Is Science the Only Sure Path to Truth?

Or can religious experience count as evidence?

This was a very difficult chapter to get through. It almost felt like I was interpreting Aristotle again. It is very confusing, but I'll go ahead and give it a try.

Ward begins this chapter discussing experience as a basis for modern religions. He writes, "most religions are distinctive in the experiences they favor and seek to sustain, in their myths or stories, in rituals, doctrines, ethical codes..." most of which have a basis in authoritative experience (162). Jesus and Moses, for example, directly hearing God's words; the prophets and their interpretation of Jesus' teachings; Hindu scriptures learned directly from the gods by ancient sages: all of these are religious experiences and are what make each religion distinct from the next.

What do scientists have to say about the Objective Reality given by religious experience? In essence, science and religion are based upon the same type of claims, founded on sensory experience and apprehended as objective reality. "Many philosophers," Ward says, "agree that all knowledge begins with experience. But what they do not agree on just what 'experience' is" (167). The difference between religious experience and scientific experience rests in the proof, as discussed in the chapter about miracles and their validity. In order for a scientific measure to be universally accepted, it must be experimentally proven. Experience cannot serve as an objective reality. A better place for experience to reign is in the literary arts, not science.

Ward then discusses the values in science, which relates to what we are discussing in class (cloning, medical technology, etc.) He states, "For anyone concerned with human values, value-free science is something to fear" (173). He is right. The field of science as a whole does, indeed, take values into consideration. More specifically, the values of truth, compassion, and responsibility. Without taking these to heart, science is capable of mass destruction. How do these values in science tie into one's faith? Ward establishes that not all "factual beliefs are scientific beliefs," and, "there are no objective values that would exist independently of human beings" (175). This is a fact. Facts that aren't scientific can be historical, mental, or goal-oriented. This is where the argument gets confusing. Ward has defined experience and where it is best served; he has defined the term fact and how it is used in our lives; however, how do these concepts all tie in together?

The answer  to the original question is that religious experiences cannot be factual or universally accepted, but they can serve as Supreme Spiritual Reality. There are limits to the methodology of science, and there are questions dealing with fact and reason that science cannot answer. This is where religious experience comes in. It can be trusted if, and only if, the merits of the experience (the character and conduct of the experient), are worthy of belief.