I understand why people see it this way. Naturalists consider the scientific method to be the ultimate means of understanding the world while Christians trust in God and the Bible. This seems like science versus authority, but it’s really one authority against another. If science could disprove God or the Bible, we would consider science to be a higher standard. We would treat it as an authority.
When scientists study the cosmos, what authority tells them that their interpretation is correct? What guides them to the proper conclusions?
Naturalists say that there is no final authority. Yet, they recognize an objective standard of truth and treat it as an authority. If someone says that the moon is made of green cheese or that the earth is flat, they will reject such a statement. It does not make sense to use objective truth as an authority unless it is an authority.
Objective truth is absolute. It rules out the relativist idea of “your truth and my truth.” It rules out the green cheese moon and the flat earth. It points to one reality and one final authority.
We see authority in the way we use “facts” on each other. When someone says, “Here are the facts,” we feel personally obligated to acknowledge those facts and to adjust our thinking accordingly. The facts hold us accountable.
What is this authority on which science depends? It’s not the scientists, so maybe it’s the cosmos. Scientists are students of nature. They study the universe and gain knowledge through it, but where does the knowledge come from? The universe doesn’t literally teach them anything.
Here’s why I don’t think naturalism explains the truth of science. The cosmos cannot be the ultimate source of truth, because it is not an authority. Yes, we gain empirical knowledge by studying the cosmos, but that knowledge is authoritative and points us beyond the impersonal cosmos. In the theist view, scientists don’t create knowledge; they discover it. In the naturalist view, scientists create new knowledge as they study the cosmos. The knowledge does not exist, and then it does. Then that knowledge is considered the highest knowledge in existence, but it isn’t the objective truth.
Science is human knowledge, so it is always in a process. It is moving, growing, evolving. While science points to a higher authority, it never becomes that authority. The scientists’ understanding of the truth changes, but the standard remains constant.
Theists have an explanation. The objective truth is authoritative, because it points us to the mind of God.
Christians don’t choose between science and authority. They treat science and religion as two complementary categories of knowledge. Christians use their beliefs to interpret science. In fact, everyone does.
Thomas Kuhn wrote, “No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism.”* In other words, everyone uses some philosophical framework in which to interpret the natural world.
