Modernity, a World of Confusion: Reality and Choice: Reality and Choice

By Jack Stanfield

Do things bring happiness? Do you believe only what you see? What is truth? What can you reliably know? Is death nothingness? Does God exist? This book examines such questions, from which two distinct world views arise and are surveyed. The book examines reality, how our choices determine our character and final destination, knowledge, and limitations of science; surveys relativity, quantum physics, life, evolution, and mans uniqueness; and looks at realitys material and immaterial aspects. Genesis is reviewed and shown to have scientific meaning. The book ends by proposing two very different paths that one can choose to follow.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Feb 5, 2013
• ISBN: 9781479773435

Jack Stanfield

The author is a retired software engineering manager who lives in Colorado with his wife of 54 years. He has three children and four grandchildren. He enjoys reading on a wide range of subjects and observing the changing culture. These interests inspired his two previous books on the cause and effects of modernity on today’s society. He has also written books on poetry, history, and the Constitution; the latter two were based on questions raised by his wife, without whose inspiration they would not have been written.

Book preview

Copyright © 2013 by Jack Stanfield.

Library of Congress Control Number:   2012924369

ISBN:   Hardcover   978-1-4797-7342-8

             Softcover     978-1-4797-7341-1

             Ebook         978-1-4797-7343-5

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Cover Art: Orion’s Rainbow of Infrared Light, taken by NASA’s Spitzer

Telescope and the European Space Agency’s Herschel mission.

Image released on Feb 29, 2012. Image Credit NASA/ESA/JPL-Caltech/RAM

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

127622

CONTENTS

Preface

Introduction

Part I   Knowledge and Physical Science

Introduction

Chapter 1   Knowledge

Chapter 2   Scientific Knowledge

Chapter 3   Ethical Technology

Chapter 4   Physical Concepts

Chapter 5   Space and Time

Chapter 6   The Enigma of Gravity

Chapter 7   A Fantastic World

Chapter 8   Grand Unification and the Cosmos

Part II   Life Science

Introduction

Chapter 9   Life and Death

Chapter 10   Life Is Too Chancy

Chapter 11   Evolution Theory

Chapter 12   Life History Method

Chapter 13   We’re Only Human

Chapter 14   Why Classify?

Chapter 15   So What Is Real?

Part III   Choice

Introduction

Chapter 16   Let There Be Light

Chapter 17   Two Paths: Choosing Materialism

Chapter 18   Two Paths: Choosing The Spiritual

Appendix A   Quantum Reality

Appendix B   Cell Life

Appendix C   A Life History

Appendix D   Genesis

Chart 1   Hominid Fossils

Notes

Bibliography

DEDICATION

To my science teachers, Forest Lowe, Marathon High, and James Gravitt, who taught me to seek the fundamentals when searching for knowledge.

PREFACE

This is the final book in my series on modernity. In the first two I looked generally at the cause and effects of our modern culture on society. Here, I complete the series by looking at the influences of materialism and science on how we view the world, and most importantly, how we view ourselves and our worth, which is being redefined by these influences. And this redefinition has fostered a culture that’s increasingly conflicted and dangerous, where previously it elevated and united, safeguarding the powerless by recognizing man’s God given dignity and worth.

Upon my retirement, I began to more thoroughly explore the meaning of life. My probing led me to wonder why the culture had changed so drastically from when I grew up? Why had society become so uncivil, crude, and selfish? Why had children become impediments and, as some have called them, maggots instead of gifts from God to be cherished? Why and how had the seven deadly sins become the accepted norm? And why does the culture no longer know the meaning of honor, shame, truth, or trust?

In fact, the lack of trust has become epidemic in our self-centered society. In the era of ready divorce and living together, children can no longer trust their guardians, spouses distrust each other, and a person’s word is no longer his or her bond. Political parties don’t trust the sincerity or motives of the other side and nothing gets done. And power and money are now the primary good that people seek. Things, pleasure, health, and security are deemed the objectives of a good life and actively pursued. With everyone looking out for themselves, honor, and its flip side shame, have no place in the collective conscience and there are fewer and fewer internal constraints to control destructive impulses.

