There are facts in our world and they are what science is based on. Our everyday experiences are facts. What our sensory organs tell us are facts. The data collected by scientists with well-designed instruments are facts. Rocks brought back from the moon or fossils found deep underground are facts. The events that don’t happen naturally, but were generated in this universe, because scientists used some special experimental equipment to make them happen are facts.
     Science is the activity of finding out more things according to facts. One mission of science is to collect more facts. Scientists make careful, precise, and systematic observations to learn new facts. And they design better experiments to make their observations even more careful, precise, and systematic. Another mission of science is to develop theories to explain the facts. Scientists believe that there should be some relatively succinct reasons which are able to explain many different phenomena. They believe this because life’s everyday experiences reveal such a possibility. The sun is hot, and fire is hot. What makes them hot? There is water in wells, water in rivers, water in the sea, and water falling from the sky. We also need to drink water every day. Is water one of the fundamental elements of our universe? We feel pain if we are hit by a stone; we also feel pain if we fall on the ground. What is the mysterious entity that can crush our bodies and cause us to feel pain?
     An instinct we have as human beings makes us curious about the reasons behind facts. The scientific method is proven to be extremely useful for this purpose. It also makes sense to all people, who have to use reasoning skills to deal with the events in their lives. Scientists propose a theory and try to explain the facts by this theory. A theory normally contains some assumptions. Conclusions are deduced from these assumptions. The conclusions should fit the facts. If a conclusion deduced by the assumptions of a theory contradicts a fact, the theory has problems and needs to be adjusted or abandoned. Otherwise, if the conclusions don’t contradict any facts, we may claim that this theory works and continue to believe, teach, and use it until we find a new fact that contradicts the theory’s conclusions. We don’t know whether it will happen or not.
     In scientific activities, mathematics is an important and necessary tool; it is the common language of science. In mathematics, people first create some definitions, then find the results from the definitions by strict logical deductions. The basic definitions are assumed true without any reason being given or proved. The results are also true if the deductive steps of the proofs can be rigorously established. These definitions and results constitute mathematical models. We may apply mathematical models to the real world by assigning definitions that correspond to certain assumptions and assigning results that correspond to certain conclusions. Then we check to determine if the conclusions contradict any fact.
     According to logic, if a conclusion contradicts a fact, the assumptions are wrong. If conclusions don’t contradict any known fact, we can’t say that the assumptions are wrong. But it doesn’t imply the assumptions are right. We don’t know what facts will be found in the future that may nullify the conclusions as well as the assumptions. There also can be facts that contradict the conclusions, but we might not find them. All of the above are logical truths called syllogisms, as in the following:
     (1) The major premise: If A is true, B is true.
          The minor premise: B is false.
          Conclusion: A is false.
     (2) The major premise: If A is true, B is true.
          The minor premise: B is true.
          Conclusion: A may be true or false. We can say nothing about A.
     These logical truths are understandable and acceptable for any rational mind. We have instinct to know them and we practice them every day. For example, we provide a premise: If John cleaned the house, the house is clean. Then we have the following conclusions: If the house is dirty, John didn’t clean the house. If the house is clean, it could be true that John cleaned the house. It also could be true that Bob or Tim cleaned the house or that the house was clean originally. Logic is a key component of mathematics, the foundation of science.
     Science really works. We have found many theories to help us understand and manipulate our world. A characteristic of these theories is that we can use small amount of theories to explain numerous facts. For example, a standard college physics textbook explains human experiences for thousands of years. All phenomena of heat, sound, light, electricity, and force are explained well. Another characteristic is that these theories are beautiful in some sense. You may see the beauty of science through the pictures in scientific books like the traces of the reactions of elementary particles, the operations of a cell, or scenes of deep space taken by astronomical telescopes. You may see more beauty in science if you learn the details of the systematic and mathematical structure of scientific knowledge. One more important characteristic is that these theories are quite useful. We have invented many appliances based on scientific knowledge. The world has been completely changed by the power of science. Emphasizing the applications of science is obviously superfluous.
     Why is science so powerful? One reason is that a doctrine of science is very successful: Generalization Principle (GP). Scientists use a finite number of facts about particular objects at particular places at particular times to deduce a system of rules that they can apply to all objects at all places at all times accessible by people. If someone finds a piece of material on earth not made from atoms of the periodic table, or creates a machine that will generate power continuously without any help outside this machine, it will be an amazing thing to scientists. It will violate many theories proposed by generations of scientists. There is no reason to assert that this kind of thing can’t happen, but scientists use GP to preclude the possibility.
     GP works quite well. Historically, if something went wrong, it didn’t lead to a complete rejection of well-known theories. For example, scientists originally believed that many kinds of atoms were the smallest particles of materials and developed a lot of useful knowledge about them, including chemistry and the theory of atoms. We found carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, etc. In the twentieth century, atoms were found to be composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Atoms are not the smallest particles; they are divisible. But the theories about the chemical and physical properties of various atoms are still valid. We only have to adjust our atomic theory by making our assumptions more carefully. The new statement says atoms are the smallest particles or a compound of other smaller particles. No matter whether they are the smallest particles or not, they possess some chemical and physical properties. The hole in our theory is fixed in this way. Because of this story, scientists have continued to find the compositions of protons, neutrons, and electrons and have discovered many interesting things related to this topic.
