Here is the claim, stated as strongly and cleanly as it can be stated: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The existence of God is an extraordinary claim. No sufficient empirical evidence has been provided. Therefore, belief in God is unwarranted.”
This sounds reasonable. It sounds rigorous. It sounds like the kind of thing a person who respects the scientific method would say. But the truth is, it isn't reasonable. It is a profound category error—and not a minor one. It cuts directly against the very structure of human personal reality.
The Distinction Between Objects and Persons
Science is a glorious tool designed to examine objects—things that can be isolated, repeated, manipulated, and dissected under controlled conditions without their consent. An electron cannot decide to withhold its charge; a chemical reaction cannot choose to love you back.
A Person, however, cannot be proven through the epistemology of detachment. You do not prove the reality of your friend, your mother, or your spouse by measuring their biological mass or dissecting their neurological tissue. If you demand that a person submit to a clinical laboratory test before you acknowledge their personal reality, you will never encounter them as a Person—you will only encounter a corpse or a biological object.
“Persons are not proven through physical dissection. Personal reality is encountered through relation, trust, and mutual communion.”
The Catastrophe of Scientism
When modern secular thought insists that only empirical, mechanistic measurements count as evidence, it doesn't just eliminate God—it inadvertently eliminates the human person. It reduces love to neurochemistry, moral obligation to evolutionary survival instincts, and beauty to optical wavelength receptors.
At Dimension of Thought, we stand firmly on the ground that the Person is foundational. Reality is personal. And because reality is personal, the search for truth must include the heart, moral responsibility, and relational commitment. You do not prove a Person from afar; you step forward and enter the dialogue.
Reflections on the Essay
Have thoughts on epistemology, scientism, or relational ontology? Share a reflection directly with Zach or submit a thought for the Living Through Dialogue circle.