Because of a materialistic mindset, people, increasingly, believe only in what they can see, touch, and smell. These are the only things that are real. The sacred and spiritual are things of the past in the new culture that stresses rationality, science, and technology. Yet what we see is a more dangerous world and not utopia. So, just how trustworthy are materialism and scientific knowledge that growing numbers of people believe in and depend upon, especially the young? What are the limitations and downsides of relying solely on materialism as the premise for building one’s life? Have we lost touch with reality, as we built a delusional world on what we individually believe is true?

These questions raised more questions. What is reality and what can we really know and say about it? Why is there something instead of nothing? While the universe necessarily exists, why does it exist? What is its purpose? Are the self and free will just illusions? Does one really have the ability to choose? And most important, why are we here at all? What is our purpose?

In this book, I survey scientific hypotheses and theories about the universe and man and the limitations of scientific knowledge. How trustworthy is it and can it bring happiness, which is the goal all seek? I also look at the question of God and whether current cosmological results point to His existence.

We are curious creatures who want to know. From our senses and mind we become cognizant of something’s existence when we perceive it, or imagine what might be and think more deeply about it. It then becomes intelligible to us. This is the basis of science that scans nature’s behavior and tries to recognize what is or might exist and what rules might govern nature’s behavior.

To re-cognize literally means to rethink that which has already been thought, as necessarily the laws of natures preexisted scientific thought. Given the fact that the universe is mathematically defined as the laws show, it must be based on an intelligent mind. And this implies the need for a First Cause that transcends the universe itself. From this assessment, one can conclude that God exists and should be considered when making life choices. The existence of God is a central thread running throughout.

I hope you find this book both thought provoking and enjoyable.

INTRODUCTION

This book discusses reality, and based upon the reality one accepts, finding the right path to guide one’s decisions in a confused modern world. We can choose a path of light, where God is present, or a path of darkness, where God is rejected and we’re on our own. Our choices are primarily informed by our home environment and what we’re taught in church and school and by the media. These are the major institutions that mold our views of reality and belief system. We are also subliminally influenced by Darwin’s restricted view of man’s nature and on scientific successes that give an aura of infallibility. Our view of reality and our belief system are interwoven and affect all we do. And, while these views can change over our lifetimes, it is hard to do by ourselves; that is unless one receives God’s grace, which opens the heart to see a greater reality and to gain the courage to change!

Choice is what life’s all about, and the cumulative effect of our choices shapes who we become. We can eat unhealthy food, fail to exercise, and become overweight and possibly sick, or we can choose to exert self-control over our appetites and exercise our bodies and stay trim and well. Life is full of choices and they depend on our beliefs and our free will, which is an inherent part of our nature that gives us our sense of freedom and hope. Our soul, an unseen immaterial power, is the enabler of our choices that in turn affects the world. Consequently, life isn’t directed solely by the laws of nature: our actions aren’t predestined. Still, some (like Einstein) thought the laws of nature predestine all and free will was just a necessary illusion so we can live together in some semblance of harmony. This, I argue, is a misreading of our human nature based upon a scientific mentality.

So, ultimately, it’s our beliefs, our views of reality, and the cumulative effects of our choices that determine our characters, our reactions to various situations, and our final destinies. For example, we can include a belief in the supernatural and the possibility of an afterlife, or not. Either we transition to a new state where we exist forever, or we don’t. We can base our views on materialism alone, or we can expand them to include the immaterial and spiritual. Today, people want to straddle the fence: to proclaim a belief in the supernatural while being primarily motivated by materialist ideas and personal desires. The educational institutions and the media reinforce the prevailing materialist view, and these institutions have great sway over society. The result of this conflicted situation is that God gets shunted to the back of our consciousness, and we become increasingly indifferent to things sacred and objective truth.

