No legit scientist ever believes that.
In fact, most people do not really understand the way scientists think. It may, indeed, look like our job is to prove explanations, which we call hypotheses. But, in fact, we work to DISPROVE our hypotheses. When we fail to disprove a hypothesis, we don’t might “Therefore, that’s the way it works,” as a shortcut. What we really mean to say is: “It is probable that’s the way it works.“
“What else is a probable explanation?” is another thing we think about all the time. Another way of saying all this is that scientific explanations (theories, hypotheses) are falsifiable, i.e., they can be proven wrong. If an explanation cannot be proven wrong, it simply means it is not within our field to study it with our methods.
Can I prove that a picture is beautiful? Can I prove that a sunset is awesome? Can I even explain what awesome is? I once visited the Louvre in Paris with the renowned artist and philosopher Dr. Paul Dumol. We were contemplating a huge mural whose author I forgot. I thought it was beautiful. But then after a few seconds Dr. Dumol just said “It’s decadent,” and walked on. It’s a judgment that did not require an explanation.
Shakespeare was right. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” And there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in all of science.
Scientism is an exaggerated understanding of what science is and what it can do for us. Scientism blows science as such all out of proportion, and then aims to organize the world according to the exaggeration. We can say that scientism is the view that science alone explains all things, and science alone is the guide to life.
But it’s fair to ask: Is reason or faith sufficient for life? Many people equate reason with science. They make a jump and conclude the same about truth: truth is anything validated by the methods of science. In other words, truth is what can be measured. This is scientism, an exaggeration of science. It’s a variation of the belief that science alone explains all things.
Science is one thing, Scientism is another. Science is powerful, useful, tremendous benefits and insights. And knows its limits. Scientific methods are designed for specific questions under specific conditions we call experiments. Many things simply lie beyond experiment, such as the decadence in a painting. The attributes of the Infinite Being are clearly beyond these methods, too. Certain attributes that underlie the meaning and the purpose of life, such as income, job satisfaction, and sense of poverty may be measured numerically, but no one really says all life is about income.
Science is also not adequate for settling moral issues. This is what we call in ethics the Should/Is problem: Does the fact that something is so and so mean we should do so and so about it? Science and Ethics are two disciplines precisely because of this problem. I’m not saying science and ethics contradict just because they don’t look at reality in the same way. However, I imply that a rich life involves as appreciation of both sets of concepts and methods.
I do understand, however, that the should/is problem is difficult, just as it is difficult to understand philosophical or scientific concepts over which we have little training to handle. Some, however, take the easy way out, raise their hands in resignation, and say that God, meaning, and morality are totally private matters to many.
Which leads to this ultimate conclusion: truth is what I make it to be. Which in itself is logically untenable.
I viewed this Youtube recently of a man holding up a sign that said “Feminists are smelly.” A woman walks up to him, and angrily accuses him of saying offensive things to women. With a smile, the guy goes, “Oh, are you a woman?” The woman was caught of guard, and could only reply: “Oh, so that’s it. I’m non binary, it doesn’t matter.” He was using woke reasoning, relativistic reasoning, against her. If everything is private, then everything is right, then nothing is wrong, then I should have no qualms selling you the gun that will kill your mother.
Science was never meant to be a compass to life. The proverbs we learned as children are not scientific statements in the sense that no one has done a randomized clinical trial to prove that the early bird gets the worm. But these parables convey truths, which we have verified through experience — imperfect experience, and it’s also true that the early worm gets eaten. More importantly, we know instinctively, we know through common sense that proverbs are true. They’re not just “scientific” truth, meaning, truth is not limited to just what is scientific.
But what underlies the truth of experiment and the truth of common sense is reason. God has given everyone the capacity to reason. In a sense, it reason is a spark of the spiritual because it covers more than just matter. Like sound, we can hear things within a RANGE. Similarly, no science even combined extend through the whole range of reason. Philosophy can go beyond the range of scientific reason, yet can’t go beyond into the reason of contemplation. We experience this reason as conscience, a judgment we make on practical acts. We feel bad when we do something wrong, without necessarily having to go through a complex logical process, and that feeling keeps us from getting into trouble. In some cases, though, our conscience will require a long logical study before it makes a judgment. We’re able to do both simple and complex reasoning, intuition and logic.
Reality is not all science, not all faith. Both enrich our minds, our wills and our emotions.
God created us and gives us the gift of reason, and in a special way, the gift of faith. By reason we come to know God, by faith we come to obey and love Him. And for what purpose? To find, then to be, with Him whom we came to know.
(Q.C., 231121)
jaylazzo 
