God and Nature Fall 2020
Explaining Science (and its limits) to Students |
|
By Amir Azarvan
By the time they get to college, some of my students have been so indoctrinated by philosophical materialism that they are not willing to seriously entertain the possibility that “supernatural” events can occur. So I have resolved to explain to them what science is, and what it is not.
I invite my students to ponder the following scenario. A woman known for her honesty tells her grandson that she was once struck by lightning as a child. He tells her, “Gramma, until I see scientific evidence of this event, I refuse to believe you.” I ask them whether we ought to approve his skepticism, or whether we should suspect that he has serious trust issues that he needs to resolve. To reinforce my point, I also invite my students to imagine being in a high school history class, where a classmate repeatedly challenges the teacher to present scientific evidence for each and every historical event that she recounts. Should we, I ask them, admire him for staying true to the scientific method, or should we think that he has misapplied science to a discipline that is defined by a different set of methods for obtaining evidence?
By the time they get to college, some of my students have been so indoctrinated by philosophical materialism that they are not willing to seriously entertain the possibility that “supernatural” events can occur. So I have resolved to explain to them what science is, and what it is not.
I invite my students to ponder the following scenario. A woman known for her honesty tells her grandson that she was once struck by lightning as a child. He tells her, “Gramma, until I see scientific evidence of this event, I refuse to believe you.” I ask them whether we ought to approve his skepticism, or whether we should suspect that he has serious trust issues that he needs to resolve. To reinforce my point, I also invite my students to imagine being in a high school history class, where a classmate repeatedly challenges the teacher to present scientific evidence for each and every historical event that she recounts. Should we, I ask them, admire him for staying true to the scientific method, or should we think that he has misapplied science to a discipline that is defined by a different set of methods for obtaining evidence?
"Science is limited to telling us about what is observed in the natural realm." |
Countless other scenarios could be presented to illustrate the simple truth that no one, theist or atheist, relies entirely on scientific evidence for his knowledge of reality. Unless students remember that scientific data is one type, not a synonym, of evidence, we might view atheists’ demand for scientific proof for God’s existence as reasonable. This is not to suggest, of course, that there is no scientific evidence pointing to the reality of the supernatural. But to demand that we produce God in a test tube betrays a profound ignorance of the limits of science.
So what kinds of evidence should satisfy students? Let us return to the first scenario above. One might get the impression that I am implying that the same evidence (i.e., testimony from a trusted source) that should lead her grandson to accept her claim of having been struck by lightning should lead him to at least give her claim of having witnessed something supernatural a fair hearing (1). And that impression would be entirely correct, not least because supernatural events are far more commonly alleged (2). For unless you can cite a peer-reviewed study that has scientifically debunked the possibility of supernatural phenomena—not an individual case of an alleged supernatural event, but the very possibility of it—there’s no a priori reason for being so epistemologically inconsistent. It is likewise inconsistent and scientifically unjustified to rule out other lines of evidence on the grounds they are used to substantiate supernatural claims. As it turns out, for the person who thinks consistently and with an open mind, sufficient evidence for the supernatural can come in the form of such ordinary proofs as testimony from his own nana.
Science and “Laws of Nature"
Science is limited to telling us about what is observed in the natural realm. It does not tell us what can or cannot be observed. After all, to claim knowledge about what can or cannot be observed implies that you have attained complete knowledge about reality and its workings. But science rejects such arrogance; the term involves, by definition (3), the pursuit of knowledge (and there is nothing to pursue if you have already acquired the object of your pursuit—in this case, complete knowledge about reality).
Once we accept this simple truth, we will be in a position to understand the true meaning of a “law of nature.” The term refers to a routinely observed pattern in the natural world. Science can identify these patterns, but it cannot tell us whether deviations from them are possible. Strictly on the basis of scientific knowledge, we would be permitted to say that a virginal birth or a bodily resurrection would be shocking, but not that it is an impossibility.
Students should arrive at the same conclusion if they remember that we merely discover the laws of nature, although we act as if we enact them ourselves. It is as if we are decreeing the following: We hereby order nature to exhibit only those patterns that we have observed thus far.
On a related note, perhaps one thing that prevents students from grasping this very simple point is that we have come to understand the term “law of nature” literally, as when we say such and such a supernatural event “violates a law of nature.” The use of the term “violate” is itself telling, given its negative connotations. Because of these discursive practices, supernatural events have come to be regarded not merely as deviations from what is routinely observed, but as “natural outlaws” that must be rejected.
Such considerations will, I hope, lead students to conclude that it is more humble—indeed, it is more scientific—to keep an open mind on whether a particular supernatural claim is correct. Needless to say, this does not mean that they should accept all such claims. What it means is that the refusal to give a fair hearing to any supernatural claim is the mark of someone whose mind is closed by a commitment to his philosophical materialism, not by a commitment to science.