Subconsciously, most people, even many Christians, believe only in what’s seen, readily accepting materialism as the primary cause of our being. This acceptance is the result of scientific successes in explaining the physical world that have inspired a myth of infallibility, which, in turn, evokes an unquestioning belief in science as the primary source of truth. Science is the core of modernism, usurping philosophy’s role in dispensing wisdom. (In their arrogance, some scientists have declared philosophy dead.)¹* In addition, there is a high level of skepticism of everything. Both these conditions are effects of the Enlightenment Age. (I previously looked at the strands of thought that led to this situation in Modernity, a World of Confusion: Causes.)

But is science infallible? Is it the only source of truth? Can its method ever determine truth? What is its limitation and what harm has it caused? Are scientific statements always trustworthy? Can scientific knowledge lead to happiness, or do we still need intangible concepts (like justice) that have been validated over thousands of years of human experience? I examine these questions in some detail.

Intangible concepts (such as justice and beauty) are extremely important. We’re far more interested in the commonsense world they describe than in sets of equations. This difference, as to what is most important for happiness, also turns on the question of what is real. In this regard, science has created confusion in our perception of what’s real, between what we can perceive (a chair) and what might be called deep physical reality (the atoms making up the chair). The latter requires specialized instruments and interconnecting model, and these don’t always represent the reality we seek. And science, by definition, leaves out the spiritual altogether.

The disconnect created by science’s definition of reality raises a number of questions. What is really real: the chair or the atoms that make it up? Can we ever know what deep reality really is, or will it remain forever a mystery? Is reality expressed as scientific models, or are there other facets of reality that provide greater insights into the meaning of life, our interpersonal interactions, and our ultimate destiny? And what about the immaterial and transcendental?

It turns out that reality is multifaceted. Because of this, people are generally less interested, say, in how gravity works than about such questions as who and what can be trusted, what is just, and how to obtain happiness. In the modern world, these moral questions have become increasingly confused because of our ingrained scientific mindset and the continuing attacks on religion that discredit its possibility that has been happening for the last 200 years. Happiness (let alone the ecstasy of sheer joy) is missing in people’s lives, as society becomes more selfish and dependent upon technology and bigger government, and increasingly, people feel victimized. In the postmodern progressive world, everything is said to have a material solution and all of our needs must be cared for, if we are to be free and happy. Thus there is a growing sense of entitlement.

So, what has been the experience? We see growing health problems and increasing cases of depression and despair and fewer people really happy. This is especially true among those who are slaves to all kinds of addictions; those lacking what they’re told they need to be happy; and those that see no purpose in life—thinking one emerges from the passion of the moment, struggles in a pitiless world, and then fades into oblivion (a product of evolution and nature’s laws). And the growth of government needed to sustain the new utopia has become unsustainable, causing an increase in unease and anger and tending toward factions and class warfare.

From this, I conclude that the Post-Christian West is headed for a precarious future capable of causing great anguish. It seems the followers of the progressive-materialistic worldview have chosen a path that will lead society into decline. But those with a broader view of reality that includes the supernatural have a better opportunity to find a more fulfilling and happy life that revolves around the intact family and a caring community, where people are more important than things, and love and compassion has a chance to grow and nurture. So, after I examine knowledge and scientific reality, I address the consequences of choosing either the material only or the material-spiritual path. These musings conclude the book and my series on modernity.

Part I: Knowledge and Physical Science

To address reality and choice, I have divided the book into three parts. The first part discusses knowledge and the scientific understanding of reality. I look at the two great physical theories of modern times: quantum mechanics and general relativity. The one theory covers the microscopic realm and the other covers the grand cosmos. Both theories predict with unparalleled accuracy but they remain incompatible. These two theories have driven scientific thinking and beliefs about material reality starting in the twentieth century. But, because the theories haven’t been harmonized, questions remain about what ultimately can be known about the world. For now, scientific knowledge consists of a patchwork of interrelated theories. But we don’t know if these theories express ground truth, or if they reflect only an operational understanding of some aspects of material reality. Some qualified truth.

