“The Method Science Uses to Determine Truth Can Be Applied to Religious Truth!”
We saw in previous blog articles that by necessity we make everyday decision based on probability, not on absolute certainty or on possibility. In the real world, probability guides us to truth in most areas of knowledge. This is exactly the methodology used by modern science to formulate what scientists—as well as ordinary people—consider absolute truth.
Scientific Proof
If we ask the question, By what criteria do most people determine what is factual and what is false? the most common response is whether or not it can be proven scientifically. We are a generation taught to respect the “assured results” of science, and in Western culture people tend to think that all truth should be established according to the cannons of scientific verification (called scientism). Science is looked upon as the absolute authority.
But does science offer proof in the sense of absolute certainty? Exactly what can science prove? The fact is, science does not offer absolute certainty at all. It only gives evidence that points to absolute certainty—probability.
Science is normally trustworthy with regard to data that can be tested through observation and experimentation—things that can be repeated. As we saw in a previous blog article, the scientific method is the most reliable means for determining truth in matters that are not logically or mathematically self-evident. But the scientific method does not reach conclusions on a level of certainty equal to mathematical proof.
The scientific method entails the idea of accumulating and testing data in order to reach the highest degree of probability. This method can be applied to practically every area of knowledge, not just to science (history, law, psychology, religion, etc). But again, the scientific method does not lead to absolute certainty even in the area of science. Why? Because the conclusions of science are probable and can change as new scientific evidence surfaces. Let me give an example of this.
For three hundred years, from the time of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) to the twentieth century, science taught that nature adhered to unchanging natural laws. Nature was seen as orderly, predictable, and as functioning much like a machine. Due to new findings in quantum physics, however, nature is no longer viewed as orderly and predictable, at least in the subatomic realm. Science recognizes that today’s laws and theories may not be applicable in the future. Natural laws are seen as descriptions of how phenomena function rather than predictions of how they will function. An experiment may yield the same results a thousand times in a row, but on the next test, it is possible an anomaly may appear. As law professor and Christian apologist John Warwick Montgomery observed:
In the case of every theory involving statements of fact, proof is impossible, for new information may always turn up to disprove previous findings. Since this is so, all science and history—indeed all intelligent decisions between alternative theories, beliefs, ideologies, must rest squarely upon probability. (Shape of the Past, 229)
Notice that Montgomery uses the word probability to describe the category of proof that validates science (and history). We do not casually reject scientific claims because they lack absolute certainty, rather we accept them because of the probability of their certainty.
This brings us to the question of whether or not the scientific method for acquiring and confirming truth can be applied to religious truth. The answer is yes. Although we cannot prove religious claims scientifically in the same way that we can prove that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level (observation and experimentation), we can apply the scientific method to religious truth-claims. In other words, we can accumulate and analyze evidence in order to reach the highest level of certainty possible.
When we apply this method to religious truth, we have a valid criteria for determining the truth of the existence of God, the deity of Christ, the reliability of Scriptures, and other Christian truth-claims. We also have a valid criteria for comparing the contradictory claims of various religions. That belief system that provides verifiable, objective evidence has the highest probability of being spiritual truth. Admittedly this does not result in absolute truth in a mathematical sense, but there is no better objective way to determine religious truth.
Do you see how this works? A single evidence supporting the deity of Jesus Christ or the historical reliability of the Bible may not be convincing. But on the strength of accumulated evidence, we reach a compelling level of probability that equals the same degree of proof that we have in scientific matters. We can be just as sure that Jesus is God in light of the overwhelming evidence confirming this as we can that eating fatty foods and smoking can cause heart disease. Both are probable conclusions, and both can be tested for accuracy by examining the evidences. The difference is that one is tested through observation and experimentation, and the other is tested by historical, legal, and other criteria. In both cases, however, the highest level of certainty available is used to prove truth-claims. Because no higher level of proof can be applied, the conclusion must be accepted as absolute—if truth is to be settled at all. The alternative is to never have religious or scientific truth.
Have I Left God Out?
This approach to religious truth may appear that I have removed completely the work of the Holy Spirit as the agent of conviction. I do not mean to imply this. I fully understand and agree with the fundamental Christian truth that no one becomes a Christian independent of the work of the Spirit of God (Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14). Moreover, I am not saying that faith is unnecessary in receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Faith is always present when we make decisions based on probability because the possibility factor is always present. In a contingent universe, virtually anything is possible. Because probability is not mathematical certainty, faith is the bridge one must cross to go from probability to belief. The Bible clearly teaches that a step of faith is empowered only by God (1 Cor. 12:3). But the Bible also teaches that faith comes through knowledge (Rom.10:14-17).
The goal of apologetics is to identify and remove obstacles to faith. To achieve this, we must frequently meet non-Christians on their own turf. This means, among other things, communicating at a level and in a manner they will listen to and understand. The scientific method to discovering religious truth is designed to do exactly that.
The Spirit of God can and does work in many ways—even in ways that do not always include a specific gospel message or traditional Bible language or personal testimony. We put God in a box and limit the work of the Holy Spirit when we insist that God is unable to work in the lives of unbelievers except through personal testimony and The Four Spiritual Laws. God works through a variety of messages and circumstances.
The job of apologetic evangelists, then, is to be an instrument of the Holy Spirit. This means that we strive to create an environment in which God is set free to work. Like the apostle Paul, we must become “all things to all men, that [we] may by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22, NAS). ©