There are many and varied views amongst scientists as to the existence and nature of some force that is behind nature that cannot be explained in terms of observational discovery, ie. science.
This article in New Scientist is quite interesting, especially since d’Espagnat received $1 M for his effort. But is it true that this”force behind nature” is inherently unknowable. There are a myriad of possibilities, assuming that it exists, as to what the nature of this “force” is.
I strikes me that the question that science asks is what, but in the end this really tells us nothing. Science provides a lot of rules, gives us some objective observations, and some great techno toys to paly with, such as computers, mobile phones and electric tooth brushes. But in the end science can never tell us why. We know that 1+1=2 but why does it? We know that the earth rotates around the sun but why? We know that the pressure in a gas increases in proportion to the temperature, but why does it. The great Australian broadcaster Prof. Julius Sumner Miller used to say in his broadcasts “Why is it so?” But could he tell us Why? He told us the what but never the why.
There are many scientists who want us to believe that there is no why. Yet others who think that the why can never be discovered. I find both of these positions suffer from the very moral issue that they accuse deists of. In my opinion it is the height of arrogance to say that there is no why, or that we cannot know. Just because they do not know does not mean that that knowledge is unobtainable. Because the ancient Egyptians did not know about electronics circuit theory does not mean it did not exist. It was merely waiting to be discovered. We do not know what has not been discovered because it has not been discovered. The discovery of microbes was waiting for the invention of the microscope. The world inside the microscope is so bizarre that no amount of human imagination could conceive of it before it was discovered.
My question then is, how does Einstein know that it is unknowable if he does not know it? This seems to be essentially irrational. To know that it is unknowable we have to understand enough about it to know it to be unknowable and if that was the case then we would know it. The most that could be said is that we do not know whether it is knowable. But d’Espagnat clearly does not know and this could be for a number of reasons. There may be no “veiled reality”. It may be completely veiled from human discovery, or it may not be yet discovered. We cannot say more that this.
What amazes me though is the arrogance of scientists who state uncategorically that this “veiled reality” cannot be a creator. How do they know? Is there some empirical knowledge that they have that they are not sharing with us? It strikes me that they are basing their view of “God” on some hypothetical idea that they have dreamt up based on a flawed understanding of some belief system that they heard about. For so called objective observers of nature they have some very emotional and subjective responses to the idea of a creator behind it all.
Let me suggest something here. What if God had reveled himself and that they had missed it altogether. Like someone who reaches the scene of an accident but only looks in the opposite direction as he passes the location. Is it valid for him to declare that there had been no accident? How is it possible to say there is no creator, and then to go on to say that it is arrogant, and/or ignorant to clam that there is and that he had revealed himself to man? The accident happened but their ignorance does not disprove of its existence. Just as with the creator, if I claim to know him who can say that I do not?
To my mind the only rational conclusion for a man to make who has not had the creator reveal himself is that he has no knowledge of him. Atheism and agnosticism are at best ignorant and irrational positions and at worst judgemental and immoral. It is better to stick to the principle that one does not know than to declare lack of knowledge as proof and prove oneself a fool.