If there is anything that we can glean looking at the state of the world these past few months, it is that our faith in human institutions is so often misplaced. It seems that our governing institutions and organizations have had no real grip on the reality of the coronavirus problem, giving the American people varying and even contradictory information on a daily to weekly basis. It is this phenomenon I want to examine in this article here. "Follow the experts," has been the motto since the beginning of the pandemic, but no one puts qualifiers on that phrase. "Follow" but for how long? On the basis of what? What happens when they say opposite things? These are valid questions, and we must analyze them.
The Limitations of Science
There has been an endeavor over the last 100 years to blot out any rationality of the supernatural in education in general, but particularly in higher education and elite circles. The rise of Darwinian theories provided man's evil heart with a scapegoat from the reality of God's existence, and drove generations into redefining reality based only on what we could experience with our 5 senses. Science never ceased to be an expression of worship- only the object of worship had changed from God, to man. With that endeavor, we have produced a class of elitists sitting on high, telling us what we need to know, and now, for the first time in the history of our nation, the people are ill-equipped to analyze Elitist decrees with any sort of authoritative rationality.
We must regain our ability to critique the elites. We must understand the limitations of the scientific studies our lives are now governed by and, when necessary, humbly reject bad ideas and practices.
The practice of science is laid out by the scientific method. As defined by Merriam-Webster, the scientific method is as follows: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. This pursuit, as Brittanica notes, is applied to many different fields of study. No free-thinking individual has qualms over the scientific method. It is a useful tool that has helped us study and understand a great many things. However, science is not God, and because it is not God, we should not totally bow ourselves before those who practice the scientific method as having the ultimate authority. That belongs to God. Scientists must humbly stay in their lane.
In a wonderful debate, William Lane Craig is challenged by atheist Peter Atkins on the total sufficiency of science. Atkins actually describes science as "omnipotent," I'm assuming he did this as an intentional jab at Craig, for Craig, like all Christians, holds that God is the only omnipotent being. View the 2 minute clip below:
For your own benefit here are the 5 things Craig sites that science can't do:
Logical & mathematical truths cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic & math so that to try and prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.
Metaphysical truths like, there are other minds other than my own, or that the external world is real or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age, are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.
Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method. You can’t show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies.
Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by the scientific method, because the beautiful like the good, cannot be scientifically proven.
And finally, most remarkably, would be science itself, science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example, in the special theory of relativity—the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A & B—but that strictly cannot be proven, we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory.
As you can clearly see, there are huge swaths of reality, including science itself, that cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Science is not all there is. It is not "omnipotent." Things that are not omnipotent make bad gods. It means you have to have multiple gods to make up for the deficiencies in the one, or the one is more like you than like a true God. Why believe in something that cannot even account for its own existence and processes? Science makes a bad god.
Real World Failures
We see the failures of science so poignantly in these past few months of the COVID-19 pandemic. With initial estimates of over 2 million deaths, scientific models were wildly apocalyptic, leading to the shut down of the entire world. Everything stopped. Everyone stayed home, afraid. Since that time, and as we have had more data available, models have been revised. Thankfully, 2.2 million is a gross overestimate. I do not feel the need to chronicle for you all the changes in the models on an almost daily basis- you've lived through it and experienced it. The Governor would get on the mic one day saying one thing, then two days later it'd be a different story entirely. Then Monday hits and we've got another story to add to the mix. It's been an emotional and scientific roller coaster for sure.
Models are not "omnipotent." Models and predictions fall in the realm of mathematical theory that attempts to predict what will come based on what we see now. This means that as we gather more data, and feed that data into the models, the results become more accurate over time. Not perfect. But more accurate. These models have been closely monitored by our policy-making officials, and have been used to dictate to us (the citizens) what we are to be doing on any given day.
Knowing that science is not omnipotent, knowing that models can be (and have been) wildly inaccurate, knowing that anything that involves a man's heart can be warped for their own personal agendas, why would we trust these models and policies?
There is only one true God
Science is not omnipotent. God is omnipotent.
Science cannot make accurate predictions of the future. God is omniscient- he knows the future with absolute certainty.
Science has limitations to its usefulness and application. God is bound only by his perfect character and nature.
Science cannot account for itself. God is eternal and timeless. Beyond that, God has revealed himself to us in the Bible so we can know him.
There is only one true God, and that is the God of the Bible. He never fails (Deut. 31:8). He is perfect and righteous (Psalm 18:30). He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things (Col. 1:17). He is not apathetic- he cares about the plights of mankind (Psalm 103:13-14). I could go on and on and on, but as the Apostle John mentioned, the world could be filled with books about Him, and it would still be insufficient. But here's a song that, if you pay careful attention, will cause you to bow humbly before our great and sufficient God:
God made science, you should place your trust in Him.
To view science as anything other than as a tool to learn and discover more about the world in order that we may give more and more honor and glory to God, the Creator is to view science wrongly. Please note what I am not saying: I am not saying that science is bad. I'll repeat myself from earlier- science and scientific inquiry is good, and we must acknowledge that. But we must keep science in its lane and not elevate it to a supremacy which it does not hold. If we do, we are committing a sin against a holy God.
In fact, it is because God is who he is that we can trust and use science at all. God's consistent character- his omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, etc- bears itself out in scientific methods of inquiry. The scientific method is reliable (when applied rightly to a thing), because the God above science is reliable. Therefore, we must not put science and God against one another as if the one didn't stem from the other to begin with.
Application
Now, the important question- What then must we do?
We must know and acknowledge the limitations of science. We cannot do the important work of identifying where science is being elevated to god-status if we cannot speak to what lane it needs to stay in- that is to say- it's limitations.
We must humble ourselves. We must subject ourselves to the truth of that saying "You have to know that you don't know what you don't know." We do not and cannot know everything, and anyone who claims total knowledge is probably trying to manipulate you. Additionally, we must do this step prior to moving on to the next step.
Engage the lies both humble and informed. This means you have to do the work to know and understand the limitations of science, then apply them to analyze the claims that are coming at you. Learn what the qualities are of a trustworthy study or paper. Learn how to spot a bad study. Learn how to spot the biases of the authors. This requires some digging, but is oh so important.
Question everything. I think that all scientists would actually agree with this statement, though I wonder how many would actually do it. As you learn more and more how to process and critique information coming at you, don't accept or reject it until you've put it through the process of critical examination. Learn to develop and ask the right questions to get to the truth of the matter.
Know when to disengage. The world's problems cannot be solved in Facebook/Twitter threads. We have to acknowledge and accept this. Before entering into a discussion, determine how much time you want to spend on it, then humbly bow out at that time. I've lost so much precious time replying to 70+ comment threads. It makes finding truth harder and pulls you away from truly fundamental endeavors.
Ask God for clarity, and worship Him when He answers your prayer. It amazes me how often we forget to pray, as if we could do anything on our own. All truth is God's truth, and he wants truth to be known. Asking for clarity is what I call a high-probability prayer. Some prayers have a high probability of being answered because the nature of the question falls squarely in line with God and his character. This is one of those.
Hopefully this has been a refreshing journey for you. As always, feel free to reach out to discuss or disagree with this post and we'll do our best to get back to you.