With the close of the 18th Century, we began to see a new form of philosophy begin to shape. Scientific questions were then a form of the current metaphysical branch of philosophy, known as natural philosophy, which sought answers through empirical knowledge (epistemology). With the development of modern science and the birth of the scientific method, natural philosophy simply became an empirical and experimental activity, unlike the rest of philosophy. The birth of the scientific method therefore separated metaphysics from natural philosophy, and metaphysics became a sole philosophical enquiry into the non-empirical and non-experimental questions of life and the nature of existence. As the scientific method has evolved, it has become the popular belief that metaphysics and the scientific method can no longer co-exist together to be reliable. Herbert Fiegl contended in the 1954 Journal of Philosophical Studies that there are “no philosophical postulates of science.” He continues to say that the “scientific method can be explicated and justified without metaphysical presuppositions about the order or structure of nature.”[1]
I recently discussed with a friend of mine this exact idea. He concluded in our conversation about the reliability and authority of Scripture that Scripture cannot be proved reliable because there is no reliable statistical evidence that can be gathered, observed, and concluded upon to make Scripture a statistical method of reliability to be established. The issue here was not the reliability of Scripture, but the reliability of believing in a God that cannot be proven real who would then reveal himself to his creation in a book. For the logical scientist this just could not make since. Why? Because it could not be proved to be so. While it is true that the scientific method cannot prove metaphysical questions (i.e., the meaning of existence, the existence of God, the nature of reality, etc.), I believe that it is logically inconclusive and irrational to hold solely to the scientific method to establish ones belief sets about the world around them outside of first holding to Christian metaphysical presuppositions. My thesis in this article argues that although the scientific method may give logical conclusions to theoretical inquiries, without biblical metaphysical presuppositions logical analysis and conclusion have no meaning. Here are 3 reasons:
First of all, the scientific method cannot prove the scientific method.[2] The scientific method is based on gathering observable evidence, forming an educational hypothesis, conducting an experiment, forming a conclusion, and finally repeating the process to see if it is held reliable. It simply cannot prove itself to be true; it is merely only concluding to be so. In holding to Norman Geisler’s thesis from my footnote above, I would state that it takes more faith to hold to the scientific method than to believe in Jesus as the Creator, King, and Redeemer (John 1:1-5) of the cosmos.
Secondly, holding to the scientific method outside of biblical metaphysical presuppositions is in fact an irrational form of knowledge. Though it may be knowledge (or so it may seem), there is no foundation to support such conclusions. Holding to the scientific method outside of metaphysical presuppositions all together, gives way to the irrational, atheistic, chaotic, and anarchist worldview of nihilism. Nihilism, often referred to as existential nihilism, is the philosophical view that life is without meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. The scientific method cannot give definition to the meaning of life or the nature of reality. It only leads to illogical irrationalism; which is a form of atheism; which gives birth to nihilism; where no meaning to life lies.
Thirdly, it is impossible to face the scientific method without metaphysical presuppositions of any kind because each scientist is a product of his/her cultural framework, which in turn molds ones presuppositions. We either confront the scientific method with metaphysical presuppositions believing the existence of God, the meaning of life, and the nature of reality, or we confront the scientific method with metaphysical presuppositions denying the existence of God, the meaning of life, and the nature of reality… either way, both are metaphysical presuppositions.
Everybody who uses the scientific method approaches it holding some form of metaphysical presupposition(s). It is impossible not to. The scientific method cannot prove the scientific method. The scientific method alone does not give meaning to life. So how does one approach the scientific method with presuppositions toward meaning? The question may be better asked, “What is the meaning to life?” And after one properly answer this question, then and only then can one approach the scientific method and life in general with a foundation in which meaning lies. The foundation to meaning is found only where authority lies in the one whom gives meaning. The Bible states that ultimate authority is found in the God who creates it (Exodus 3:14-15). Yes, the scientific method cannot prove the authority of the Bible, but if the Bible is true and the resurrection of Jesus did historically happen, then these 6 things are also true…
(1) If the Bible is true and the resurrection of Jesus did historically happen, then there is a God who is a powerful creator who has created the world for a purpose.
(2) If the Bible is true and the resurrection of Jesus did historically happen, then there is an ontological God who is the maker of time and existence.
(3) If the Bible is true and the resurrection of Jesus did historically happen, then there is a warrior God who defeated the problem of evil (sin) at the cross and defeated death at the resurrection.
(4) If the Bible is true and the resurrection of Jesus did historically happen, then there is a gracious God who saves and redeems.
(5) If the Bible is true and the resurrection of Jesus did historically happen, then there is a sovereign God who has a direction for history.
(6) If the Bible is true and the resurrection of Jesus did historically happen, then there is a good God who is the giver of meaning.
The scientific method may not be able to prove the main metaphysical questions of our day, but holding gospel-centered metaphysical presuppositions is the only foundation in which one can approach the scientific method… which in turn gives meaning to life. The gospel of King Jesus gives meaning to ALL of life…
[1]Fiegl, Herbert. Philosophical Studies. ED. by Wilfred Sellars. “The Scientific Method Without Metaphysical Presuppositions,” 1954.
[2]Geisler, Norman. I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. Wheaton IL: Crossway Books, 2004.
