I believe in science!

In our last post, we left off with an important question: Could the unchanging nature of logic reflect the nature of its source? If so, what kind of source are we really dealing with? Today, we’ll explore how science—our most trusted tool for understanding the natural world—relies entirely on the immutability of logic.

The Framework of Science

Science is often presented as the ultimate means of discovering truth about the universe. Through observation, experimentation, and reasoning, it uncovers consistent patterns and provides explanations for how things work.

But here’s something remarkable: science itself depends on logic to function. Without principles like the law of non-contradiction or the consistency of cause and effect, the scientific method would collapse.

Think about it:

Observation assumes our senses are at least somewhat reliable and not contradictory.

Hypotheses rely on reasoning—whether deductive, inductive, or abductive—to propose explanations.

Testing depends on consistent rules for interpreting data and drawing conclusions.

At every stage, logic underpins the entire process. Science doesn’t create logic; it presupposes it.

The Hidden Assumption

Science assumes that logical principles are valid and universally applicable, but it rarely questions why.

This assumption is so foundational that it often goes unnoticed. But imagine a world where the law of non-contradiction didn’t hold true. In such a universe, your experiment could simultaneously confirm and disprove your hypothesis. Or consider a reality where cause and effect were inconsistent—where boiling water sometimes produced steam and at other times froze the water instead.

Without the consistency of nature and the immutability of logic, science wouldn’t work. But where does this immutability come from?

A Materialist Dilemma

This question is especially challenging within a materialistic worldview. If all that exists is matter and energy, how do we explain something like logic?

Logic isn’t material. It’s not something you can weigh, measure, or manipulate in a lab. It doesn’t evolve, change, or decay like physical objects. Logic is immaterial, universal, and unchanging. And yet, the entire scientific enterprise depends on its existence.

If the universe is just the product of random, physical processes, why does it operate according to logical principles? Why are those principles not only observable but also universally reliable? If the universe is only stuff, then why do we require an immaterial, unchanging thing like logic to navigate it all?

And so, here’s the dilemma: If materialism were true, wouldn’t that worldview undermine itself? It both denies the existence of something immaterial like logic, but requires logic in order to make sense of everything it claims to be true and real!

A Step Toward the Source

The fact that science works so well is a clue. It suggests that the universe is built on something deeper than mere physical processes. Science assumes a framework of logic that transcends the material world.

Could this framework reflect the nature of its source? Romans 1 declares that “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them… his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world.” The unchanging and universal nature of logic points to an unchanging and universal source—a source that creation itself reveals as the glory of God.

Could it be that the very tools we use to study the universe—our methods of observation and reasoning—are signposts pointing beyond the universe?

In the next post, we’ll follow this question further. If materialism can’t account for logic, does the Christian worldview provide a better explanation? And what might this reveal about the relationship between science, logic, and the ultimate nature of reality?

Stay tuned, and let’s keep the conversation going! (Next Entry ->)