mormonsandscience

The two pillars of science are empiricism and rationalism.  In the case of empiricism, scientists attempt to observe the natural world in an unbiased and objective manner, and in the case of rationalism, scientists try to think about the natural world in an unbiased and objective manner.  These two pillars, as reliable as they are, are ill-suited for providing us with knowledge about God because knowledge of God is faith-based. 

Faith provides us with spiritual knowledge that transcends the physical and rational.  Faith cannot be manipulated in a randomized controlled trial.  It is not tangible nor can it be measured in any empirical way.  It is even resists operationalization (making intangible things measureable) because its essence is difficult to ascertain.  For instance, shall we measure faith with the number of times someone attends church or the number of prayers said per week?  Or perhaps faith is best measured by how closely we live the 10 commandments.  These operationalizations are a good start, but they hardly capture the essence of faith.   

One thing is clear; faith is not amenable to measurement.

Even if we had the tools to reliably measure faith, understanding faith in a scientific manner would prove elusive because, as the Doctrine and Covenants declares, spiritual matters “can only be perceived by purer eyes” (131:7).  This scripture tells us that spiritual and faith-based knowledge is not discovered through classroom instruction and laboratory research, it is a gift from the Lord.

Faith also escapes the grasp of science because it entails subjective truth.  Subjective truth refers to personal knowledge that is real and meaningful to persons experiencing it.  Given its personal nature, it is not capable of being conveyed to others in an empirical and rational way; therefore it is not capable of being confirmed in a scientific manner.  From a scientific viewpoint, faith in God is an irrational and non-empirical concept.  Explaining faith to a non-believer is a bit like explaining the color red to a blind man – it cannot be done.  Faith and color can only be understood through experience. 

In sum, faith in God is outside the realm of natural, science-based experience; therefore science can neither confirm nor disprove His existence.  Even the late evolutionists and agnostic Stephen Jay Gould conceded this point.  He wrote:

 “Science cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of God’s [existence].  We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can’t comment on it as scientists.  If some of our crowd [e.g., Richard Dawkins] have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find [my third-grade teacher] Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it…. Science can work only with naturalistic explanations.”

Well said, Mr. Gould. 

Leave a Reply