Reading Time: 7 minutes

This is the view that scientific research is the only way of achieving new knowledge—Miracles do not pass the test they claim. There is no way to verify Jesus rose from the dead, since science doesn’t have the tools to verify such an event.

This objection has a few ways of being expressed…

Christians don’t have enough quality evidence for the resurrection. Unlike scientific data, historical evidence for miracles is not predictable or repeatable.

Some think scientific testing supersedes historical research as it has no test for gullibility. These beliefs have in common that somehow, the standards from the scientific method outweigh any historical data that may possibly exist for the resurrection

We have 3 objections to this.

1. The scientific method is limited in its ability to observe and test

Like history, this is simply one of the rules of research, scientists regularly concede this point—You cannot measure love on a Geiger counter

Biology is frequently unable to predict outcomes, Geology and palaeontology, like history involve many situations that are not repeatable….we can’t relive the dinosaur era! (In like manner, Willard Van Orman Quine’s philosophical principle of indeterminacy in quantum physics takes into account experimental results that are not always either predictable or precisely repeatable, except in terms of probability). The scientific method cannot totally eliminate gullibility. It can’t stop misrepresentations of data or plain old mistakes by scientists (For example when Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins say something came from nothing in the Quantum vacuum, they fool their audiences simply by not informing them that many other senior secular scientists state the quantum vacuum is seething with energy which is indeed, not nothing. Nothing itself has no properties). As with history, we must always inspect results and require careful reporting practices. Therefore, the science has its own limitations that cannot serve as an excuse to rule out the supernatural.

2. The claim that truth is only found in what science can prove is self-refuting.

“There is no such thing as truth, and that’s the truth” is a self-refuting statement.

If it is true that truth does not exist, then the statement itself is false because the comment professes to be true. If it is false that there is no such thing as truth, then at least some truth exists because the statement itself is true. Either way, some things are true and the other statement that denies it is false.

Other examples exist: “I don’t speak a word of English” (uttered in English); “You cannot know anything for certain.” (How does the person making the statement know that?).

The one who claims truth is found only in what science can prove makes the same sort of self-refuting claim. Using only the scientific method, can the sceptic show that truth is found only in what science can demonstrate? Obviously not

The rule that science is the only way to know something is unscientific and it cannot be tested. So science cannot even validate itself! There are a good number of things that can’t be scientifically proven but that are all rational to accept. Let me list five here.

Logical and mathematical truths 

These cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes logic in maths so to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle.

Metaphysical truths 

Like there are other minds other than my own or that the external world is real or that the past was not created five minutes ago with the appearance of age. Irrational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven.

Ethical beliefs about statements of value 

These are not accessible via the scientific method. You can’t show by science whether the nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in western democracies.

Aesthetic judgements 

cannot be accessed via the scientific method because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.

Science

Most remarkably science cannot be justified by the scientific method. science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example in the special theory of relativity the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points A and B. But that strictly cannot be proven and we have to assume that, in order to uphold to the theory. So none of these beliefs can be scientifically proven and yet they accepted by all of us. 

The sceptic may retort: “Fine. I don’t think that science is the only way to learn something. But I still think that science rules out miracles.” Then we need to point out two other items. (1) This was not the original objection, but we still appreciate the agreement that science is not the only way to know something. (2) Further, since we agree that there are other ways to learn, it may just be that miracles are known by one of these other options.

3. To require historical events to be predictable or repeatable is self-refuting 

Because these are just different ways of stating science is the only way to live now something. Few historical events of any kind are truly predictable in the sense the scientist means, and none are, strictly speaking, repeatable. The rule that levels these requirements is not scientific, hence it fails its own test. Should we also reject that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river? Or that George Washington was the first president of the United States? These are non-repeatable events. Unless historical enterprise is reliable, science as we know could not proceed since scientists must build from previous scientific data from past discoveries. No one’s lifetime has the ability to retest all former experiments before moving forward. Without historical assumptions, science cannot progress. 

