A Brief Look on Scientific explanations
I read one scientist atheist giving his reason as to why not to bring God into science. He said God explains too much. Any question (“scientific”) that can be posed could be answered by saying that it was so because God made it so. This according to him is “un”scientific thinking. For example, if someone were to ask why the sky was blue, people used to say it was blue because God made it so. Now we have “scientific” answers to it!! Likewise many questions have been posed and science has always tried to explain it as much as possible without bringing God into the picture. Well, of course, science works doesn’t it? No one can deny that. Looking at all the scientific developments no one dares say that science is useless.
Yes, science has tried to explain many things by means of laws and equations and derivations etc. and many of them seem to work or in better words it works. And of course none of these laws and derivations bring God into the picture. So people tend to think or at leas some scientists, that we’ve explained everything without God and our inventions based on science work and therefore we don’t need God anymore than for some psychological benefit (that, of course, on the advice of psychiatrists). But in this article I would like to put forth a few points to make us think, esp. believers who have much been shaken by the “authority” of science, whether science has really explained everything without God. I would do so by taking a few simple examples which can be easily understood.
First, let’s take the example of the sky itself. Why is the sky blue? The scientific answer to it is some law (the name of which I forgot) which states that the scattering (S) of light is inversely proportional to the 4th power of its wavelength ( λ). So, light of lesser wavelengths scatter more than larger wavelengths. Since blue has the least wavelength in the visible spectrum it scatters the most and therefore the sky appears blue to us. This seems to have answered the question without bringing God into the picture. Well, there are a few questions I would like to consider here. Why should the scattering of the light be inversely proportional to the 4th power of its wavelength? Agreed that the light follows a particular law, but why should necessary follow it at all times? Have we answered the question how does light scatter in the atmosphere instead of the question why does the sky look blue? Or by trying to answer a question have we brought ourselves into a new mystery? Undeniably this law has its use to mankind. But has it really explained the question “why”?
Next, I would like to go into electrical charges. We all know that like charges repel and opposite charges attract. It seems to be a brute, observable, undeniable fact. But have we ever thought why it happens like that. We are quick to say that an electron and a proton would attract each other and we put forward a law which accurately calculates the force existing between the two charges separated by some distance. But why should the charges follow such a law? Have we again explained how something happens by looking at nature and describing it instead of saying why something like that happens in nature?
One more example also would do. While explaining why a particular hormone produces the notable physical changes, we go into depths explaining that the hormone binds to such and such a receptor, which activates and enzyme, which in turn activates some proteins by phosphorylation or dephosphorylation, which leads to a synthesis of certain proteins and so the physical changes happen. This is typical medical knowledge. Now, that seems to be a well thought out scientific answer which came out because of years of research on human and animal models. Hats of to them!! Many drugs have been developed which might also stimulate the receptor (agonists) and lead to similar physical changes in the body even in the absence of the particular hormone. So the theory is proven right and we seem to have explained it all without bringing God into the picture. But wait a minute. I would like to ask a few questions. Why should a protein be activated on phosphorylation? One might answer that by saying that oh that’s because the active site is exposed. This only begs the question as to why the active site of a protein be exposed when phosphorylated. You might come up with many answers but I assure you that it will again beg the question why it should happen that way? We can take as many examples as we want and ask as many questions as we want as to why such a thing happens in such a way. We might come up with many answers only to find out we have a new mystery. We might go deep and deep and deep but we have to settle down at a particular level being satisfied with some answer or the other. No wonder there are unending numbers of research programmes going on in this world!! We find an answer to something and then we research to find out why that happens that way. We go on with this again and again.
It might seem like an unending spiral. Scientists can go on like this till some level but at a particular point they have to stop, accepting that by an irrational belief. This might hurt the egos of many scientists, but that’s the fact. If you don’t know why something happens and still believe it then, of course, you’re accepting an irrational belief. This is where scientists and Christians should note a distinction. The distinction between “how” something happens and “why” something happens. The whole purpose of science and scientific methodology is designed only to answer the question, how, and not why. What cause cholera and how does Vibrio cholerae cause it, is to be answered by the scientist. Why does Vibrio cholerae cause cholera, is not supposed to be answered by the scientist. It has to be explaind only on the basis of ones presuppositions (or world view of philosophy of life). But, usually, when a scientist comes across a question like the above (Why does Vibrio cholerae cause cholera?) he says it’s because of………. and then goes on to explain how the organism causes this disease and not “why”. Then, the scientist goes off thinking he’s somehow explained the question without the need for God and the Christian goes off thinking that science poses a threat to his faith and that belief in God requires an irrational leap of faith.
Let me tell you something, Science and its explanations pose no threat for the Christian faith. This becomes clear when Christians understand the purpose of science and what scientific explanations provide us with. A simple distinction between the “why” and the “how” would go a long way in relieving the frustrations most Christians have.
So, when somebody thinks he’s explained something and that somehow disproves God, don’t let him go away with that. Show him what he has explained (how) and what he has not explained (why). In fact, you can go on to show him that he hasn’t explained anything at all and that he’s accepting it only as an irrational belief. This is when the debate goes on to a presuppositional level. Here the Christian explains it based on the view of God as the creator and sustainer of this universe. Now the Christian has to have a thorough knowledge on how to do presuppositional apologetics to win the debate. And once you push the debate to the presuppositional level, you can be sure of victory.
To read up on presuppositional apologetics visit the following links.
