Natural Science and Religion are Separate. The Former Can’t Be Used to Study the Latter (or Can It?)
November 26, 2024
Written ByRobert DiSilvestro
On this website, I talk about research pointing to the possible need for a creator in the origin of the universe, life, life’s species, and consciousness. In response to such writings, I hear often that natural science and religion occupy different realms. Therefore, we can’t use natural science to examine religion. In most cases, there is also an underlying thought that we don’t need God to explain origin issues. However, the different realm attitude says we shouldn’t even try to see if God is needed.
A number of years ago, I addressed this issue in the context of the origin of life. I was an invited speaker at an international conference titled:Religion and Science: Tension, Accommodation and Engagement. The presentation was titled: “Is it unscientific to say that God started life?” This was not a Christian conference, but was organized by a professor from the Ohio State University Department of Philosophy. Here are some of the points I made.
First off, I want to address the sometimes unstated background thought: we don’t need to bring God into the discussion because natural explanations work. For origin of life, that’s an unjustified statement. For instance, the University of Chicago says this: “The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified” (https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/origin-life-earth-explained#research).
Next, there is the thought that if a God like that of the Bible exists, then that God resides outside the natural world. Therefore, natural science cannot comment on whether God exists, or on how that God would act if that God does exist.
For natural science, I grant that in some sense, God cannot be studied by the scientific method. If the God described in the Bible exists, that God goes beyond human understanding and can’t be accessed directly by natural science. This is why I don’t like studies where a group of plants or sick people receive prayer and the other group doesn’t. The God of the Bible doesn’t have to consent to be in such experiments.
On the other hand, science can study whether it’s reasonable to say outside design was involved in some aspects of origins. In fact, this can be taken a step further. We can study whether outside design is more reasonable than purely naturalistic explanations. This happens in forensic science, which has to distinguish intent vs accident. Also, research has been done to see if certain phenomena reflect natural undirected events or extraterrestrial intelligent life. As a side note, I think such research wastes money. I side with the person who asked why look for intelligence in space when it’s so hard to find intelligence in Washington DC. However, my main point here is that looking for intelligent activity vs lack of it has been considered scientific research.
Another issue has also been raised. Even if God does exist and has created, science has to keep looking for other answers. I don’t have a problem with this, but with one big caveat. If the data shows evidence that an outside creator could be needed, then researchers should be allowed to honestly state that. Right now, that tends to be off limits in mainstream research journals.
To summarize:
Not all origins issues currently have natural explanations;
Some branches of science already look for signs of design vs undirected events;
Science should look for natural explanations for origins, but researchers should be allowed to say where evidence for outside design exists.
Postscript. This presentation does not necessarily apply to moments where God might break into the natural. For example, the Bible teaches that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Natural science cannot go back to confirm this, though social science can evaluate the historical evidence for the claim.
Evidences for God with an emphasis on the God portrayed in the Bible
Natural Science and Religion are Separate. The Former Can’t Be Used to Study the Latter (or Can It?)
On this website, I talk about research pointing to the possible need for a creator in the origin of the universe, life, life’s species, and consciousness. In response to such writings, I hear often that natural science and religion occupy different realms. Therefore, we can’t use natural science to examine religion. In most cases, there is also an underlying thought that we don’t need God to explain origin issues. However, the different realm attitude says we shouldn’t even try to see if God is needed.
A number of years ago, I addressed this issue in the context of the origin of life. I was an invited speaker at an international conference titled:Religion and Science: Tension, Accommodation and Engagement. The presentation was titled: “Is it unscientific to say that God started life?” This was not a Christian conference, but was organized by a professor from the Ohio State University Department of Philosophy. Here are some of the points I made.
First off, I want to address the sometimes unstated background thought: we don’t need to bring God into the discussion because natural explanations work. For origin of life, that’s an unjustified statement. For instance, the University of Chicago says this: “The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified” (https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/origin-life-earth-explained#research).
Next, there is the thought that if a God like that of the Bible exists, then that God resides outside the natural world. Therefore, natural science cannot comment on whether God exists, or on how that God would act if that God does exist.
For natural science, I grant that in some sense, God cannot be studied by the scientific method. If the God described in the Bible exists, that God goes beyond human understanding and can’t be accessed directly by natural science. This is why I don’t like studies where a group of plants or sick people receive prayer and the other group doesn’t. The God of the Bible doesn’t have to consent to be in such experiments.
On the other hand, science can study whether it’s reasonable to say outside design was involved in some aspects of origins. In fact, this can be taken a step further. We can study whether outside design is more reasonable than purely naturalistic explanations. This happens in forensic science, which has to distinguish intent vs accident. Also, research has been done to see if certain phenomena reflect natural undirected events or extraterrestrial intelligent life. As a side note, I think such research wastes money. I side with the person who asked why look for intelligence in space when it’s so hard to find intelligence in Washington DC. However, my main point here is that looking for intelligent activity vs lack of it has been considered scientific research.
Another issue has also been raised. Even if God does exist and has created, science has to keep looking for other answers. I don’t have a problem with this, but with one big caveat. If the data shows evidence that an outside creator could be needed, then researchers should be allowed to honestly state that. Right now, that tends to be off limits in mainstream research journals.
To summarize:
Postscript. This presentation does not necessarily apply to moments where God might break into the natural. For example, the Bible teaches that Jesus died and rose from the dead. Natural science cannot go back to confirm this, though social science can evaluate the historical evidence for the claim.