Part II: Life Science

The second part examines the life sciences and considers some philosophical implications. In the life sciences, I review, among other things, the cell as the unit of life and some current thoughts on life and death. Principles of the theory of evolution are discussed, and I examine whether the hypothesis of progressive evolution is supportable. While this theory is dogmatically defended by fanatical Darwinians, such as Richard Dawkins, much uncertainty remains, and this has led to consensus science as the theory lacks robustness, a situation that’s less than ideal. Thus, it lacks sufficient evidence, predictability, and inevitability to support many of its assertions, such as those about the origin and beginnings of life and man. The same is true of specific life pathways.

Even after 150 years, the story of life as told by Darwinians is thought incomplete by a number of scientists. It has gaps in data, lacks indisputable evidence for many assertions, and has inadequate mechanisms for explaining how large changes in living organisms took place in short periods of time and, unfortunately, is wrapped in philosophical trappings. This uncertainty engenders distrust and conflict between the Darwinian zealots (those who insist that man is just another animal that arose by chance) and those who believe the Christian truth about man (one created by God in His image and likeness). Here again, the view of reality we choose to accept will affect what we believe is possible, what our dignity and worth are, and how we behave.

To live harmoniously, it is crucial to know the reality about man’s nature and destination. The scientific description of the abstract man is at the molecular level where he is solely a product of chemical reactions, which were fixed by his evolutionary pathway. In this view, man has no inherent dignity and worth and his ultimate end is nothingness. He is born, passes on his genes, and then dies and decays. As he is just an animal, he can and should be manipulated to improve the human herd, as Darwin suggested. The abstract man is simply looked on as being amoral and driven by survival instincts. If he is to be civil, a subjective moral veneer must be overlaid by his laws, as morals are seen as simply cultural artifacts.

This contrasts sharply with the religious view that recognizes man’s eternal destiny, which gives him a dignity and worth that must always be respected. The religious recognize man’s moral responsibility toward his fellow man, which molds his concepts of justice, mercy, and charity. This difference is so vast that one can’t both believe in the Christian realization of man and, at the same time, believe in pure Darwinian evolution. One can only accept some aspects of Darwin’s theory that reflects some of man’s material aspects.

In this second part, I explain that the proposed mechanism for progressive evolution (how broadly Darwinian evolution is capable of working) faces growing doubt. So, in the final analysis, one must decide which reality of man’s origin he’ll use to guide his life. Man was either made in the image and likeness of God and is more than his material reality, or he was not. Either he came from the muck of the earth by natural processes alone, or he did not. This difference leads to strikingly dissimilar conclusions about man’s true nature and his final state, which, in turn, affect his choices and behavior.

Part III: Choice

In the third part of the book, I look first at the Judeo-Christian view of creation, as expressed in Genesis. I surmise that Genesis is more than a myth. I examine how 13+ billion years can be condensed into the six earth days. I show that the sequence of events described in Genesis (as detailed in Appendix D) has scientific validity—Genesis is more than poetry and a creation myth about contending gods.

I next discuss choice. The material and religious views lead to two different paths that represent different sets of choices. One can travel the path of believing in materialism only, or the path of the integrated material-spiritual being. The latter path recognizes the fullness of our humanity, a much broader definition of reality that includes the immaterial and supernatural. One path can lead to the darkening of the soul and the diminishing of future possibilities, while the other path can elicit hope for a brighter future and endless days. We select a path based on our beliefs about the reality of man, who, I contend, is more than a selfish animal driven by survival instincts. (The morality derived from such a belief about man’s nature, as Darwin espoused, are too grotesque and repugnant even for modern evolutionists.) We are, instead, children of God who have a purpose in life, and who are designed to live forever.

