Person-truth in a world of science and reason

After the journey we have taken so far, a thoughtful reader might be asking a crucial question: What about science? If “person-truth” is relational and contextual, how does it square with a world that runs on the universal, predictable, and impersonal laws of physics, chemistry, and biology? Are we forced to choose between a life of faith and a life of reason? The answer is no. In fact, the person-truth framework does not create a conflict with science, it liberates science from a set of philosophical assumptions it doesn’t actually need.¶

Scientific naturalism suggests that all events in the universe can be accounted for in terms of matter as governed by universal mathematical and scientific laws. Naturalists use reason and observation to discover underlying patterns in the operations of nature. This can be illustrated in the history and development of scientific discourse. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 AD), for example, believed that nature is “inexorable [and acts only] through immutable laws which she never transgresses.”¹⁰⁶¶

Robert Boyle (1627-1691 AD) likewise stated: “I look upon the metaphysical and mathematical principles … to be truths of a transcendent kind that do not properly belong either to philosophy or theology; but are universal foundations and instruments of all the knowledge we mortals can acquire.”¹⁰⁷ Boyle even went so far as to speculate that these mathematical principles may be “ultimate truths superior to God himself.”¹⁰⁸¶

Today, two basic assumptions guide scientists’ understanding of the laws of nature: position symmetry and time symmetry. This means that “the laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe” and that they “have remained the same through time. They are the same now as they were in the distant past, and they will be the same in the future.”¹⁰⁹ In any case, scientific naturalism assumes that what is ultimately true can be captured in abstract ideas that are universal, unchangeable, and without context.¶

Person-truth and science do not conflict

Does this mean that the person view of truth rejects science? Not in the slightest. Many faithful Latter-day Saints have devoted their lives to precisely this kind of scholarship and inquiry, including prophets and apostles. Elder James E. Talmage and Elder John A. Widstoe, for example, were well known for their love of the natural sciences (and were thoroughly naturalistic in their worldview). Prior to his full-time Church service, Elder Richard G. Scott was a nuclear engineer who helped design the first nuclear submarine for the U.S. Navy.¶

Other famous Latter-day Saints were renowned scientists as well. Melvin Cook and Henry Erying (the father of President Henry B. Erying) were both devoted Latter-day Saints and award-winning chemists. Harvey Fletcher, also a devoted Latter-day Saint, was a physicist known for his work in acoustics and inventor of the first electronic hearing aid. This list could go on indefinitely. Today, there are thousands of Latter-day Saint scholars in the natural sciences who are devoted to their faith while also making rigorous, thoughtful contributions in their disciplines.¶

Some readers may be suspicious of the distinction between idea-truth and person-truth because it seems to add fuel to the tiresome conflict between science and religion. We do not think it needs to. We admire those who reconcile a life of scientific inquiry with a life of devoted discipleship. The solution lies in epistemic humility. The word epistemic refers to knowledge, or how we know things. Epistemic humility simply means that we treat naturalism as a pragmatically useful assumption, rather than as absolute truth.¶

For example, scientific laws simply describe patterns we observe in the natural world. For example, we observe that things tend to fall in very predictable ways. Falling objects are so predictable, in fact, that we can describe their motion in terms of mathematics, such as the law of gravity. If we know the mass of the planet, and the mass of a second object (whether it be the moon or a shoe), we can predict precisely how the second object is going to fall (or orbit). This is all a perfectly empirical exercise, which means it is based on observed facts of the universe.¶

But then we often go one step further and treat the law of gravity as an explanation rather than as a description. We treat it as if it were a real “thing” out there that can make stuff happen. When we do this, we move beyond what empirical evidence can justify. Even though we observe regularities in nature, nothing requires us to believe those patterns are universal or immutable—or that they cause our experiences. When we make sweeping metaphysical claims about the world, we leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophical speculation.¶

It's the difference between a meteorologist describing the conditions that lead to a storm and claiming that the weather map itself makes the wind blow. The map is an incredibly useful description, a model that allows for prediction. But the map is not the thing itself. Epistemic humility means recognizing that our scientific laws are the best maps we have, without insisting that they are a complete blueprint of ultimate reality.¶

Here’s the point: nothing about science (thought of narrowly as a commitment to empirical evidence) requires us to rigidly adopt an idea view of truth. We can provisionally adopt some assumptions of the philosophical tradition when they are useful, without adopting them as an inflexible philosophical worldview. There are no frictionless surfaces, perfectly elastic collisions, or free-falling bodies, but these assumptions are useful when making predictions about the world.¶

