There seems to be this prominent idea in our culture that science is either the only source of knowledge or the vastly superior source of knowledge. This is known as “scientism”. Strong scientism says that science is the only source of knowledge. Weak scientism says that science is the vastly superior source of knowledge. On scientism, if we want to really know truth, we must follow science. This sort of thinking implies that philosophy and theology are unnecessary or unhelpful. For example, see what Stephen Hawking has to say in his book, “The Grand Design”.
“We each exist for but a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
Taking science to be the empirical study of nature, this claim is startling, and I am sure philosophers across the world would take issue with this claim. In this article, I will offer some critiques of this line of thought. Before we begin, though, I must say something important. I believe science is an invaluable tool for mankind. Science does, indeed, do much for us. There is no reason at all to dismiss or condemn science. What this article is critiquing is scientism, the idea that science is either the only or superior source of knowledge. I will not argue against science itself.
Critique
Strong Scientism refutes itself.
Let’s take a look back at Hawking’s claim that “philosophy is dead.” I first want to ask: Is that true? If yes, then how did he come to believe this? Through science? Of course, he did not. This is obvious because this is not a statement of science at all! This is a philosophical statement! He says, “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” Again, is this true? If yes, how did he come to believe this? Once again, this is not a scientific claim at all. This is an epistemological claim about how to gain knowledge. No scientific experiment or observation gave him this belief. Hawking seems to be perpetrating a strong scientism. Strong scientism claims that science is the only way to knowledge. However, this claim refutes itself. It is what is called a self-refuting claim. A self-refuting claim or statement is a statement that, by its own assertion, is false. An obvious example is the following. “There are no sentences longer than three words.” This obviously cannot be true since it is a sentence that is longer than three words, claiming that there are no sentences longer than three words. With this in mind, think about the statement that “science is the only way to know truth.” This also cannot be true because it is a claim to knowledge, crowning science as the only way to knowledge that is itself not known by science.
Philosophy is fundamental to pursuing truth.
Before turning to weak scientism, I want to you to notice here that before you begin your journey towards truth, you must do some philosophical reflection on how to get to truth. By this very act, you are showing how philosophy is actually more fundamental than science. One field of philosophy, known as epistemology, studies the nature of knowledge and how to attain knowledge. An important point I want to make here is this. If we want to have knowledge of the truth about reality, we must have an epistemological viewpoint that will increase the likelihood of us attaining as many true beliefs as possible and discarding or avoiding as many false beliefs as possible. Thus, our epistemology must not be too restrictive and also must not be too open. For example, if you are skeptical about basically anything, you’re going to miss out on a lot of true beliefs you could have had. Likewise, if you believe just about anything, you are going to have a lot of false beliefs. How, then, do we decide what sources of knowledge are legitimate and what are not? That is a broad question that cannot be answered here. However, I think one simple way to open us up to more avenues of thought is to simply ask the big questions.
Worldview Questions
Ontology: Why does something exist rather than nothing at all? What are all the things that exist? Does God exist?
Theology: What is God like? Has God revealed Himself to us? How has God revealed Himself to us? What does He require of us? How can I relate to God?
Metaphysics: What is the nature of reality? What is the nature of _______? What does it mean for something to exist?
Cosmology: Did the universe come into being? If yes, how? How did planets, solar systems, etc. form?
Life & Anthropology: How did life come to be (animals and humans)? What is a human being? How are humans rational? Do we have free will?
Epistemology: Is knowledge possible? How can we know things? What should we believe? What are the best sources for knowledge? What are the best ways of attaining true beliefs?
Value/Ethics: Are there any intrinsically valuable things? Are humans valuable? Does morality exist? Is morality objective/absolute or subjective/relative? How should we live? Is there something wrong with the world? If yes, what? What’s the solution?
Teleology: Does the universe have a purpose for its existence? If yes, what? Do I have a purpose for my existence? If yes, what?
Eschatology: Will the universe come to an end? How? What will happen? What happens when I die? Is there an afterlife?
Weak scientism is too restrictive.
