From Our Inbox: June 2013
A lot of advocates of scientism argue that Methodological Naturalism's success at modeling the world without God is evidence of God being unnecessary and worth being removed. Is this a fair argument to make? - James T.
Thanks for your question, James! We at BioLogos don’t think that this argument is a fair one, because it stems from scientism, not from science. Scientism, as defined by historian Richard G. Olson, means “efforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern.” Thomas Burnett has a great summary and history of scientism on our blog, here.
The problem with the argument is that is assumes God is a scientific hypothesis that can be detected through the scientific method. Physicist Ian Hutchinson engages with this assertion in two videos on our website. We encourage you to view them both.
Scientism also implies that science is the best (and often only) type of knowledge, when in fact other ways of knowing are used all the time in our lives and relationships. For more on the topic, we encourage you to read the essay “Can Science Ever Know Enough?” by Dr. James May.
We at BioLogos believe that God is actively at work in creation, sustaining and upholding the natural laws described by science. A scientific explanation doesn't replace God, but instead gives us greater insight into how God acts in the world. As Christians we can see the glory of God displayed in his creation and know our loving Creator as our personal Savior.