General Information

Background material is presented in a number of appendices. Appendix A touches on quantum reality. Appendix B examines the cell. Appendix C gives a history of life as it might have evolved over the last 600 million years, and Appendix D contrasts the sequence of events in Genesis with known scientific facts.

For simplicity, I use masculine generic pronouns throughout. I also use man in the sense of all mankind or humanity. Additional background material can be found in the first two books of this series: Modernity, A World of Confusion: Causes and Modernity, A World of Confusion: Effects. Secondary sources include books, articles, and the Internet. These sources are listed in the notes section and in the bibliography.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that there is no pretense that this book is a scholarly work. I hope to simply convey what I have learned in reviewing modern science and the postmodern culture and that the material will be helpful to others. It is my further hope that this book will help you think differently about your choices, as your ultimate destination depends upon them.

Part I

Knowledge and Physical Science

INTRODUCTION

What can we know about reality? The answer to this question involves epistemology (the theory of knowledge), and it intertwines science, philosophy, and religion, each of which have different starting points. Since a discussion of knowledge is prerequisite to what follows, I address it first. Knowledge is about what we can know and how can we know it, and it involves concepts like validation, trustworthiness, and truth. It covers all classes of knowledge including natural and revealed. From philosophy and science, knowledge is gained about the material world, while religion provides knowledge about the spiritual, immaterial, and supernatural. This diverse and complementary base gives us clues about what reality might be.

Concerning what is true, there is but one truth that comes from God and so faith and reason cannot be incompatible. When conflicts occur, one must reexamine the facts presented by science and revelation to seek a correct interpretation. While modernist say truth doesn’t exist, we must continue to pursue it, for it is truth that will set us free so that we can find lasting happiness.

One philosophical interpretation of reality is that it’s subjectively created. Nothing can be said about the state of the physical world other than how I see and feel about it and how I choose to express it. It is a personal reality where even objective science is suspect. This can lead to confusion about what can be known with certainty. In the area of morality, it has led to a relativism that did untold damage in the twentieth century, where it was all right to call a group of people subhuman and kill them.

The religion view says reality is more than the material and our thoughts about it. It incorporates the immaterial and supernatural (transcendent) that includes revealed knowledge. The material and immaterial (the seen and unseen) are properly part of our universe (only the supernatural is external to it). Importantly, both material and immaterial concepts are needed to comprehend the human person. To know humanity in all of its complexity and wonder, one must seek out the composite nature of man: the unity of body and soul.

On the other hand, science is predicated on the fact that reality is solely material and is expressible by physical theories and mathematical models that are verifiable in our sensible world. From a scientific perspective, models are the only things that represent reality. Here, material things exist, have duration and can be named and classified, and natural phenomena can be explained by hypothesizing material means. There is no underlying reality other than what is observable and measurable. Theoretical and speculative hypotheses remain in the realm of speculation until they can be validated against the sensible world. At the edge of modern physics, there are a number of speculative hypotheses that have yet to be validated, such as string theory and multiverses, among others.

[Sidebar: The following is a paraphrase Fr. Robert Spitzer’s book New Proofs for the Existence of God²*. In it, he states that when we talk about material reality we are talking about one reality with one set of fundamental laws that govern everything. There are not multiple universes but one universe with a beginning, although there may be different domains where the fundamental laws that govern there may be realized in different ways. (There may be a domain where humans live, for instance.) These domains interact with each other in a way that is governed by the same fundamental laws. Currently, there are no satisfactory models for a universe without a beginning. All cosmological evidence points to a beginning of material reality and therefore a transcendental cause.]

