Limitations
of natural science
Natural science (commonly now referred to as just, ‘science’) is the study of the physical universe and as such it is a noble cause but a limited one. It is limited by the parameters of time, space, energy, light and matter, etc., which for the sake of this essay, I will call the physical primaries of the universe.
To the extent that the physical dimensions and forces experienced or discovered within the universe, derive from these primaries, so science is also limited. Natural science by definition can’t stray beyond these boundaries, and so logically, there can exist, and I would claim do exist, many metaphysical realms beyond these boundaries that are not the province of science. I will use just one of these realms, pure mathematics, as an example.
Pure mathematics is never defined by natural science in any way (for example it is timeless), but science can always be defined in some way by pure mathematics. (Applied mathematics is merely pure mathematics employed to define the realm of natural science in some way). So pure mathematics is not bounded by the realm of true scientific endeavour, but the physical universe is undergirded by pure mathematics. Pure mathematics is not contained by, or merely created in the human brain; it exists apart from the human brain.
That mathematics exists regardless of the human brain ever discovering it or deriving its logic, is self evident from the fact that the universe is undergirded with mathematics and that the universe exists regardless of human kind! Another metaphysical realm that science has no right to is the ‘spirit’ world. Clearly since the spirit world is not defined by, nor subject to the physical universe, then science can’t by definition say anything about it: logically it can’t even say that this realm does not exist, because if science were to claim that as a fact, then it would need to be able to prove it. And since no physical experiment can be applied to a realm that is not subject to or defined by the physical universe, then clearly science has nothing to say, so again it is limited.
This conclusion will annoy the humanist scientist (and the metaphysical naturalist), because he or she feels that human kind is entirely defined by, and can ultimately be predicted by the application of science to the universe. They will of course shout for evidence; where is the evidence for the ‘spirit’ world? – show us it and we will derive an experiment that will prove it is just another aspect of the physical universe (or that it is explained by metaphysical naturalism)! But this is an illogical position, because all real evidence of the ‘spirit’ world will not be subject to experimentation or the test of repeatability.
So if, as I am claiming, human kind is more than just physical or natural, that we are in fact a mixture of the ‘natural’ and of the ‘spirit’ realm, then it follows that science will be able to discover and predict so much about us, but no more, and there will come a frontier at which science will stop and be silent. Science is limited when it comes to human beings.
The only evidence that I will offer as proof for my argument is that human kind can derive and understand mathematics. And since as I have demonstrated pure mathematics is not the creation of the physical universe, it follows that human kind has something in common with the metaphysical status of mathematics: we can use our intelligence in a manner not too dissimilar to the way that pure mathematics can use its intelligence, to shape the physical universe. Now here we have a dilemma – for natural science can only study to a limit, but no further.
Taking intelligence as an example, intelligence is more than the application of logic. Intelligent action also implies independent intent, purpose and objectives both within the cosmos (in the form of life) and outside the realm of cosmos (in order for the cosmos to exist). And this is outside the limits of pure science, but scientists as part of human kind are intelligent! Now it is completely natural and is a legitimate realm for human kind to investigate intelligence because we have some intelligence ourselves.
The scientist may investigate and compare the problem solving ability of individual brains and to some extent may be able to predict the logical actions of individuals. But he/she can never be certain of individual logic because people are more than can be defined by the physical universe, they are partly spiritual. However for science to be defined in terms other than it is (viz. as I have it, deriving from the physical primaries of the universe), would mean that those who practice this endeavour would not be in control of what they do and I would suggest that may be a further reason for its current limitations.
As an example of this, I will briefly touch on the evolution-creation debate. I have claimed that in time, science will tell us everything we can know about the natural creation and will do so without finding any fingerprints of a supernatural creator simply because that is not what natural science does. However I have also claimed that there exist supernatural realms beyond the scope of pure science. As a believer in God, I argue that it follows from God’s existence that all that exists in the absolute cosmos is God’s creation (a priori).
So you might ask, how can I argue that all that exists in the natural universe is shaped by this Supernatural God without God’s fingerprints being left for us to observe by means of natural science? My answer is that all that exists in the physical primaries of the cosmos has in fact a supernatural counterpart. A mundane example of this is mankind. We exist in the absolute cosmos and we are influential in shaping the natural cosmos to suit our fancies, not because we are driven by any of the physical primaries to do so, but simply to suit our social desires.
As a limited example of this, we have bred all sorts of varieties of dog (originally I understand from wolves), but let us suppose that all traces of mankind vanished from the earth and scientists from another planet arrived here and studied life using natural science alone, they would never find any fingerprints of man associated with the vast array of breeds of dog.
Similarly the supernatural God can and has influenced all of the natural cosmos by means of the supernatural without leaving fingerprints in the natural. In conclusion I have sought to show that natural science (both pure & applied) as currently defined, is limited to exclude supernatural realms from its defined boundaries.
However in being confined to the physical primaries of the cosmos (however widely you may wish to define that), it is limited and limiting to those who practice it and those who would gain from it, for the simple reason that human kind is more than natural, we are also spiritual and we don’t ultimately have any control over the spiritual.
I contend that natural science can not progress
beyond its limitations, and the study of the absolute cosmos, viz.,
both the physical and spiritual primaries of the universe can be
undertaken by man but not by the means of natural science alone.