These are some of the most important questions we can ask ourselves in formulating a comprehensive and articulate worldview. How many can be answered by science alone? How many can be superiorly answered by science? The number seems to be quite low. For example, the first question, asking why something exists rather than nothing, is a foundational question to ask. How could science possibly answer that? This is a question that cannot be answered by any kind of testable or repeatable scientific experiment. Science cannot make judgements in morality. This is because empirical study of nature cannot tell you how you ought to live. Now, this is not to say that science plays no part in our worldview. That would be too restrictive of an epistemology to throw out science. Take as another example the question of how the planets formed. That is very obviously a scientific question. My point here is not that science is bad. I simply want to argue that science is not the only way to knowledge. By asking these questions, we can see how important other avenues of thought can be, such as philosophy and theology. Concerning theology, if God does truly exist, then there is literally nothing more important than answering those theological questions. Everything else pales in comparison to knowing God, but if you limit yourself to the sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology, then you miss out on the most important questions of all.
Science presupposes certain philosophical ideas.
A last point I want to make in regard to the critique of scientism is similar to my point that philosophy is fundamental to pursuing truth. However, not only is philosophy fundamental to pursuing truth. Philosophy is fundamental to the practice of science itself! In other words, science presupposes important philosophical concepts that cannot be justified by science. Among these are the following: the reality of the external world, the reliability of our cognitive faculties, moral truths, aesthetic judgements, the applicability of mathematics to the physical world, laws of logic, and maybe more.
Presupposing Naturalism
Why do people embrace scientism? I am sure there are numerous reasons. I imagine a big reason to be a presupposition of naturalism.
- The physical universe comprises all of reality or the “world”.
- Science is vastly superior in giving us knowledge of the physical universe.
- Therefore, science is the vastly superior source of knowledge about reailty or the “world”.
This is an example of weak scientism because this does not cite science as the only way to knowledge. In this scenario, the presupposition of naturalism is what makes science the authoritative source of knowledge. If the world is only particles in motion (naturalism), and science is the superior way to study that, then obviously science will be the superior source of truth about the world (scientism). You can see how if you start with a presupposition of naturalism, scientism follows well.
Theism and Epistemology
Now, what does the theist who is not committed to naturalism do? He opens his epistemology up to more avenues of potential knowledge. I think that theism actually fosters a more balanced epistemology because you may mine the resources of science, a broader philosophy (in which philosophy is not merely the handmaiden to science), theology, and more while using these sources to play a sort of “checks and balances” on each other. For example, take the Greeks and their philosophy. They did a lot of armchair philosophizing rather than empirical observation and study. They assumed that the planets would orbit in perfect circles since circles are perfect and this just simply follows from their reasoning from the sort of a priori principles that they held. However, when modern science (sprouting from Christian theism!) arrived, humans eventually discovered through empirical study that planets do not orbit in circles. This is a case where philosophy, by itself, was insufficient and needed another source of knowledge to help. I have already in this discussion implied how science alone needs help in answering the big questions I listed. As you can see, on a more balanced epistemology, you have more sources for potential knowledge which leads to believing more truths. Also, these sources of knowledge balance each other and offer corrections so that you may avoid more false beliefs. Because theism is open to more than just physical reality, committed to the belief that a Personal God who has intentions in creating us exists, and more, you can, on theism, have deeper conversatons about questions such as, for example: “Why do I exist?”.
Summary
Scientism is the idea that science is either the only way to truth or the much superior way to truth. Contrary to scientism, I argued that while science is wonderful, science is not the only way to truth. Philosophy, theology, etc. are invaluable roads to truth. In our epistemology, we should not be too restrictive or too open in our sources of knowledge. We want to attain true beliefs while discarding false beliefs. Scientism is far too restrictive. A prior commitment to naturalism seems to imply or tend towards scientism, but theism provides a worldview in which other sources of knowledge may have a say in our journey towards truth. I hope this article sheds some light on this important issue and encourages you to pursue truth more deeply and think about how you go about finding truth.