Alright science. Finally getting to some good stuff. I’m going to hold back on all my issues in this first section, and others to come, on the assumption that Keller will address them at some point. If he doesn’t, I’ll probably indulge on the last section of this chapter. We have just started chapter 6 if you couldn’t tell and are following along.
This section is pretty short and sweet. Keller’s main point is that science cannot say that miracles, and through them God, do not exist. He points out that science limits itself to the material world by necessity (it is the only domain the methodology makes sense in) but as a consequence cannot state with authority on the subject of the existence of any metaphysical reality. Keller says that these are common assertions masked by more innocuous statements like, “miracles don’t happen,” since they are hidden assumptions of such statements.
Technically I agree with Keller here. Science cannot disprove the existence of a metaphysical reality. However, science cannot ever state anything with certainty, 100% certainty, either, so that’s not really very meaningful except as a loophole through which to keep your preexisting beliefs.
Science doesn’t (and can’t) directly speak to the metaphysical, but it still impacts it. The mere fact that science works indicates a very limited interaction from any metaphysical source. Any metaphysical interaction with the physical could not be accounted for by science, and so would decrease sciences accuracy. The ever increasing accuracy and effectiveness of science precludes strong metaphysical interaction with the physical. See for evidence, your GPS… or basically our entire modern enviornment.
Further, science provides a model of the universe that requires no metaphysics and Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation (the one with no unnecessary metaphysics) is the one to go for. The Occam’s Razor argument works for religion as a whole, but is also an effective way at looking at individual claims, like miracles. The church might claim that a statue of the virgin Mary is crying holy water tears or blood or whatever. However, this is a claim about the physical world, so science can be applied. Upon investigation it might be found that a tube and pumping mechanism were in place, or perhaps capillary action could have pulled water from a basin on the floor. Science does not prove with these observations that the statue isn’t miraculously crying by the hand of God, but it is obvious the more likely answer is the pump.
Finally, Keller misplaces the burden of proof. Science does not make the claim in this case, religion does. Religion claims that miracles happen and they should have to provide extraordinary evidence to support that claim. Performing rigorous scientific testing to eliminate mundane explanations would be a first step. Publishing their findings in a peer reviewed journal. Then we’d like to see some replication. All of this should be possible, and should be in the interest of the church, or any religion, to find. Why haven’t religions produced this compelling evidence for miracles in thousands of years while science finds new things all the time (Higgs Boson in 50 years anybody)? I think it’s because miracles don’t exist.