top of page
  • Writer's pictureAdmin

What's the point of trying to be certain of things that can't be proved in science?

I would love to ask the questioner more things about what they were thinking when they asked this question. For now, I am going to take it in the sense that the “things” refer to non-physical realities (like God). The challenge I bring to this questioner is that science is super important and helpful in the pursuit of knowledge, testing and verifying things, however, it is not an omnipotent method of finding all truth in every category.

There is a great illustration from the Scientist John Lennox called Aunt Matilda’s Cake. The scientist can find out how many calories are in the cake, the composition of the sugar, carbs, proteins, and more. However, they cannot tell us “why” Aunt Matilda made the cake. Although more Christians need to engage with the sciences and trust them more, science does not tell us if God exists or not. Science works with the physical, but by definition does not work with the non-physical realities. It is a tool that is amazing when it is applied to the physical world, but not so much when applied to things it was never meant to be applied to.

There is a very short clip of a great Christian philosopher dealing with this question from an atheist during their debate. The atheist basically says that science is the only way of getting at truth. William Lane Craig shows five areas of knowledge that need more than science, including science itself. Here is the clip: The clip is so good…even funny because of how well Craig handles that!

So, if I understood the question correctly, it is operating under a false assumption about the value of science in all areas of knowledge. There are actually other difficulties with this question as well, such as what it means to be certain about something. That is a very tall order for the human mind. However, I won’t go into that at this time.

17 views0 comments


bottom of page