Science is limited to the study of the material world. We’re only able to study what we are allowed to study, nothing more. Why do people insist that science is the be all end all of knowledge and information? Why is belief in God allegedly incompatible with Science?
Here is a bit from an article by Edward Feser that is quite illuminating:
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/reading-rosenberg-part-ii.html
Quoting Rosenberg:
*And it’s not just the correctness of the predictions and the reliability of technology that requires us to place our confidence in physics’ description of reality. Because physics’ predictions are so accurate, the methods that produced the description must be equally reliable. Otherwise, our technological powers would be a miracle. We have the best of reasons to believe that the methods of physics – combining controlled experiment and careful observation with mainly mathematical requirements on the shape theories can take – are the right ones for acquiring all knowledge. Carving out some area of “inquiry” or “belief” as exempt from exploration by the methods of physics is special pleading or self-deception. * (p. 24)
*The phenomenal accuracy of its prediction, the unimaginable power of its technological application, and the breathtaking extent and detail of its explanations are powerful reasons to believe that physics is the whole truth about reality. *(p. 25)
Rosenberg’s argument, then, is essentially this:
- The predictive power and technological applications of physics are unparalleled by those of any other purported source of knowledge.
- Therefore what physics reveals to us is all that is real.
How bad is this argument? About as bad as this one:
- Metal detectors have had far greater success in finding coins and other metallic objects in more places than any other method has.
- Therefore what metal detectors reveal to us (coins and other metallic objects) is all that is real.
Metal detectors are keyed to those aspects of the natural world susceptible of detection via electromagnetic means (or whatever). But however well they perform this task – indeed, even if they succeeded on every single occasion they were deployed – it simply wouldn’t follow for a moment that there are no aspects of the natural world other than the ones they are sensitive to. Similarly, what physics does – and there is no doubt that it does it brilliantly – is to capture those aspects of the natural world susceptible of the mathematical modeling that makes precise prediction and technological application possible. But here too, it simply doesn’t follow for a moment that there are no other aspects of the natural world.
Those who reject Rosenberg’s scientism, then, are not guilty of “special pleading or self-deception,” Rosenberg’s condescending bluster notwithstanding. Rather, they are (unlike Rosenberg) simply capable of recognizing a brazen non sequitur when they see it. Unfortunately, condescending bluster is all Rosenberg ever offers in addition to his favorite non sequitur. Here’s some more of it:
*“Scientism” is the pejorative label given to our positive view by those who really want to have their theistic cake and dine at the table of science’s bounties, too. Opponents of scientism would never charge their cardiologists or auto mechanics or software engineers with “scientism” when their health, travel plans, or Web surfing are in danger. But just try subjecting their nonscientific mores and norms, their music or metaphysics, their literary theories or politics to scientific scrutiny. The immediate response of outraged humane letters is “scientism.” *(p. 6)
According to Rosenberg, then, unless you agree that science is the only genuine source of knowledge, you cannot consistently believe that it gives us any genuine knowledge. This is about as plausible as saying that unless you think metal detectors alone can detect physical objects, then you cannot consistently believe that they detect any physical objects at all. Perhaps someone who thinks that metal detectors give us exhaustive knowledge of the world could write up a
Metallicist’s Guide to Reality and “argue” as follows:
“Metallicism” is the pejorative label given to our positive view by those who really want to have their stone, water, wood, and plastic cakes and dine at the table of metallic bounties, too. Opponents of metallicism would never charge their metal detector-owning friends with “metallicism” when they need help finding lost car keys or loose change in the sofa. But just try subjecting their nonmetallic mores and norms, their music or metaphysics, their literary theories or politics to metallurgical scrutiny. The immediate response of outraged humane letters is “metallicism.”
Of course, “metallicism” is preposterous. But so is Rosenberg’s scientism.
Those beholden to scientism are bound to protest that the analogy is no good, on the grounds that metal detectors detect only part of reality while physics detects the whole of it. But such a reply would simply beg the question once again, for whether physics really does describe the
whole of reality is precisely what is at issue.
(End quote from the article.)
Pay attention to Feser’s last paragraph, it is crucial.
.
).