Empirical limit of science

Science, by definition, deals only with phenomena that are observable, measurable, and testable through direct or extended empirical means. Questions of meaning, morality, and spirit are outside its scope — not “unreal,” just unmeasurable. Science’s refusal to consider the spiritual is a rule of method (called the ‘scientific method’), not a statement about reality. [1]

And the essence of the scientific method is Poppers Criterion: that you must be able to disprove something (falsify it) in order to be able to prove it.[2] For example, to prove that a light bulb is blown, you must have a way to falsify that thesis. In other words, you have to have something that will light the bulb if it is not blown. And you do. Turn on the switch. If the bulb is good, it will light up. If it does not, that proves it is blown.[3] But without a switch or other form of disproof, you can’t prove that it is blown. The ‘scientific method’ itself distills just that simply. (Of course, in practice, the devil is in a million details [4].)

Attempting to judge spiritual or moral questions by empirical methods, or to decide physical facts by spiritual logic, both fail precisely because each domain uses different rules of evidence and meaning. That single point of clarity exposes the whole science/religion thing as a temptest of confusion in a simple tea pot. This clarity is summed up in an epistemology I have neologized as the “Two-Lane” [5] epistemology:

• The only way to disprove things material is with things and methods material. That is why religious logic cannot disprove empirical science. People who try to disprove the spherical earth using the Bible do not understand that God never said His Word was a science text, so calling a scientific claim that the earth is not flat “godless science” do not understand the field of science. It never claimed to be godly in the first place, and there is nothing ungodly about a round earth.

• The only way to disprove things spiritual is with things and methods spiritual.[6] That is why empiricism cannot disprove things religious. Scientists who say religion is not proven or real because religion does not pass the rigors of empirical examination do not understand the field of science. Religion never claimed to be empirical so failing empirical examination is not a failure.

• Indeed, the fact that the spiritual cannot be scientifically proven is based on the fact that it can’t be scientifically DIS-proven in the first place.

Science supports the Two-Lane epistemology. If real scientists heard Ted Roberts say that ‘we are learning from science’ that adultery is not a moral issue, they would correct him: this is a religious conclusion from an empirical fact. By the same token, it is just as categorically erroneous to approach empirical science using spiritual logic.

The Bible also supports the Two-Lane epistemology:

...these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

1 Corinthians 2:10-16

So the S.C.A.M. use a double-loop trick on the unsuspecting layman:

• From their shallow approach to science they sloppily derive deep moral conclusions which they sloppily configure into what they claim are scientifically-based ideas of morality. Because the scientific method is rigorous, they seem to assume that toying with it like an inexperienced backyard mechanic imbues them with the authority that real science achieves through their actual rigor correctly applied.

• They then use there unscientific empirical and moral ideas as a ‘lens’ to color their reading of the Bible, filtering out, explaining away, or simply ignoring other things in the Bible that don’t fit their narrative. Because the Bible is not scientific, they seem to assume, rigorous application of basic rules of language and meaning are not needed (and, in fact are viewed with suspicion).

• Then they ‘integrate’ their non-scientific ideas of morality with their with their non-biblical ideas of morality and call it “Biblically-Based | Clinically Informed.”

• Lastly, the church laps up this rancid brew like a dog laps up its own vomit.

[1] Emotionally charged readers interpret any discussion about spiritual or moral issues and science as an implicit attack on one or the other. Therefore, I must clarify that I am not critiquing science itself, nor do I assert that unproven scientific reasoning or inference do not have value. Nor am I arguing that science is improperly making moral claims about issues like adultery. I am simply saying religion can not speak to empirical science. [endnote 2] And, in the same vein, empiricism can not speak to morality.

[2] While falsifiability is the gateway to scientific legitimacy, real scientific discovery often progresses through cycles of challenge, revision, and new empirical risk. A theory may not be discarded with the first anomaly, but must always stand exposed to falsifiable testing. For example, scientific theories like plate tectonics may be recognized as scientific before empirical falsifiers are available, but cannot be considered scientifically proven until such potential falsifiers exist and have been employed. Larger scientific theories are generally provisional—the best ones have simply not (yet) been disproven, despite withstanding many risky tests.

[3] For simplification, I am assuming a controlled test. For example, the wire has electricity, the switch is properly connected, etc.

[4] Science advances through an immense number of tightly controlled, concrete tests—each a distinct and sharply defined empirical challenge. These huge piles of ‘single-shots’ accumulate, correct, and refine each other, forming the iterative, self-correcting process that underwrites all scientific achievement—from a fizzled experiment on a laboratory bench to a footprint on the moon.

[5] No, I didn’t go to Tulane.

[6] I put a pin here--but do not delve into--the issue that my general epistemology on the eastern, western, and Christian epistemologies illustrates the Christian epistemology is being divinely revealed but empirically testable. This is only in the sense of any empirical claims by the Bible being not disproven by empirical facts. For example, the Bible claims that Daniel wrote his prophesies before the events occurred. Science validated the events so convincingly that people used this to infer that the prophesies were written after the fact. But then document fragments from Daniel’s period were found containing Daniel’s writings. The point is better taken that empiricism never DIS-proves the Bible, not that it proves it.

ENDNOTES:

Endnote 1: However, if empirical evidence showed that an empirical fact the Bible does assert (such as Solomon’s construction projects) did not actually happen, that WOULD serve as empirical disproof of that religious statement. Science can’t speak to religious meaning, but where the religious meaning is clearly established that Daniel wrote this book science CAN speak to that meaning which religion has handed it. Genuine Christian faith is not “belief against the evidence” but is tethered to historical and empirical realities, particularly as articulated in passages like “If Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). I wholly reject Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” or fideism, which posits belief regardless—or even in spite—of contrary evidence.

While empiricism cannot dictate meaning (e.g., what resurrection signifies), it absolutely has bearing on whether the event OCCURRED. The Bible presents certain claims as matters of historical record (“Daniel wrote this,” “Christ was raised”) and invites scrutiny on those grounds. Meaning flows from event, not in spite of it. I reject the notion that “religious meaning” is non-cognitive and thus immune from disproof. [FOOTNOTE A] Instead, you treat faith’s claims as testable assertions—where they step into history, they play by history’s rules; where they speak of meaning, empiricism steps back.

Endnote 2: Indeed, the incompatibility of science with religion or morality was Alfred Kinsey’s starting thesis. His ultimate conclusion is thus a non-sequitur: he could find no “scientific reason” for moral or religious disapproval of the ‘natural’ (i.e., ‘normal’) behaviors he observed (such as pedophelia and bestiality, to name a few).

ENDNOTE FOOTNOTES

Footnotes to endnote 1

A The phrase “faith is the evidence of things unseen” does not mean it contradicts things seen. The unseen thing thing upon which faith rests is the character of God. The character of God is the proof that His intangible promises have real shoe leather. Faith may reach beyond evidence, but it does not reject or contradict it where it’s present.