I start by surveying some basic scientific concepts, such as energy and force, time and space. As the narrative proceeds, you’ll see how fascinating these subjects are. Space is very counterintuitive, being, apparently, a dynamic entity, as Einstein posited, a dynamic spacetime field that is malleable. I also look at the weirdness of quantum theory and some of its implications on material reality. I also peruse ideas from general relativity that allow cosmologists to explore the grand cosmos.

CHAPTER 1

Knowledge

That which is known, as the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or inferred.

(Reader’s Digest Illustrated Encyclopedia Dictionary)

The great river of knowledge that has grown through the ages is quite broad, not limited to any one stream. But, today, this broader knowledge base of the natural and revealed has shrunk for many people due to neglect. Children now know fewer concepts, and their understanding of the world and themselves has become increasingly restricted to the materialistic view. To a great extent, the area of knowledge encompassing revealed truths is ignored unless one attends a school where the classics of Western Civilization are studied. These have been dismissed increasingly since the Enlightenment Age began.

Yet, paradoxically, the goal of the Enlightenment was to expand knowledge in all areas, although its primary interest was in science. Knowledge was to be gained through skepticism, rational study, and the application of the scientific method. Its proponents hoped to progress by understanding the material world through a process of observation, analysis, and testing. By examining the inter-workings of nature and human interactions, it was hoped that a degree of insight and control could be gained. Unfortunately, the thrust of knowledge acquisition moved away from gaining wisdom toward assembling ideas, facts, and formulae in a patchwork manner. As a result, a materialistic worldview replaced the integrated spiritual-material worldview that had previously existed, and balance was lost.

We gain knowledge through our senses. Inherent in our human nature is the ability to see an effect and immediately look for the reason (cause) of the effect seen. We also seek a purpose for everything. As man gained further insight into nature, there arose the goal of gaining a rational understanding of her workings through empirical methods. But this laudable goal was twisted in the last century into the absurd position that empirical science is the only source of valid knowledge. Yet the scientific method can find only qualified truth. Like Galileo’s mechanistic goal of proving that everything was expressible as a machine, the dream of a purely rational understanding of the world has proved to be an illusion. What science really shows is that there are finite limits to what can be known by inductive logic and observations. And depending only on materialism for all knowledge can create a delusional world provoking man’s darker side. (See Modernity, A World of Confusion: Effects.)

Man can misconstrue what he sees and make bad judgments as a result. The root of most rational errors is the act of extending one’s judgment beyond the facts available. Judgment is an immaterial faculty of the intellect whereby the meaning of a thing is assessed and determined correct or incorrect, right or wrong. These judgments lead to selecting a course of action. Thus judgment is part of the motive process that integrates the immaterial and the material aspects of our humanity. (The intellect goes from immaterial thoughts and judgment to material actions.) Moreover, our judgments can be influenced by such attitudes as I like the idea and I don’t care what the evidence shows, I hear only what I want to hear, and I am impatient and don’t want to gather more facts, or by one of myriad other human influences, such as desires, pride, greed, and the lure of fame. Faulty judgment can leads to spurious knowledge: based solely on trust, feelings, or one’s limited experience.

So what is knowledge?

Knowledge concerns what we know and how we know it, and whether or not the essence of a thing can be known (ontologically understood). Knowledge is also concerned with the separation of the genuine from the spurious, and proper knowledge may be used to justify our beliefs rather than mere feelings or opinions. Yet, in most cases, we assent to beliefs without proper knowledge. Most people don’t have the time, ability, or desire to do more. For instance, we don’t spend the time to understand the concepts surrounding embryonic stem-cell research. Instead, we rely on so-called experts and sound bites, and we’re easily swayed by feelings and not by what’s logically possible or morally justified when all facts and theories are considered. Since most people aren’t in a position to discern what is flummery from what isn’t, many people are easily misled

Since people ardently crave cures for the many terrible illnesses prevalent in the world, scientists, with their myth of infallibility, wield enormous power as they promise to cure these dreadful diseases based upon the acquisition of some future knowledge. Yet science, by itself, has proved incompetent to uphold their claim of cures. This isn’t because scientists aren’t smart, but due to the fact that life is complex and dynamic and due to the lack of instruments and predictive theories: lack of necessary and sufficient knowledge frustrates their attempts. (Note, also, that the knowledge sought might not be humanly accessible.)

