Why Science Alone Cannot Explain Everything

Introduction

The notion that science is the only means of discerning truth and resolving all questions about reality is known as scientism. Many atheists and humanists endorse this perspective, assuming that any claim which cannot be scientifically verified must be disregarded as false. However, this position is not only flawed but also self-defeating. While science is an invaluable tool for understanding the natural world, it has inherent limitations that prevent it from addressing the full spectrum of human knowledge. This discussion will explore these limitations and illustrate why a more holistic approach is needed to truly grasp reality.

The Self-Contradiction of Scientism

One of the fundamental problems with scientism is that it contradicts itself. The assertion that “a claim is only true if it can be scientifically verified” is not, in itself, a scientifically verifiable statement - it is a philosophical claim. This contradiction is comparable to saying, “There are no sentences longer than three words,” which invalidates itself by exceeding three words. If scientism were true, it would effectively undermine its own credibility.

Furthermore, science itself operates on fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven scientifically. The existence of an objective reality, the reliability of human reasoning, and the uniformity of natural laws are presuppositions that science takes for granted. These foundational principles belong to the realm of philosophy rather than empirical science, revealing that scientism depends on non-scientific assumptions to function at all.

The Inherent Limits of Science

1. Constrained by Empirical Observation

Science is, by its nature, limited to the observable. The scientific method relies on data derived from experiments and observations, which means it can only investigate phenomena that can be measured and perceived.

History has shown that what is considered scientifically valid today may be overturned by new discoveries tomorrow. For instance, before the development of microscopes, the existence of microscopic organisms was unknown. This illustrates that science is always subject to change and revision, making it an evolving field rather than an absolute authority on truth.

Moreover, scientific discoveries depend on technological advancements. What is currently beyond our ability to observe may become accessible in the future. This means that science is inherently limited by the tools available at any given moment.

There is also the possibility that some aspects of reality may remain forever beyond human comprehension. Just as an ant cannot grasp the complexity of human civilization, there may be truths about existence that are simply beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. This recognition underscores the necessity of considering other ways of knowing beyond empirical science.

2. Science and Morality: A Neutral Observer

Science is descriptive rather than prescriptive - it explains what is but does not dictate what ought to be. In other words, while science can describe natural processes and establish causal relationships, it cannot determine moral values or ethical principles.

For example, science can analyze what happens physiologically when a person is harmed - it can describe pain responses, blood loss, and tissue damage. However, science alone cannot determine whether harming someone is morally right or wrong. The same physical act could be part of a life-saving surgery or an act of violent aggression. The moral distinction is something science cannot address.

This limitation is captured by the well-known philosophical principle, “You cannot derive an ought from an is.” Science provides information about how things work, but moral values require ethical reasoning, which falls outside the domain of empirical research.

3. The Inability to Probe the Personal and Subjective

Science excels at examining objective phenomena, but it struggles when it comes to subjective human experiences. Emotions, intentions, and consciousness cannot be adequately captured through empirical measurement alone.

Take, for instance, human relationships. If a friend asks how you are feeling and you say, “I’m happy,” would it be reasonable for them to demand scientific proof before believing you? Requiring an empirical test to validate a personal experience would erode trust and undermine meaningful interactions. This illustrates that some aspects of reality must be accepted based on trust and personal testimony rather than empirical validation.

Similarly, diagnosing mental health conditions like depression often depends on personal accounts. While biological markers may provide clues, the core experience of depression is deeply subjective. Science can aid in understanding and treating depression, but it cannot fully grasp the nuances of personal suffering or lived experience.

4. Science Cannot Address ‘Why’ Questions

Science is adept at answering how things work but falls short when it comes to explaining why they exist. It can describe the geological processes that shape mountains, but it cannot explain whether mountains serve a greater purpose.

To illustrate this point, imagine receiving a homemade cake from a friend. Scientific analysis could reveal the cake’s ingredients and the baking temperature, but no amount of empirical testing would explain why your friend made it. The only way to know the reason is to ask the person who baked it. Similarly, science may reveal the processes behind the formation of the universe, but it cannot provide an answer to why the universe exists in the first place.

5. Science is Inept at Answering Metaphysical Questions

While science can address certain metaphysical inquiries that intersect with empirical reality - such as the origins of the universe - it is incapable of answering profound existential questions, including:

• Is there an afterlife?

• Do souls exist?

• Why is there something rather than nothing?

• What is the nature of consciousness?

These questions transcend the physical realm and require philosophical, theological, or introspective approaches. Science alone does not have the tools to engage with such inquiries comprehensively.

6. Science Cannot Justify Logical and Mathematical Truths

Science operates within the framework of logic and mathematics, but it cannot justify their validity. Logical and mathematical truths, such as 2 + 2 = 4, are not empirical discoveries; they exist independently of sensory experience. While scientific theories may utilize mathematics, they do not prove its necessity - mathematics functions as a precondition for scientific inquiry itself.

7. The Dependence on Testimony

Much of human knowledge relies on testimony rather than direct observation. We accept historical facts, geographical knowledge, and even scientific claims based on expert testimony. For instance, most people believe in the roundness of the Earth, not because they have personally measured it, but because they trust the accounts of scientists. Testimony is an essential means of knowledge acquisition, yet it falls outside the realm of empirical science.

Conclusion

A comprehensive understanding of reality requires more than just scientific investigation. While science is an invaluable tool, it cannot answer every question about human existence. Its limitations in addressing morality, subjective experience, and deeper philosophical inquiries reveal the need for other ways of knowing.

Recognizing the boundaries of science does not diminish its importance; rather, it highlights the need for a more integrative approach to knowledge. 

By fostering a dialogue between science and Islam, we can cultivate a deeper, more holistic comprehension of reality - one that does not reject science but places it within a broader intellectual framework that enriches our understanding of the world and our place in it.