Science and reality

At the foundation of the scientific enterprise is a belief in objective reality, but is there such a thing, and can we know what it is.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The same is true with reference to the problem of the ultimate nature of that reality which must be accepted unless we are willing to sink into solipsism. Whether we take the theistic standpoint here, or accept some one of the different forms of monism, we do not attain to our conception of the nature of reality by the way of experience, but must permit ourselves to be led by metaphysical reasoning on the basis of observation. - Herman Bavinck [1.]

- There can never be a scientific definition of reality. Science is utterly dependent upon some idea of reality, and since reality cannot be defined by science (by naturalism) science is dependent upon a certain metaphysical notion of what reality is. (Science and metaphysics are as intimately connected as body and soul.) A belief in creation, or a belief in materialism are both acts of faith. No matter what view of reality we adopt, we have not made a discovery, but have made a faith based commitment.

When philosophers deal with reality they can do little more than ask questions. (i.e. if they reject scripture) e.g. what is reality? are there different levels? is reality different for different creatures? who gets to define reality? does reality exist? is reality objective or subjective? is reality physical or mental? is it changing or unchanging? can it be known? how can it be known? how can we be sure of our epistemology? and so forth.

In centuries past this question used to be answered simply (if superficially) by claiming reality was what human senses experience. With the invention of new instruments of inquiry and examination (eg. telescopes, microscopes, etc.) this answer is increasingly inadequate. We now know of a 'greater universe' that exists 'outside' of normal human perception. This brings up questions such as 'does reality exist on the microscopic level? the sub-atomic level? on the sub-atomic?' Does reality exist on the level of rational thought or on the level of chemical reaction? i.e. are thoughts merely chemical reactions?

Having rejected Christianity the humanist has no way of determining what reality is. He doesn't know what it is, or on what level to even seek it. His empirical science can't tell him what it is. What he's done is to abandon the question and to accept a kind of naive realism; but this is a view that has no basis in his materialist worldview.

Summary;
Biblical Christianity gives us a view of reality. This view is based on an original creation of all things by God, and by his providential governance of the universe thereafter. We can draw a banal analogy. Let's picture a train set and a track (the kind many of us had as kids) or a racing car set up. Does reality exist at the level of the cars going around the track, or does reality exist at the level of the person with the controls? The materialist claims reality consists of the track and the motion of the cars, while the creationist claims reality exists at the level of the person at the controls.

Notes;
1. The Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.92