go to the neighborhood to give private lessons on Sunday mornings.
Premise 2. All the shops in the shopping district are closed on Sundays.
From my previous experience, I have only seen the shops that are always closed. Therefore, if I happen to pass the shopping district next Sunday morning, I can predict that the shops will be closed, too. And that prediction is correct. As such, the basic human desire to explore through observation is what drives us to predict future events. This desire has been developed over a long history through the study of science.
There are many examples of theories being modified and changed due to new observations in the history of the development of science. The most famous of these is the theory of geocentrism and heliocentrism. The idea that the earth, which appears to be stationary, is in motion, was an idea that was beyond the observation capabilities of humans at the time. There was also a time when people could not think that the Earth was round because they saw a flat land. Louis Pasteur overturned the existing theory of spontaneous generation with the theory of germs, and Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was also a revolution that overturned Isaac Newton’s theory, which was absolute.
In this respect, science has lost its status as absolute truth. Scientists recognize that the current paradigm may be flawed and that the theories may be broken at any time. Therefore, when new phenomena are observed that do not conform to the theory, they accept the need to shift to a new paradigm.
Let’s go back to the story of the local shopping mall and assume that I made the claim that “there is no commercial activity at all in the shopping mall around the subway station.” Anyone who knows the meaning of Saturday and the situation of the shopping mall at that time would know how invalid this proposition is. However, the story is different if the following premise is laid.
Premise 3. I am not aware of the existence of any other time zone other than Sunday mornings.
In other words, if I have never been aware of the existence of any other time zone, including Saturday afternoons, and have only observed the shopping district on Sunday mornings, then from my point of view, my claim is logically flawless. This is the limitation of scientific induction.
Some may argue that the accuracy of science is superior. Of course, science is a useful tool for predicting the future in the world we live in. However, a theory that makes accurate predictions is not necessarily the truth. Just because a prediction that stores will not open on Sunday morning is accurate does not mean that the claim that stores will not conduct any commercial activity is true.
Nevertheless, we use the power of science to explore natural phenomena. We cannot abandon the tool of science to predict the future. This is because science is the most logical, rational, and objective tool we have. And sometimes, we even think that these academic disciplines we have built up can explain and reveal all the phenomena in the world. I question the attitude we have towards the academic discipline of science. How do we view science? Is our belief that science is the best tool for exploring the truth really true? Can I really abandon this belief? Perhaps we are too devoted to the tool of science. In this devotion, we continue to explore the nature of nature, establish theories, verify them, and try to explain them. In doing so, we better understand and learn about nature.
What about religion? As a Christian, I believe in the existence of God and I live my life constantly exploring what kind of being God is. I want to get to know and understand God better. In high school, I thought of God as a being who only gave me good things, so I took the failure of my college entrance exam as a big shock. As I started to prepare for the exam again, I started attending services for students preparing for the exam, and I met new people there. The relationships and strong bonds I built with those people helped me to finish my prep school life in a stable and successful manner.
The joy I felt while meditating on and realizing the good words during my study time remains as a good memory. I was able to fully enjoy and be happy with the time I had. It was a time when I could do my best without worrying about the results. When I started my second year of college, I was only looking at the results of the entrance exam, but a year later, I spent a year filled with things I could not have imagined. So I realized that there are times when I can only be grateful by looking back.
Ultimately, I came to the realization that there are times when I can only be grateful for the good things that God has given me. These personal experiences are not as objective as scientific inquiry. They are not based on reasoning based on phenomena that anyone can observe like science, and there is no process that everyone agrees on. However, Christians share their personal experiences, reveal what God is like to others, and thereby provide indirect experiences to others. People explore what God is like through their own personal experiences and observations, and try to objectify them as much as possible. I do not think this process can be considered irrational or inferior to the process of exploring nature in science.
Therefore, I believe that it is not valid for people who blindly believe in science to dismiss people who believe in religion as illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. When someone claims that “I had a serious illness and God cured it,” is it really valid to say that it is a coincidence or just an illusion, or that it is irrational? If they believe that God cured the disease based on their personal experience and observations, can we say that it is irrational? I think that belief in gravity is not much different from our belief that gravity exists based on the observation that an apple falls to the ground when we let it go.
Some may argue that religion is an individual belief, and science is the belief of the majority, and therefore science is superior. Science can be criticized as superior to religion because anyone can agree with it. Of course, science may be more objective because it is a theory derived from phenomena that anyone can observe. However, the expression “objective belief” sounds awkward. Also, science may be more objective, but that doesn’t mean it’s the truth. If all humans are forced to only observe the shopping district on Sunday mornings, then I may be more objective than I alone claim, but I’m still far from the truth.
The reason why all these problems occur is because human observation has limitations. We cannot predict what we have not seen, and we have to accept the fact that we cannot predict it. If we consider the fact that time and space, events, and observers do not change under any conditions to be the truth, we have no ability to judge which proposition is the truth. Even if we happen to observe all the circumstances and claim the truth by considering all the necessary variables, we still cannot determine whether it is the truth or whether there is a tip of the iceberg that we have not seen. We only know that the theories we believe and the propositions we claim help us to predict the world we live in.
Perhaps we are too arrogant. We may only acknowledge the facts that we can observe, think too narrowly by reducing the limits of our observation, and live by ignoring numerous possibilities. We also try to understand all the phenomena of the world only with the framework of scientific thinking and even believe that everything can be explained with that framework. This blind faith in science may seem like a religion from another perspective.
Because of our thinking limited by reason, we may find novels and science fiction movies interesting and enjoy watching them. However, I don’t think we should limit such worlds to novels and movies. From an ant’s perspective, our reality may feel like something that is far beyond science fiction movies. Science is a very good discipline that enriches our lives, but I think we should also be open to different claims and not ignore the dimensions and possibilities that may exist beyond it.
