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.
The mistake is to compartmentalize science as if it were independently authoritative. Science cannot be an independent authority. Science is human knowledge, so it is always in a process. It is moving, growing, evolving. While science points to an objective authority, it never becomes that authority. The scientists’ understanding of the truth grows and changes and never arrives at completion.
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, but the universe doesn’t literally teach them anything. Naturalism fails to explain 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.
Theists have an explanation. The objective truth is authoritative, because it reflects God. He is the authority in all matters: science, philosophy, and religion.
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.