Historical investigation is well recognized as a worthy pursuit, even by some philosophers who hold that experience through the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch is the only (or at least the best) means to obtain knowledge. Well-known sceptics such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell, A. J. Ayer, and Antony Flew all have acknowledged that history is an appropriate avenue for obtaining knowledge. Flew accepted all of Gary Habermas’ twelve historical facts in his “Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?” Book on the debate they had. If it can be concluded with a reasonable certainty that in the past some persons witnessed the presence of a person who had previously died, that event would be a part of human experience. Since the evidence that we have for Jesus’ resurrection is exceptional, especially when using accepted standards of historical research, it cannot be ruled out without an investigation. If the sceptic refuses to acknowledge that history can yield knowable conclusions, then ask how someone will know that the Holocaust occurred after the last eyewitness has died. Or how do we really know that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River or that George Washington was the first president of the United States? If he responds that we have written accounts from people who were there, then point out that this is also what we have with Jesus’ appearances. In fact, we have similar evidence to what the sceptic might have, with the exception of photographs—and if the Shroud of Turin is real, which appears likely for a handful of reasons, we may just have that, too! 

The shroud of Turin is a cloth that bears a negative imprint of a man who appears to have been crucified. He has wounds all over his body, but especially in his wrists, feet, and head. Pollen from the area of Palestine has also been found on the cloth, and it is likely that a coin minted by Pontius Pilate was placed over at least one eye. For centuries many have held that this is the burial cloth of Jesus. This position, of course, is not without problems. However, many of the more recent test results that others have cited to claim that the shroud is a forgery are also not without problems. In our minimal facts approach we will not consider the shroud, since it is not accepted as genuine by the vast majority of all scholars who study the subject, however I am preparing to make a case for this elsewhere (or will do depending on the time of reading this). 

4. Science cannot measure God’s activity

There is no reason why we cannot consider non-supernatural portions of claims concerning the resurrection. E.g. did Jesus die? Was he seen alive at some later time? The scientist or historian could evaluate the conclusion “Jesus was seen alive after his death”. However, in his capacity as a scientist or historian, he perhaps could not draw the conclusion: “God raised Jesus from the dead” Since he is unable to detect God’s actions with the tools of his trade. This would not prohibit the scientist or historian from believing that God raised Jesus, and many of them do. Philosopher and mathematician William A. Dembski comments that, for the scientist, the contrast should not be in determining whether the cause was natural or supernatural. The contrast should be whether the cause was undirected (natural) or directed (intelligent). On the other hand, the philosopher or theologian can argue that God raised Jesus based on other well founded data (Cosmological, Moral, archaeological, historical, evidences etc.).

Sources

• 5 Facts Science cannot disprove but are rational to accept — Public Debate: William Lane Craig Vs Peter Atkins, April 3, 1998 – Atlanta, Georgia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9c2626M5ek; The 5 simple Points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UWzzAwT6is 
• Historical investigation is well recognized as a worthy pursuit — See Hume, “Skeptical Solution of those Doubts” in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748); V, Part 1; Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (New York: Dover, 1936), 19; and Russell, “Truth and Falsehood” in The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912), 284; 
• Shroud of Turin further reading — Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, Verdict on the Shroud (Banbury, Conn.: Dell, 1982); Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas, The Shroud and the Controversy: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for Authenticity (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990); John Heller, Report on the Shroud (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1983); Ian Wilson, The Shroud of Turin (Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday, 1978); Mary and Alan Whanger, The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery (Franklin, Tenn.: Providence House, 1998); Mark Antonacci, The Resurrection of the Shroud (New York: M. Evans, 2000).
• Dembski comments — William A. Dembski, ed., “Introduction” in Mere Creation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998), 15.
• Not stopping historians believing in God — Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1996), 60–61 and Appendix 1: “Historiography.”