When experimental science is confused with the study of origins, or with the study of consciousness, then subjective beliefs can be smuggled in where experimental observation necessarily ends and conjecture must necessarily begin. Conjecture must take over at a certain point because the study of origins deals with one-time, unrepeatable events from a deep past, and the study of human consciousness depends on the subjective responses of those whose minds are being studied.
And amid this confusion a philosophic preference like theological naturalism can be smuggled in. This occurs, for example, when scientists argue that life could not have developed in the relatively short time available for its development and therefore it must have come from space. Or when, as some cosmologists argue , a la Carl Sagan, that “billions and billions” of universes, called multiverses, must have existed in order for natural processes to have created life in one of them.
This is from a review of the book Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius G. Hunter. I felt it was worth sharing. It especially relates to an article in the new issue of Salvo where Regis Nicoll states what is certainly true for everybody:
The sum-total of our knowledge is infinitesimal compared to our ignorance, making some kind of faith an indispensable part of human existence. So the question is not whether we base our convictions and actions on faith, but what faith we base them on.