THOUGHTS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AS RELATED TO VIEWING GOD FROM A SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE;

Fundamentally science is essentially limited in what it "knows" to that what can be directly demonstrated by experiment; therefore, science should view God as simply beyond science.  True science only measures physical phenomena and determines the nature of physical interactions.  Science is thus extremely limited in what it can address outside the laboratory and cannot address that which is not physical in terms of matter or fields and God is in neither of those categories.   "The way science works."

The fundamental process of science is based on avoiding the need to invoke God to understand the physical world.  Scientists are taught to avoid resorting to using God to explain the gaps in our understanding.  This does not mean, in the slightest, that science in any way eliminates the need for God to explain that which is beyond experiment, nor that science should try to explain away God.  

Science is only a method of examining physical relational phenomena in the world and the universe.  The scientific method is not at all directly applicable to answering questions beyond the physical world.  Science, for the most part, is about doing experiments about physical relationships that can be described by mathematical equations or are at least subject to repeatable laboratory tests.  Since God is outside the physical universe and not directly subject to laboratory tests, science inherently cannot directly address the existence or nature of God.   Supernatural Agency and the Modern Scientific Method.

The reality is that scientists are human, however, and inevitably bring along their philosophy when they do their work and when they report it. Scientists are supposed to be unbiased observers but there is no basic reason that that is true in the real world, and there are many reasons (money, ego, etc.) to believe it is rarely true. 

Scientists are paid and part of a profession which involves personal interests, money, and politics.   Science is, therefore, far from being pure and unbiased and it seems clear that scientists often do not reflect on the limits and failings of their profession or their natural biases as they should.  Science even resembles a religion in some ways. 

Sadly atheistic scientists often try to use their interpretation of science findings to support their atheism.  That brings science pronouncements and religion into conflict where none should exist. Notice is not the science itself but the pronouncements about the science that causes the conflict.  The nature of fallible human scientists, and not science itself, does raise philosophical conflicts, not conflict with the hard facts, however.

Science, in any case, must itself have a consistent philosophy to progress.  That does not mean, however, that science provides hard answers to soft philosophical questions.  Sadly, though, the true philosophy of science is often lost by scientists in the pursuit of research funding or business interests.

As you will see in the following comments it is easy to slide between hard science and soft philosophy relating to science. (We do not hide that in this site.) Going from hard science to soft philosophy is acceptable as long as one does not confuse the two.  Whenever any scientist talks about God, they are talking philosophy and not hard science.  One can, however, as in this site, bring together a lot of science facts which together make a good case for the probable existence of God.  An excellent book has been written doing this and we recommend; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel.

What follows is soft philosophy (not hard science at all), but is philosophy as it relates to science.  It is certainly valid to say that the farther one gets from laboratory science, the softer (more open to interpretation) ones reasoning gets.  The hard facts of science do not, however, take one very far in coming to grips with profound questions such as God.  Philosophy and faith will always come into play on questions about God.

God by definition is beyond any direct physical test.   Science can only observe the nature of creation and from that we can, at most, philosophically infer some characteristics that are consistent in creation and which are, therefore, likely to be in some small way representative of a Creator.   For example, from the philosophical viewpoint of a belief in a creator, we can look and see lawfulness, order, constancy, positive/constructive relationships/harmony, conservation laws, etc., as general rules of how the universe is constructed and ordered.  

The ideal of harmony and "beauty" is often used in basic physics as a guide to finding simple and elegant laws governing subatomic interactions.  "Beauty" and "God" in science.  All these philosophical interpretations are consistent with most notions of God, but again, are not hard science..

To begin with, science certainly cannot now or ever explain why there is even a reality.  There is nothing in science which even hints in the slightest as to why there is a universe rather than nothing at all.  Basically, the assumption that reality exists is no more scientific that an assumption that God exists.  In fact, there is evidence in the harmony of the universe which makes any assumption of God's existence a much stronger argument that the simple assumption that reality must exist.

Still thinking philosophically (no hard science), one can, from an atheistic viewpoint, look at the living world, especially at complex systems, and seem to find apparent exceptions to the theistic interpretations which at first glance, from a narrow philosophical viewpoint, could be something which one would not expect to find if the universe is created by a loving God, such as pain and suffering.  That narrow minded atheistic view (defining God in their philosophical terms) is from an extremely limited human perspective and is not only not science but is actually in conflict with the dominance of harmony and beauty in all of creation. Again, this is not hard science, but philosophy (with inherent human misconceptions of God) which should be kept separate from science. 

When philosophizing about science, if, for example, one takes a broad viewpoint, it is possible to see that problems such as pain are almost always localized (unless caused by man), most often produce less total pain in world in the longer run (even when caused by man.)  Getting even deeper philosophically, one could also argue that if God is present in some way in His living creation, then God could simply have chosen to experience pain through us (in essence we chose to risk that) for some reason which has a higher purpose hidden from man.  This position is not scientific, it is a philosophical position, but then, neither is attributing selfishness to genes or viewing pain, as something caused by God, more than philosophy.

Often philosophical problems or at least perceived problems are the result of the freedom (and uncertainty) built into the laws of physics (quantum mechanics), or the inevitable result of the complexity of creation (where complex systems like fractals in mathematics have essentially infinite possibilities while also having predictable patterns and limits.)  The larger the viewpoint one takes, the more wonderful and harmonious creation can be seen to be.  Narrow human/atheistic definitions of God are what lead to most atheistic science viewpoints, and not the realities of the world and universe..

Looking at such philosophical viewpoints has taken us (as we said it would) far from hard science.  Hard science never says why the laws of physics together with the original state of the universe are so perfectly attuned to life and generation of beautiful structures and relationships.  Science only quantifies physical relationships and finds mathematical patterns in such relationships.  Science does not even address why mathematics is so effective at describing such relationship.  Science is also fundamentally unable to measure and explain consciousness directly as well.   Intelligence by Design.   Since it is essentially limited to laboratory derived data, it is not surprising that science is mostly silent of God.

This broad view science related philosophical thinking does point to the beauty of creation and of a probable creator.  Beyond philosophical support, science is, nevertheless, very limited, and does not provide proof of God.  There will always be a lot of room for faith because of the limits of science and the incredible complexity of the universe and life.  

Our consciousness and sense of beauty and order gives us the opportunity to see beyond science and to appropriately be in awe of creation and the Creator.  Science should recognize that God is beyond its purview, and that will, almost certainly, never change.

We recommending reading the book; "The Case For A Creator" by L. Strobel which contains a wide range of scientific references.

Popper's Philosophy of Science.

Science: Philosophy's Handmaiden.

The Nature and Philosophy of Science.

Beyond Materialism.

Do most astronomers believe in God based on the available scientific evidence?

Science, Philosophy, and Religion.

Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics.   (Possibilities beyond simple materialistic explanations.)