Foundations of Science

When addressing the questions invoked by debate between scientific and religious viewpoints, it is appropriate to look at their underpinnings to arrive at a how and why science is successful in doing what it does. Unfortunately, such an examination must delve into topics for which only philosophical discourse exists and not answers. I'm not a philosopher and will likely mangle any number of subjects, but they are worth thinking and discussing on the way to understanding.

The natures of consciousness and reality are problematic to say the least. We have to start somewhere (nihilists not withstanding) and so I'll start with consciousness. Consciousness seems to be a confluence or interaction between thought, emotion, and self-awareness. Many belief systems, especially the Abrahamic traditions (Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam) will readily identify consciousness with the soul. It is that which makes humanity unique, that is saved or lost, and that perseveres forever in heavenly bliss or eternal damnation. Modern neurochemists feel they are on the verge of determining the biological nature of this aspect of humanity. Whether consciousness is a quality bestowed upon us or it arises from biochemical activity, it is what makes each of us a "self."

That self interacts with our surroundings by the senses at our command. Taste and touch act in our immediate vicinity. Smell and sound are a bit more far reaching. Sight, however, can operate over vast distances. Everything our selves perceive are filtered through the narrow windows of these senses and then processed by the conscious mind. What is it that we perceive? It is nothing less than the "reality" in which we are immersed. There are two possibilities for the nature of reality: objective or subjective. In an objective reality, we and the universe in which we exist operate according to specific principles (laws) that exist completely apart from whether we understand those principles. Subjective realities, on the other hand, open up the possibility that the universe may operate in the manner we believe it does. Subjective universes allow that if sufficient numbers of people believe in ghosts, then they exist. This is an "it's true for me" viewpoint.

Dr. Susan Blackmore argues that because of the nature and limitations of our senses, objective realities don't exist; each of us live in the reality of our own making. However, she continues, unless we pretend there is an objective reality then existence is without meaning. (I heard an interview with her on the Guardian Unlimited Science Podcast of April 23, 2007. This is difficult philosophy and I may have made mistakes summarizing Dr. Blackmore's thesis.)

So, then, where does this get science and religion? Basically, each of us, a collective of conscious entities, perceive a reality for which there is a consensus about the way that reality works. It is at this point that science and religion diverge. Religion takes the tact that those things revealed in a sacred text and affirmed by itself to be true are, in fact, true statements about the nature of reality. An omnipotent and omniscient God created the universe 6,000 (+/-) years ago. That God tossed humanity out of Eden because the first woman ate an apple and thus condemned all the generations of Man to existing in sin which can only be forgiven if a person accepts the death and resurrection of a man/god/part of a 3-for-1. Faith and belief (existing without and often in spite of evidence) are the basis of this reality.

In science, reality has rules. There is a way the universe works that isn't capricious and that humanity can (eventually) understand. In a very fundamental sense, science is about building a consensus on how a reality works. Science makes the assumption that reality is objective. Once that assumption is accepted, it becomes possible to accumulate a consistent body of evidence-based knowledge that is consistent with and demonstrates particular claims about the nature of reality: the Earth orbits the Sun, the surface of the Earth is comprised of plates that move respect to each other, life evolved. In science, if someone proposes a weird idea, they must be ready to present their evidence and methods for testing and verification by others. In some cases, ideas languish for lack of evidence (continental drift), are dismissed as self-delusion (N-rays), or are revealed as frauds and hoaxes (Piltdown man).

When science makes claims about the nature of reality, those supporting the claims are obligated to present evidence. If that evidence is found to be insufficient to support the claim, it must either be abandoned or revised. Science readily does this and is often criticized as so fluid as to be meaningless. (Whatever happened to the Brontosaurus?) It is this progressive change that differentiates science from religion and is the basis of the success of science.