It is often said that the scientific enterprise is in the business of studying the natural world, the implication being that there’s some pre-established, pre-packaged thing out there called Nature that scientists get to study, after which there are other domains that scientists don’t get to study and indeed aren’t supposed to study.

In fact, the scientific enterprise is engaged in analyzing anything that comes along using its agreed-upon empirical methodologies, developed over the years as the most effective means to reduce subjective and cultural bias when modeling reality.

If, for example, someone were to come up with a robust God hypothesis that suggested observational tests to evaluate its validity, then rest assured, scientists would be hopping all over it — what better way to the vaunted goal of scientific fame and glory than documenting the existence of God?  Indeed, scientists have already applied their wares to testable hypotheses along these lines, such as whether intercessory prayer is effective, and have thus far come a cropper.

Read the entire piece. It's pretty short, and right on about faith vs. facts.

There's no need to choose between science and spirituality. Reality is what we're after. Wherever it leads us, that's where the truth seeker goes. There are, of course, different levels of real.

Imagination is real, but only in the sense of neurons coming up with fantastical notions in a physical brain. So far, this is the best explanation for the God hypothesis. But, hey, one day it could be proven. Science has an open mind, as should we all.

So, could science stumble upon and observationally confirm the existence of the supernatural, or something besides nature? If we define nature as what’s confirmed to exist by science-based inquiry, then it would seem that any confirmed scientific discovery, however bizarre, will get added to the list of natural phenomena. This implies that sticking with science results in naturalism, that only nature exists.

But such is not necessarily the case. Although the God-as-agent hypothesis hasn’t yet panned out, this isn’t because science is biased against the existence of God or the supernatural.

If an observationally robust phenomenon comes along that, for good theoretical or explanatory reasons, forces us to conceptually divide reality into nature and something besides nature, then so be it. We’d have stayed true to the scientific method, unrivaled in giving us reliable models of reality and for scientists in their professional capacity that’s what matters.