To function, humans depend on the truth (or at least consistency) of their beliefs about the world. But, in many cases, people lack sufficient knowledge to justify them. People can be misled, especially when they base their knowledge on feelings and experience (limited empirical data). In fact, philosophically, there may be no such thing as empirical truth because an adequate level of justification isn’t obtainable by this means. (There may be sets of particulars that have not been considered or included.) Many times simplifying assumptions are made that aren’t justified and hypotheses are later falsified or changed.

This situation is the basic conundrum facing science, which claims its knowledge is factual and true because it has been tested. Yet scientific theories continue to change based on new and changed facts and insights. This fluidity is the very basis of science that is skeptical at its core. Based on this, some scientists now say science doesn’t posit truth but only facts and abstractions (models with predictive powers) about some natural phenomena. This implies that science, by itself, is insufficient for explaining the world or even all of its material manifestations.

Inherent in knowledge are qualities of validity (its reliability and trustworthiness—can I depend upon it to always work and is the source believable?). Knowledge is used to make judgments and justify opinions, techniques, actions, and feelings by endorsing its source. For example, I take my car for repair to a particular mechanic because I know and trust his work. Knowledge also can be contradictory, confusing, and false. Hence, the attributes of reliability and trustworthiness associated with knowledge are hard to assess except by experience, further study, intuition, and revelation. In many situations, we must rely on our own intuition and research and ignore popular positions. Unfortunately, many people don’t have the time, ability, training, or desire to do this.

Another limitation of knowledge and rational thought, in general, is that they depend upon a proper starting premise, a logically connected chain of deductions discerned by the intellectual capacity of the individual making the deductions, and the ability to check the results against the sensible world. But people’s mental capacities vary widely and are subject to improper development and even delusions. In many cases, there is no infallible way to determine true from false reasoning, especially if the proof process is constrained to the mind, which is why modern philosophical opinions differ so widely. They are based on different starting premises and the conclusions aren’t always properly validated. The situation is made worse when people base decisions solely on feelings or limited experience. Ideas must be checked against the sensible world and not just our feelings or wishes, if we aren’t to be deluded.

It’s empirical verification against the sensible world that makes science more acceptable by emphasizing experimentation and testing as a better way to identify false facts or ideas. This lets nature, and not human opinion, be the authority. Hypotheses that can’t be verified in this manner are mere opinions. A set of internally consistent mathematics alone does not prove a physical theory, although it might be an interesting exercise in imagining, for the physical world constrains mathematics.

Science is grounded in the belief in objective reality and logic: that two plus two is four and always remains four. That there are fundamental truths that can be accessed. Without this belief in objective reality and consistency in nature, no science is possible. Yet, today, there are scientists that question whether reality can be known, or, rather, who think that only their models define reality, even though they’re subject to change. Which opinion one ascribes to affects one’s views of scientific authority.

Verifying facts and concepts against the sensible world is extremely important if enduring facts are to be gained by the scientific method. If a rational person is trapped in his mind without recourse to the world through his senses to validate ideas, he can rationalize anything, even irrational positions, like saying the world doesn’t exist when unobserved—something turns into nothing and then back into something. Such reasoning comes about when models are taken as directly representing reality rather than reflecting only some qualitative or quantitative aspects of it.

Besides confusing the empiriometric with the ontological, problems with the use of language lead some postmodern philosophers to misconstrue the meanings of objective reality and truth, believing they don’t exist. Accepting only beings of reason, they insist that reality resides in the mind and truth becomes relative, varying with circumstances and the person. Other people believe finding truth is impossible due to language ambiguities and the lack of empirical certitude. To these people, it is my truth and your truth. But, fortunately, the world is intelligible, and when a thing matches the sensible world all the time, it reflects truth. Truth is found in God’s revelation, as He is the source of all intelligibility. Many scientists dispute this last point and so conflicts can arise.

