Science is about public matters that do not require prior philosophical or religious commitments beyond acknowledging the existence of an orderly world and the possibility of understanding that order. Historically, science did receive impetus from beliefs about the orderliness of the world and human abilities for understanding that order, beliefs that were based on Christian or classical teachings. But now the possibility of scientific knowledge is widely held without reference to such teachings (how long that can last is another matter).
Science is sometimes considered secular but that implies a way of life which excludes or ignores matters beyond this age/world or concerns about ultimate matters, which are the focus of religion. Science should affirm the importance of ultimate matters no matter what age or world or religion but deny itself the answers, or skepticism about the answers, and not promote secularism, or anti-secularism, as a way of life. Science should be respectful of whatever answers people believe and practice about ultimate matters.
Science is sometimes considered agnostic but that implies a degree of skepticism or unbelief about ultimate matters. But the strength of science is in its reasonableness to people with a wide variety of beliefs about ultimate matters. Science should be self-limiting in this regard; it should not take a prior position on ultimate matters, nor should it give the impression that ultimate matters are not important or that science has answers to ultimate questions.
Science might be called “mesognostic” because science per se does not have access to ultimate answers. Thus science should not require the exclusion or inclusion of prior commitments to any ultimate answers. Science works in a limited domain of questions and provides a limited range of answers. Ultimate questions and answers are beyond science.
It is possible that the results of science may lend some credence to particular beliefs about ultimate matters. That does not rule against the scientific validity of such results. That’s just the way it has turned out at this point. Also, it may depend on how the results are interpreted. Wait a while and science may change and lend credence to different beliefs.
Science is about middle matters, not ultimate matters. Those who look to science for answers about ultimate matters are seeking to turn science into something else, namely, scientism. They would push science beyond its limits. They should be resisted for they undermine science. The place of science is in practical and empirical questions, not ultimate questions or answers.
Several positions on ultimate matters have been advanced by many as required for science, notably, naturalism, materialism, and atheism. A contrary requirement has been advanced by a few under the heading “creation science.” While it is certainly possible to engage in scientific research and teaching and have prior commitments, it is a mistake to exclude those who do not have the same commitments from science per se.
It is often said that naturalism (or materialism or atheism) is part of the methodology of science. But if naturalism is false, why should it be part of the methodology of true science? Does truth follow from falsehood? No. Are the conclusions of such science qualified by the disclaimer, “assuming that naturalism is true”? No.
A science that depends on a prior philosophical or religious commitment is not a public science. It is a science only for those who accept the prior philosophical or religious commitment; those who do not are excluded. Naturalistic science, materialistic science, and creation science are not science tout court. They are science qualified since they are only for part of the public. It is deceptive to pass off science qualified as science without qualification.
It may well be that adding prior philosophical or religious commitments to science enables such qualified science to investigate or answer more questions, even concerning ultimate matters. But such science should always be qualified. “Naturalistic science” is one thing; science is another. Science should keep itself in the middle ground between philosophies and religions.
2010