From a person view of truth, rigorous scholarship can be carried out in conjunction with prayer, covenant making and keeping, and temple worship—with few (if any) intellectual inconsistencies. From this view, the goals of all these forms of inquiry are the same: to more fully know God and the workmanship of His hands and to serve our fellow man. President Brigham Young once taught:¶

President John Taylor also taught:¶

Given our belief in a Divine Creator who is a God of order, it is not at all surprising to us that we find patterns and consistencies in the natural world, or even in human activity and experience. Such patterns are authored by the Truth made Flesh, and bear the mark of His creative work. Science is a systematic method of revealing these useful patterns. But notice the crucial difference here: at no point have we described these patterns as unchangeable, universal, or absolute. We do not have to embrace the metaphysics in order to embrace the empirical methods of systematic observation and rational analysis.¶

This approach also treats science as a human enterprise. Its practices and norms are invented by humans, and social forces invariably play into the way researchers do their work.¹¹² As the Latter-day Saint psychologist and scholar Duane Boyce states: “Recognizing such factors, … we can be saved from … dogmatism and instead attain something approaching wisdom: a lingering tentativeness and humility about many of the beliefs we hold at any one time.”¹¹³ From the person view of truth, we treat scientific conclusions as provisional.¶

The relationship between reason and truth

In modern thought, for a rational argument to be convincing, it must lay out a series of conclusions that are logically necessitated by demonstrable premises. From this view, reason leads us to what must be the case, given our premises and the evidence at hand. We can see the echoes of the philosophical tradition in this perspective: the conclusions of valid reasoning cannot be different, if the premises are true.¶

However, from a person view of truth, we might see reason as kind of language. As a language, we can use reason to articulate a wide variety of worldviews and perspectives. In this view, reason does not lead to certain conclusions. Two completely rational people can arrive at very different conclusions, depending on their prior beliefs and predispositions.¹¹⁴ We do not have to pit faith against reason. Rather, there are simply more and less faithful ways of making sense of our experiences, and more and less rational ways of making sense of faith.¶

Richard Williams has proposed that we use two dimensions to talk about the relationship between faith and reason:¶

In keeping with earlier chapters, we think it makes sense to say that the opposite of faith is “infidelity” or “unfaithfulness.” In Williams’s framework, the “reason” axis represents the logical coherence and persuasive power of a person’s worldview. The “faith” axis represents their fidelity—their faithfulness—in their covenant relationship with God.¶

There are four key quadrants that illustrate ways that faith and reason might play out in actual people’s lives (see the figure on the next page). In Quadrant I, there are those who are true to their covenants with God, but who are not good at articulating their worldview in a coherent way to others. In Quadrant IV, there are those who are very coherent, but who are not true to their commitments to God or ignore His influence in their lives. They may persuasively lead others away from God. In Quadrant III, there are those live “without God in the world,” and who are also incoherent, unable to rationally articulate their views. And finally, in Quadrant II, there are those who are faithful to their commitments with God, and who can coherently and persuasively talk to others about their beliefs.¶

From this view, reason might not lead to a single endpoint but rather to a variety of possibilities on the right side of the chart. Reason can help us better understand God’s instructions and persuasively communicate them with others. But when uninformed by the Holy Spirit (or light of Christ), reason can just as easily lead us away from Him. A darkened mind can be as rational as a mind enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Reason can be used to advance God’s interests or to hedge them up. In short, reason does not assure us access to truth. We must rely on the truth Himself to direct us as we reason together (Isaiah 1:18) in the light of faith. But reason can help us make our views more persuasive and coherent.¶

Reframing Our Questions: Chapter 13

The first question adopts pre-empirical assumptions about the world (e.g., that the patterns we observe are universal, immutable, impersonal, etc.). These assumptions are not themselves empirically testable, and are thus not an essential part of the scientific enterprise. The second question treats patterns in nature as givens that can be made useful in our pragmatic endeavors in life, without making metaphysical assumptions that are unwarranted by the evidence. Person-truth welcomes the idea of searching for patterns and finding meaning in those patterns—we only relinquish the assumption that they must be immutable or universal.¶

The first question assumes that when we arrive at rational conclusions that differ from divine teaching, we face a conflict that must be resolved. However, instead of seeing reason and revelation as competing paths to truth, we can see them as orthogonal dimensions. From a person-truth perspective, we might recognize that ideas that draw us away from Truth (God) can be rendered rational through the artifices of reason. This does not make reason our enemy—ideas that draw us closer to God can also be rendered rational through the same means. Reason ceases to be a threat altogether and becomes a tool.¶