Nothing that humans have direct access is completely objective. The Noumena, the real, ultimate reality and truth of things is inaccessible to humans. (At least coventionally) Every piece of data is theory-laden. Science or non-science, everything has an element of faith in it.
Scientists do not study the world of Noumena, they study the phonomenal world, which is partly constrained by qualities of the Noumena, but also partly an invention/construction of the scientists themselves.
The reason why the "Noumena" (actually numina, Latin, numen, numinis - divine will) aren't studied by scientists is because they can't be proven to exist. Since you can never actually know they exist, why should they even speculate?
Consider for example the case of electrons. No one has ever seen or have any direct sensory experience of electrons, yet we all assume they exist. But actually electrons only exist in a particular phenomenal world constructed by scientists. Electrons are only observable if one already assumes a particular theoretical framework. Throw away the theoretical framework all one has are a bunch of senseless lines on a photographic plate from the cloud chamber.
Take any Physics 101 class and try telling the professor that. Electrons are, actually, observable, in more than one aspect. You should try sticking with what you know.
Now compare this with direct spiritual experience, free from any theoretical assumptions or framework, by Christians or people of other faiths. IMHO this may be a closer glimpse to Noumena than scientific evidence, though I do think science is more systematic. Both have their merits. The more direct kind of spiritual experience can only happen on an individual basis, which is why it is difficult to prove or disprove them using conventional scientific methods. Conventional scientific methods, however, do have limits. For science to be able to confirm (the word "prove" is philosophically speaking incorrect, for science relies on induction, which can never prove anything) something, the thing needs to be reproducible to some extent. But what something is by definition irreproducible, i.e. by definition is unique and can only happen once? Then science can neither confirm nor falsify it.
Real spirituality is like a sudden incursion into Noumena, it can go deeper, but it's sporadic and unsystematic. Science on the other hand is the systematic method of trying to catch a glimpse of Noumena, but it can only reach the shallower regions.
Well, for saying a lot, you sure did say nothing. No one assumes a particular framework, than work off of it. To suggest such a thing is ludicrous. Electrons were discovered and then worked into a particular framework, and we have good ol' math to back it up. Numina, on the other hand, have no evidence and require a presumption that they exist.
You work on faith, not me.
Chris Weimer, M.A. Student
Department of Classics, SFSU
B.A. Honors and Thesis
University of Memphis
Latin & Greek Major
Judaic Studies Minor