So one can assume that a statement like There is no objective truth simply means that the methods of science and postmodern philosophy do not lead to truth but only to models that have some likelihood of giving correct predictions. And philosophical theories fail to exhaustively test concepts against the sensible world to show they generally apply. Because these assertions aren’t tested with the rigor of science, they have lower credence. By contrast, science can test its assertions (at least some quantitative aspects) to some level of certitude to gain a higher level of confidence that a model will predict accurately in future situations within the limits of its applicability. When results fail to meet predictions, the theory can be revised or rejected. This approach makes validated scientific facts and theories more trustworthy.

To many people, knowledge is that which one chooses to accept as fact (verified or not) from a source that is considered reliable. Humans base their lives on the facts and beliefs they’re taught and condone. Most people lack the time to verify every fact they rely upon, and science’s only claim to superiority is to the extent that its theories predict accurately, and not that science truly comprehends the world as it really is. Scientific knowledge is necessarily limited by the approach it uses. In their proper context and use, the quantitative and utilitarian aspects of science display a high level of reliability. But outside of that context and use, science isn’t necessarily competent. Pronouncements beyond the verified results are opinions—a fact that’s hard for many people to accept, those who want to believe that science is always right and is all-encompassing. They need something in this world on which to hang their hats.

But science loses its trustworthiness when it ventures into areas beyond its competence. Science has no claim to the broader realm of all knowledge. It can’t describe the world of ontological beings in which we’re most interested. A scientific theory can’t claim to be factual beyond its verified aspects, although, by chance, some broader truth might have been discovered. Scientific knowledge is but one tributary flowing into the great river of knowledge from which wisdom overflows to enrich the human condition and where peace and joy can grow. That’s why we should seek this broader knowledge base as we seek happiness.

Thus science is limited to explaining some of the what and how of some aspects of material phenomena. Conversely, philosophy and religion answer the why and meaning of life questions. It is this broader wisdom upon which freedom and civilization rely. And religion presents the only valid insight into the spiritual, which provides the revealed base for objective moral behavior. Because the spiritual can’t be observed directly, science is blind to its reality and so rejects it. Thus there is a natural conflict that occurs when science steps out of its materialistic domain into the spiritual, from the natural to the supernatural. Paraphrasing the National Academy of Science, these are different realms of knowledge and mixing them causes misunderstandings and confusion. Science does not have the ability to say whether God exists or not, yet this doesn’t stop many scientists from declaring that God doesn’t exist.

To the religious person, infallible truths are accessible through faith, reason, and revelation. To Christians reality is found in the person of Jesus Christ, whose words are reliable, trustworthy, and universally valid. Truth isn’t gained from a theory or a set of facts that have a tendency to change, but from God, who is unchangeable and the source of all knowledge. By contrast, humanly acquired knowledge, for the most part, means putting trust in one’s own limited experience or in a specific human authority. If we look at the millions of innocent people killed by man’s rationally conceived governments in the last century alone, we see how unreliable and lethal this approach can be.

The majority of knowledge used by most people isn’t based on scientific ideas, but encompasses the intangibles. These represent common sense ideas validated over the millennia of human history and found to be trustworthy. This knowledge comes from intuition, revelation, experience, philosophy, and science. The intangibles convey a much richer world than dry scientific facts about the evolution of life, or how cells work, or the biology of sex, or the particle model of physics. Also, scientific facts and theories are little understood by the majority of people. Worse, science is used to mislead people about their true nature, claiming it is wholly animalistic. This misconception of man’s nature is one of the root causes of today’s ills that are highlighted in the nightly news.

Furthermore, scientific knowledge lacks the sense of hope