Footnotes
1. While it is more difficult to confuse a lightning strike with some other event, alleged supernatural occurrences could be attributed to a variety of natural causes. Thus, it is only reasonable to consider other, natural explanations before judging a particular event to be supernatural in origin. However, to dismiss, offhand, the possibility that the event was supernatural in origin is scientifically unwarranted.
2. For example, about 18% of Americans claim to have seen a “ghost.” By contrast, no more than .03% (i.e., 1 in 3,000) of Americans will be struck by lightning during their lifetime, according to National Geographic. See Michael Lipka, 2016, “18% of Americans Say They’ve Seen a Ghost,” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/; and National Geographic, June 24, 2005, “Flash Facts about Lightning,” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/6/flash-facts-about-lightning.
3. Merriam Webster, 2020, “Scientific Method,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method.
Amir Azarvan is an associate professor of political science at Georgia Gwinnett College. His op-eds have appeared in such venues as Inside Higher Ed, New Oxford Review, The Imaginative Conservative, Crisis Magazine, and Truthout. He has also had scholarly work published in the Catholic Social Science Review and the Journal of North African Studies, among other journals.
So what kinds of evidence should satisfy students? Let us return to the first scenario above. One might get the impression that I am implying that the same evidence (i.e., testimony from a trusted source) that should lead her grandson to accept her claim of having been struck by lightning should lead him to at least give her claim of having witnessed something supernatural a fair hearing (1). And that impression would be entirely correct, not least because supernatural events are far more commonly alleged (2). For unless you can cite a peer-reviewed study that has scientifically debunked the possibility of supernatural phenomena—not an individual case of an alleged supernatural event, but the very possibility of it—there’s no a priori reason for being so epistemologically inconsistent. It is likewise inconsistent and scientifically unjustified to rule out other lines of evidence on the grounds they are used to substantiate supernatural claims. As it turns out, for the person who thinks consistently and with an open mind, sufficient evidence for the supernatural can come in the form of such ordinary proofs as testimony from his own nana.
Science and “Laws of Nature"
Science is limited to telling us about what is observed in the natural realm. It does not tell us what can or cannot be observed. After all, to claim knowledge about what can or cannot be observed implies that you have attained complete knowledge about reality and its workings. But science rejects such arrogance; the term involves, by definition (3), the pursuit of knowledge (and there is nothing to pursue if you have already acquired the object of your pursuit—in this case, complete knowledge about reality).
Once we accept this simple truth, we will be in a position to understand the true meaning of a “law of nature.” The term refers to a routinely observed pattern in the natural world. Science can identify these patterns, but it cannot tell us whether deviations from them are possible. Strictly on the basis of scientific knowledge, we would be permitted to say that a virginal birth or a bodily resurrection would be shocking, but not that it is an impossibility.
Students should arrive at the same conclusion if they remember that we merely discover the laws of nature, although we act as if we enact them ourselves. It is as if we are decreeing the following: We hereby order nature to exhibit only those patterns that we have observed thus far.
On a related note, perhaps one thing that prevents students from grasping this very simple point is that we have come to understand the term “law of nature” literally, as when we say such and such a supernatural event “violates a law of nature.” The use of the term “violate” is itself telling, given its negative connotations. Because of these discursive practices, supernatural events have come to be regarded not merely as deviations from what is routinely observed, but as “natural outlaws” that must be rejected.
Such considerations will, I hope, lead students to conclude that it is more humble—indeed, it is more scientific—to keep an open mind on whether a particular supernatural claim is correct. Needless to say, this does not mean that they should accept all such claims. What it means is that the refusal to give a fair hearing to any supernatural claim is the mark of someone whose mind is closed by a commitment to his philosophical materialism, not by a commitment to science.
Footnotes
1. While it is more difficult to confuse a lightning strike with some other event, alleged supernatural occurrences could be attributed to a variety of natural causes. Thus, it is only reasonable to consider other, natural explanations before judging a particular event to be supernatural in origin. However, to dismiss, offhand, the possibility that the event was supernatural in origin is scientifically unwarranted.
2. For example, about 18% of Americans claim to have seen a “ghost.” By contrast, no more than .03% (i.e., 1 in 3,000) of Americans will be struck by lightning during their lifetime, according to National Geographic. See Michael Lipka, 2016, “18% of Americans Say They’ve Seen a Ghost,” Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/; and National Geographic, June 24, 2005, “Flash Facts about Lightning,” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/6/flash-facts-about-lightning.
3. Merriam Webster, 2020, “Scientific Method,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method.
Amir Azarvan is an associate professor of political science at Georgia Gwinnett College. His op-eds have appeared in such venues as Inside Higher Ed, New Oxford Review, The Imaginative Conservative, Crisis Magazine, and Truthout. He has also had scholarly work published in the Catholic Social Science Review and the Journal of North African Studies, among other journals.