✝ Catholic Treasury Network
Home ›Apologetics›God and Faith›Isn't Science the Only Real Path to Truth?
Apologetics · God and Faith

Isn't Science the Only Real Path to Truth?

The Short Answer

Science is one of the great achievements of the human mind, and the Catholic Church honours it. But it is not the only path to truth, and the claim that it is cannot survive its own test. The statement “only what science can prove is true” cannot itself be proved by science. It is a philosophical belief, and a self-defeating one. We know a great many things that no experiment can show: that logic holds, that other people have minds, that cruelty is wrong, that the past happened. Science itself depends on some of them.

The view under discussion, often called scientism, is widespread. It is rarely argued for; it is more often simply assumed. Its holders usually mean something reasonable: that science has been astonishingly successful, and that religion should not make claims it cannot support. Both points deserve a fair hearing.

What the Church Does and Does Not Claim

The Church does not claim:

The Church does claim that “methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God” (CCC 159). St John Paul II warned against scientism as a view that refuses to recognise any knowledge but that of the natural sciences, and so dismisses religious, moral and philosophical knowledge as mere fancy (Fides et Ratio 88).

Why Catholics Believe It

The claim refutes itself

Take the statement: “We should believe only what can be shown by the scientific method.” Can that statement be shown by the scientific method? What experiment would prove it? What measurement would confirm it?

None. It is not a finding of science but a rule about science, a philosophical claim. So if it were true, we should not believe it. A view that, applied to itself, rules itself out is not a sound foundation for anything.

A metal detector finds only metal

Imagine someone sweeping a beach with a metal detector. It finds coins, keys and bottle caps. It never registers driftwood, shells or sand. Would it be reasonable to conclude that there is no wood on the beach?

Of course not. The detector finds metal because it was built to find metal. Its silence about wood tells us about the detector, not about the beach.

Science is something like that. It is designed to study what can be measured, repeated and tested. That is its strength. But it means that whatever cannot be measured, such as meaning, value, purpose, or the reason anything exists at all, will not show up on its instruments. That silence is not evidence that such things are unreal. It is a reminder of what the method was built to do.

We know many things science cannot show

Think of what you are sure of without any experiment:

None of these is anti-scientific. They are simply outside what science sets out to do.

Science rests on beliefs it did not prove

Science assumes that the world is orderly, that its order can be grasped by the human mind, and that our senses and reason can be trusted. These are not results of science; they are what make science possible. The Christian view of a rational Creator gives a reason to expect them. Scripture says that God has “arranged all things by measure and number and weight” (Wisdom 11:20).

It is no accident that many pioneers of modern science were believers. Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar, founded genetics. Bl. Nicolas Steno, a bishop, helped found geology. Fr Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, first proposed what became the Big Bang theory. They saw no conflict between studying creation and worshipping its Creator.

Creation points beyond itself

Scripture teaches that the natural world, studied honestly, leads the mind towards God. “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20). “For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator” (Wisdom 13:5). Science studies the “things that have been made.” The question of who made them is the next question, and it is a question for philosophy and faith.

Common Objections

”Science has a track record. It gave us vaccines and moon landings. What has religion given us?”

Science’s track record is real and wonderful, within its field. But success at one task does not make a tool right for every task. A microscope is superb for studying cells and useless for judging a poem. As for what faith has given, it inspired hospitals, universities, the idea of universal human dignity, and much of the art and music of the world. It also gave the confidence in an ordered creation that early modern science took for granted.

”Religious claims can’t be tested, so they’re meaningless.”

That idea, that only testable statements have meaning, was popular among philosophers in the early twentieth century, and was largely abandoned, for the same reason given above: the principle “only testable statements are meaningful” cannot itself be tested. And some religious claims can be examined by ordinary historical methods. Christianity rests on a public event, the Resurrection, which St Paul invited people to check against living witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3–8).

”Science will eventually explain everything, including consciousness and morality.”

Perhaps science will tell us much more about the brain. But explaining how the brain works when we think is not the same as showing that our thoughts are true, or that our choices are good. And this objection is itself a statement of faith: a confident belief about what future science will find, held without present evidence.

”Isn’t God just a way of filling the gaps in science?”

Not in the Catholic tradition. A “God of the gaps” is a God invoked to explain what science has not yet explained, and who shrinks every time science advances. The classical arguments for God do not work like that. They start not from what science cannot explain, but from what science takes for granted: that anything exists, and that it is ordered. Those questions do not shrink as science grows. (See Does God Exist?)

In Summary

Science is a magnificent way of knowing the natural world, and Catholics should love it. But it is not the only way of knowing. The claim that it is cannot be proved by science, and so undermines itself. Like a metal detector that finds only metal, science finds what it was built to find. Logic, history, other minds, moral truth and beauty are known in other ways, and science itself rests on some of them. Faith and science are not rivals, because the same God made the world and the minds that study it.

See also Is Faith Irrational?, Does the Big Bang Prove God? and Does the Church Accept Evolution?

This article follows the method St Robert Bellarmine used in his Controversies*: state the question fairly, clear away misunderstandings, make the case, then answer each objection. Bellarmine himself was drawn into the first great clash over science and Scripture, in the Galileo case. See How We Answer Objections.*

Sources