Knowing the Limits of Knowledge

The distinction between science and scientism lies at the heart of contemporary debates about the nature of truth and reality. Science is an invaluable method for understanding the natural world. It relies on observation, experimentation, and falsifiable hypotheses to uncover patterns and mechanisms that govern the physical universe. Scientism, however, is the philosophical stance that science alone is capable of providing knowledge, dismissing philosophy, theology, and other disciplines as irrelevant or obsolete. While science and faith can coexist harmoniously, scientism distorts the role of science, leading to a worldview that is both incomplete and intellectually unsustainable.

What Science Can—and Cannot—Do

Science excels at answering questions about the how of the natural world. For example:

• How do galaxies form?

• How does the brain process information?

• How does DNA encode genetic information?

These are critical questions, and science’s ability to answer them has revolutionized our understanding of the universe. However, science is inherently limited to observable, testable phenomena. It cannot answer questions about why the universe exists, whether there is a purpose to life, or what constitutes right and wrong. These questions transcend empirical data and require philosophical or theological exploration.

Consider the universe’s origin: why is there something rather than nothing? The Big Bang describes mechanisms but cannot explain why the laws of physics exist or why they permit life. As physicist Paul Davies writes, “The universe is eerily well-designed, and the question of how it came to exist is one that physics alone cannot answer.”¹ This points to the limits of scientific inquiry.

Scientism: Overreaching Science

Scientism, in its zeal for scientific progress, dismisses all non-scientific forms of knowledge as invalid or inferior. This stance is self-refuting. The claim that “science is the only way to know truth” is itself a philosophical assertion—it cannot be tested or proven scientifically. Furthermore, scientism undermines its own foundations by ignoring the philosophical presuppositions that make science possible, such as:

• The uniformity of nature: The assumption that the laws of physics operate consistently across time and space.

• The validity of reason: Science depends on logic and mathematics, yet these abstract principles cannot be reduced to material explanations.

By denying philosophy and theology, scientism discards the very disciplines that address these questions. As G.K. Chesterton quipped, scientism “explains everything in the cosmos except itself.”² Similarly, C.S. Lewis warned that it reduces humanity to mere machines, stripping away beauty, meaning, and morality.³

Framework for Distinguishing Science from Scientism

Here is a practical framework to determine whether one is applying the scientific method properly or slipping into scientism:

1. What is the Question Being Asked?

• Science: Is the question empirical and testable, such as “What causes earthquakes?”

• Scientism: Does the question exceed empirical boundaries, such as “What is the meaning of life?”

2. Are You Aware of the Method’s Limits?

• Science: Admits when questions cannot be answered through empirical methods.

• Scientism: Assumes unanswered questions will inevitably yield to science alone.

3. How Are Conclusions Justified?

• Science: Bases conclusions on evidence, experimentation, and repeatability.

• Scientism: Assumes conclusions dogmatically or dismisses alternatives without evaluation.

4. Are Alternative Explanations Considered?

• Science: Tests competing hypotheses and remains open to new evidence.

• Scientism: Dismisses non-material explanations (philosophical or theological) without analysis.

5. Are Non-Scientific Fields Valued?

• Science: Acknowledges the role of disciplines like ethics, philosophy, and theology in addressing questions science cannot answer.

• Scientism: Treats non-scientific fields as irrelevant.

6. Are Philosophical Assumptions Being Ignored?

• Science: Engages with the philosophical foundations of inquiry, such as logic and the uniformity of nature.

• Scientism: Ignores or denies its reliance on philosophy.

7. Are You Treating Science as a Method or a Worldview?

• Science: Views itself as one tool among many for understanding reality.

• Scientism: Treats science as the ultimate or only path to truth.

Engaging with Objections

Scientism’s proponents, such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, argue that science is not only capable of addressing empirical questions but also questions of meaning and morality. For example, Dawkins claims that religious explanations are unnecessary in light of evolutionary biology, and Harris argues that science can determine human values.⁴

However, these arguments falter under scrutiny:

1. Evolutionary Biology and Purpose: While evolution explains mechanisms, it cannot explain the origin of purpose or morality. Philosopher Thomas Nagel observes that a purely materialistic framework cannot adequately account for the “mind-first” nature of consciousness and values.⁵

2. Science and Morality: Harris’s attempt to derive morality from neuroscience overlooks the fact that moral values require a transcendent standard. As Alvin Plantinga argues, “Naturalism cannot explain the existence of objective moral values because it is blind to anything beyond matter and motion.”⁶

These critiques expose the philosophical shortcomings of scientism’s claims.

Faith and Science: Partners in Truth

The relationship between faith and science is often misrepresented as one of conflict, but history tells a different story. Christianity has nurtured science by fostering belief in a rational Creator who established an orderly universe. The medieval university system, founded under Christian auspices, laid the groundwork for systematic inquiry. Figures like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal pursued science as a way to glorify God, not oppose Him.

Even contentious episodes like the Galileo affair reveal a more complex reality. Historian John Hedley Brooke notes, “Galileo’s conflict was not science versus religion but a clash between competing interpretations of scripture and the limits of science at the time.”⁷ Such examples remind us that faith and science, when properly understood, are allies, not adversaries.

Evidence from Science Itself

Ironically, some of the greatest mysteries in science challenge the materialist worldview of scientism:

• Fine-Tuning: The precise constants of the universe point to design. Physicist Fred Hoyle remarked, “A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”⁸

• Consciousness: Neuroscientist Christof Koch admits, “We have no idea how to bridge the explanatory gap between the material brain and subjective experience.”⁹

• Origin of Life: Biologist Eugene Koonin acknowledges that the probabilities involved in abiogenesis are so low they “border on the miraculous.”¹⁰

These mysteries invite exploration beyond materialism and empiricism.

Conclusion: Beyond the Limits of Scientism

Science is one of humanity’s greatest achievements, but it is not the sole pathway to truth. By recognizing the limits of science and avoiding the overreach of scientism, we can engage in a richer exploration of reality. Faith and science together illuminate not only the mechanisms of the universe but also its ultimate meaning and purpose. The universe is not merely a collection of particles in motion—it is a reflection of deeper truths that science alone cannot fully explain.

¹ Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008).

² G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane Company, 1908).

³ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperOne, 2001).

⁴ Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (London: Bantam Press, 2006).

⁵ Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

⁶ Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

⁷ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

⁸ Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Engineering & Science 45, no. 2 (1981): 8-12.

⁹ Christof Koch, Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012).

¹⁰ Eugene V. Koonin, The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (Upper Saddle River: FT Press, 2011).