     Here is another example. Newton’s three laws of motion were assumed to be the main principles of mechanics for more than two hundred years. People verified them again and again and applied them to many purposes. However, in the late nineteenth century, new experiments regarding the speed of light showed that these laws fail sometimes. Einstein proposed the theory of relativity; it explained both old and new results of the experiments. Einstein’s theory replaced Newton’s. But Newton’s three laws are still in practice for objects at a speed far less than the speed of light, because the difference between these two theories is negligible in this case. Anyway, Newton’s laws were verified and applied for hundreds of years on countless occasions.
     Science shows that the immense universe is governed by some simple rules. We may say that Polaris, a star 430 light years away, produces light by nuclear reactions that also occur within our sun. We may say that after one thousand years, the law of conservation of mass and energy will still work. The theories that scientists have found based on limited facts on earth during human history can be applied to the whole universe for all time. We call it Universal Generalization Principle (UGP). According to UGP, our universe is well ordered.
     UGP should be assumed to be true; otherwise, scientific research can’t be continued. With UGP, scientists can find theories behind facts, predict future facts, guess what would be facts in the past, and create factual machines to change the lives of people. Nevertheless, because science is merely work based on facts, it can’t explain the existence of such facts and theories. It can’t explain why our universe is well ordered in such a way. It can’t say if there are some other existences outside having the ability to interfere with our universe at some time and place. It can’t guarantee that its predictions of the future or guesses of the past are always right. It can’t say that a theory is right; it can only say that a theory has not been falsified yet. Science is only a methodology applied in both everyone’s life and international research projects.
     When scientific knowledge contradicts some facts, there are troubles. But in such situations, the troubles belong to science, not to the facts, because science is based on facts. In some cases, the new facts contradicting science can help scientists reconstruct a new and better theory that can explain both old and new facts like our previous stories about the history of physics. In some other cases, something that contradicts science can’t be dealt in this way, like some events recorded in the Bible: Moses divided the Red Sea; Jesus changed water into wine; Jesus was resurrected. These stories might be facts as some people believe. They contradict science, and there seems to be no way to incorporate them into a new system of explanation. These happening are not normal things. They are similar to scheduled flights canceled by the airport authority. According to our scientific knowledge, these events indicate that the universe was interfered with by some outside power.
     For atheists, it is impossible. They believe there is no existence beyond the physical world. The universe works according to its own rules from the beginning to forever. Billions of years have passed since the big bang and nothing has happened that violates natural laws. All materials that form stars and much more stardust dispersed throughout vast space follow physical theories precisely. Never will a thing happen to violate the order of the universe. We call this belief Absolute Universal Generalization Principle (AUGP). It’s rational thinking of a person, if he or she has never seen any event contravening his or her scientific common sense, and discredits all such kind of witnesses from others. It’s a strong and arbitrary assumption, but it can be true unless an undeniable supernatural fact is certified. Nevertheless, if you say AUGP is an eternal truth and will never be proved wrong, you make a false statement of logic, which is the building block of science.
     We created the terms UGP and AUGP to emphasize that the two statements “The universe is governed by scientific laws,” and “Scientific laws can’t be violated,” are different and separate. It is reasonable to believe that our universe is governed by a system of rules and there is a God who has the power to violate these rules at his will.
     To tell the truth, I really want to believe AUGP. Since childhood, I have been very interested in science and have studied it all my life. It’s a nice thing for me that the universe is completely determined by some beautiful rules since the big bang until now and forever. These rules with their beautiful mathematical structure are valid across the space of billions of light years, and on a scale from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies. The whole universe is completely determined by a relatively small number of principles, and absolutely nothing will violate them. The astounding views of the night sky, fascinating events of nature, delicate systems of various living forms, amazing scientific achievements, and wonderful technical products are all ascribed to these rules. This picture of the universe is cool. I would be proud of being a child of such a universe.
     However, because I believe my existence, my self-consciousness experience, can’t be explained by science, I can’t believe AUGP. Moreover, because I believe Jesus Christ was resurrected, I can’t believe AUGP. The resurrection of Jesus seriously violated known natural laws if it is true. The common sense of biology was violated. The second law of thermodynamics was violated. The principle of conservation of mass-energy was violated. Anyone who wants to believe any single miraculous record in the Bible should abandon AUGP. Actually, anyone who wants to believe any strange thing which contradicts scientific knowledge, in any book, any newspaper, or any kind of religious stuff should abandon AUGP. AUGP is a natural conclusion of atheism and the only belief that atheists are able to trust, but it can never be verified and one supernatural fact will negate it. This book also opposes AUGP.
     For those who hold to AUGP, there is something that might change their ideas. Each person is an existence having self-consciousness, and this very self-consciousness is a proof to him or her that the universe is not only materials and energy governed by rules. We will discuss more on the mystery of self-consciousness in the next chapter.

http://swf2007.com/

http://swf2007.com/14.html