The battle within science is not over finding the right facts. It is a philosophical battle over choosing the right “glasses,” the right worldview, the right paradigm. It should be obvious. Science is human knowledge, so good science requires a proper perspective of reality.
Facts are not the point of contention. We all have the same facts, the same data. When I tap my fingers on the surface of a table, the reality of that experience is the same for me as it would be for anyone else. A Christian and an atheist come to the same table and study exactly the same data.
The difference is interpretation. Christians see order and purpose. Atheists see chance and chaos.
We cannot prove our worldview empirically, because it is the paradigm through which we interpret the facts. No matter how many facts we throw at it, the paradigm will interpret them to its favor.
Of course, naturalists say that we should throw away the glasses and simply look at the facts. Set aside all religion, philosophy, ideology, all metaphysical biases, and look at the facts. They presuppose (note irony here) that the facts can speak for themselves.
They don’t. All knowledge – including that of the facts themselves – is derived using metaphysical assumptions. Science is natural philosophy. Scientists interpret facts within the context of their paradigm: their philosophical model.
Because the paradigm is made up of metaphysical assumptions, the only way to disprove it is logically to see if it is internally consistent. Basically, we try to get it to refute itself.
Naturalism and theism are two opposing philosophies. We cannot prove either one empirically, but we can ask at the philosophical level, which one provides a logical basis for science? Which one justifies the idea of an orderly cosmos?
