Scientific Judgment: Verifying Aesthetics, Ethics, and Religion

Scientific theories are intellectual frameworks constructed from systematic observations and experimental results. These theories undergo scrutiny through the scientific method, a structured process involving hypothesis formation, testing, and replication. However, there exist domains of knowledge—such as aesthetics, ethics, and metaphysics—that fall outside the range of empirical tools yet are widely acknowledged and evaluated through what we may term scientific judgment (Kuhn, 1962) [1].

Scientific Judgment as a Verification Tool

Scientific judgment enables the evaluation of claims that cannot be directly verified through empirical experimentation. For instance, the assertion that an experiment repeated a thousand times will yield consistent outcomes is not itself the product of experimentation but of collective scientific reasoning (Popper, 1959) [3]. The same principle applies to the evaluation of artistic merit or metaphysical propositions such as the existence of God. These are judged based on experience, coherence, and expert consensus, not measurable outcomes (Polanyi, 1958) [2].

Elements and Rules of Scientific Judgment

Scientific judgment rests on three essential pillars:

1. Qualified Individuals: The credibility of scientific judgment hinges on the expertise and moral character of the individuals involved. Just as a symphony is judged by musicians, scientific claims are evaluated by specialists within relevant fields (McGrath, 2019) [4].

2. Subject of Judgment: This pertains to the phenomenon or proposition under review—ranging from physical theories to metaphysical assertions.

3. Criteria of Judgment: The basis for judgment includes logical coherence, compatibility with prior knowledge, consistency across observations, and, in some domains, moral integrity (Plantinga, 2011) [5].

The consensus of qualified experts forms a powerful validation mechanism. If the overwhelming majority of physicists accept that light behaves as a wave, this consensus carries scientific weight. However, should dissenters eventually present convincing evidence, scientific judgment can evolve—a testament to its dynamic and corrective nature (Kuhn, 1962) [1].

How Scientific Judgment Works

Scientific judgment operates where experimental methods end. For example, though we cannot prove that gravity will work tomorrow, scientific judgment supports the assumption through accumulated experience (Popper, 1959) [3]. Likewise, aesthetic and moral truths—like the appreciation of beauty or the condemnation of cruelty—are upheld not through laboratories but through intersubjective agreement among qualified human agents (Polanyi, 1958) [2].

God’s Existence as a Scientifically Judged Truth

While God’s existence is not falsifiable or testable in the laboratory sense, arguments based on design, fine-tuning, and anthropic principles invoke scientific judgment. The unique habitability of Earth—the presence of water, breathable air, and life-essential minerals on a single planet—suggests a system that transcends randomness. That Earth alone among nearby celestial bodies harbors such specific life-supporting conditions gives weight to teleological arguments (Collins, 2009) [6]; (Davies, 2007) [9].

This reasoning leads some to posit an intelligent Creator. The idea that a single planet is deliberately prepared for life, with precisely the right ingredients, aligns with intelligent design perspectives (Dembski, 2004) [7]. The question arises: why is everything needed for life—water, oxygen, minerals—available in one place rather than scattered across the solar system?

Billions of adherents in Abrahamic traditions embrace this view, and the scale of consensus parallels the collective judgments found in empirical sciences (Plantinga, 2011) [5]. Moral integrity, too, is crucial—if one’s heart is unwilling to accept divine authority or moral standards, their judgment may be epistemically compromised (McGrath, 2019) [4]. Even a miraculous voice from the sky would demand interpretation through scientific judgment (Swinburne, 2004) [8].

A Self-Test for Scientific Judgment on God’s Existence

To evaluate one’s qualification to make a scientific judgment on God’s existence, one may ask:

1. Are you willing to obey God?

2. Are you willing to revere Him as your Creator?

3. Are you ready to serve and worship Him?

4. Do you reject moral evils such as adultery, theft, and murder?

5. If not, do you acknowledge error and accept accountability?

The unwillingness to engage with these questions reflects a moral, not intellectual, disqualification from issuing valid scientific judgments on metaphysical truths. A Creator, if intelligent and just, would reasonably expect recognition, reverence, and obedience—traits that mirror human relational expectations but extend to a divine scale (Nagel, 2012) [10].

References

1. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html

2. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3683986.html

3. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994627

4. McGrath, A. E. (2019). The Territories of Human Reason: Science and Theology in an Age of Multiple Rationalities. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198785385.001.0001

5. Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/where-the-conflict-really-lies-9780199812097

6. Collins, R. (2009). The Fine-Tuning Design Argument. In W. L. Craig & J. P. Moreland (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (pp. 202–281). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334.ch4

7. Dembski, W. A. (2004). The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. InterVarsity Press. https://www.ivpress.com/the-design-revolution

8. Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199271682.001.0001

9. Davies, P. (2007). The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? Mariner Books. https://www.hmhbooks.com/shop/books/The-Goldilocks-Enigma/9780547053585

10. Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mind-and-cosmos-9780199919758