“Scientism” asserts that the only things we can know are things that can be tested scientifically. Scientism comes in two forms:

1. Strong scientism – the view that the only things we can know are things that can be tested scientifically.
2. Weak scientism prrmits some minimum, low-grade degree of rational justification for claim in fields outside of science like ethics. But scientific knowledge is taken to be vastly superior to other forms of reasonable belief. If a scientific theory contradicts a belief from some other discipline, then the other belief is wrong.

Strong scientism is self-refuting because the assertion that “we can only know things that can be tested scientifically”, cannot itself be tested scientifically and therefore we cannot know it. As such, strong scientism must be rejected.

Scientism is not the same thing as science. As a degreed aerospace engineer with decades of experience in the field, I have a deep and abiding respect and appreciation for science. Science can be defined as “a systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge about the natural and social world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It aims to understand phenomena by developing testable hypotheses and theories based on empirical evidence.”

In contrast, scientism is an ideology that restricts knowledge to only things that can be tested scientifcally. JP Moreland, PhD, has an excellent article here on scientism. He notes, “Scientism is so pervasive today—it is the intellectual and cultural air that we breathe.” With its understanding of reality, it is clear that scientism is a worldview. Moreland defines scientism thus,

“Roughly, scientism is the view that the hard sciences—like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy—provide the only genuine knowledge of reality. At the very least, this scientific knowledge is vastly superior to what we can know from any other discipline. Ethics and religion may be acceptable, but only if they are understood to be inherently subjective and regarded as private matters of opinion. According to scientism, the claim that ethical and religious conclusions can be just as factual as science, and therefore ought to be affirmed like scientific truths, may be a sign of bigotry and intolerance.”

Moreland argues that scientism is not science but a dangerous ideology. While I am a scientist, I recognize that some truth is beyond the realm of science. Natural Law theory is one example.

(This section on Natural Law is extracted from a seminary research paper submitted in March of 2022.)

Natural Law theory affirms that God embedded His moral law into creation such that rational creatures intuitively know of its existence and can comprehend good and evil to some degree. The natural law that is implanted in creation derives from the divine eternal law that resides in the mind of God before creation and exists for all eternity. Knowledge of the natural law is part of the general revelation that is universally available to everyone, independant of special revelation. Thomas Aquinas is the best known proponent of natural law theory and defines it in The Summa Theologica this way, “this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law … the light of natural reason, by which we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than the imprint on us of the Divine Light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law.”

We find in Genesis 1 after creation that God declared a moral judgement of “good” on His creative work, implying natural law represents a real “moral fiber” built into the Cosmos. There is in effect a moral grain to creation; the adherence to it enables and produces human flourishing. Scripture confirms the existence of natural law. Paul argues in Rom 2 that the Gentiles (without special revelation) do what the law requires by nature because it is written on their hearts with their conscience bearing witness.

We see indisputable evidence of the natural law in creation all around us with every culture embodying similar laws against murder and theft. There is a universal recognition that some acts are inherently wrong and others are naturally right. As a universal, the natural law is a moral standard for everyone everywhere, both believers and unbelievers. The overwhelming vast majority of people do not worry that their neighbor is going to murder them in the middle of the night and burn down their house; people intuitively know it is wrong. As Paul reminds the Corinthian church, even the pagans know what is wrong. While the law written on the conscience may be repressed with a seared sociopathic conscience, exceptions do not invalidate the rule.

The knowledge of right and wrong in the conscience is beyond the realm of science. The conscience itself cannot be analyzed, tested or even defined by science. To restrict oneself to only what can be tested scientifically is to wall oneself off from all immaterial reality. Love cannot be tested or even defined by science (naturalism would say that love is nothing more than neurons firing amidst a chemical reaction in the brain and the result of a mindless, random process through eons of time.)

Ironically, with scientism we must discard the theory of evolution since macro evolution cannot be tested or verfied scientifically (if true, we are talking about a process that occurs through vast amounts of time that are well beyond observation or interaction with human observers).

To deepen your understanding of scientism, you may want to read Moreland’s superb treatment of it in his book Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology. Moreland provides excellent guidance and wisdom on how to respond to scientism, an ideology that is pervasive today in academia and explains why so many young Christians walk away from the faith upon exposure to it. They need to be educated that scientism is not science, but an ideology.