Is science the best, most assured way of learning about reality? In the minds of more and more people, the answer is "yes." Yesterday, I highlighted a quote from scientist Peter Atkins on how he relies upon science to inform him about the world, dismissing even the consideration of God's existence as "lazy." But, relying on science as the only arbiter for judging the verity of truth claims will never work, because science cannot function as one's starting point.
When explaining reality, everyone must have a starting point. For example, one may observe an event, such as a strike of lightning, and ask "what makes that happen?" A person may respond by describing how a storm cell moving across the land scrapes off electrons until the charge is to such a degree they rush back to the ground, which is reasonable scientific. The first person would be justified in asking "how do you know that?" More conversations could ensue about the structure of atoms, experimental testing and predictions, etc. But each tome, the questioner could ask for further justification for the facts being presented. Sooner or later, there must be a starting point for science.
Four Assumptions Scientist Must Hold
Assuming the questioner drives his respondent back further and further (i.e. "But, how do you know that?") one will quickly see the scientific method relies upon several assumptions. The first is the world will behave consistently. Scientists assume that because electrons have behaved in a certain way in the past, they will also do so tomorrow, and next week, and fifty billion years from now. Science cannot prove this; the scientist must assume it to make predictions.Secondly, in order to draw any conclusions at all, scientists must assume logic takes us towards the truth. Without logic, one could never infer anything. How can one infer any electron in the universe will behave in the same manner as the electrons creating the lighting strike if one cannot build an argument? The scientific method is really a logical argument offering support for its premises by way of experimentation and concludes with its hypothesis either confirmed or denied. The scientist gives reasons for his conclusion!
Thirdly, the scientist must assume ethics are important. Much research today draws its conclusions not simply from its own findings but from prior research and publication. Falsifying data to arrive at the conclusion one wants is considered wrong. Even unintentional bias and flawed research methods can corrupt results. That's why there's a real concern that so much of what's being published in scientific journals is irreproducible. Without assuming ethical standards of truth-telling and the importance of solid methodology, scientific endeavors would be a confusing mishmash of conflicting data, with everyone's opinion held as equally valuable.
Lastly, the scientist must assume that his or her own mind is reliable in reporting how the world works. This is a key component to the scientific process and it also poses the biggest problem in cutting God out of the picture. If your brain is the product of mutations whose only benefit to its host is that of survival, then why should you trust it? Survival is not the same thing as truth-telling. In fact, lying can make survival much easier in many circumstances. As long as survival is the outcome, it doesn't matter whether you believe you need to run from the tiger because you're in a race or because it may eat you. If you get away, the same result is achieved. So, if we evolved from some primate species, why trust our "monkey-brains" to tell us the truth? How could one argue that a mindless, random process would even act in an orderly way?
God Grounds the Starting Points
Going back to pour first point, one must assume some intentional ordering of universe in order to ground the assumption of a consistent universe. Christianity teaches that God is a consistent God. He would create his universe in such a way that it would be consistent as well. This gives us a reason to believe in the consistency of the universe, a reason which science cannot offer. Scientists certainly assume the universe is consistent in its laws, but they have no basis for doing so, other than that's what they've seen. But even our dreams have an air of consistency to them until we wake up. Then we realize how inconsistent they are. To assumeSecondly, in the assumption of logic, God also becomes the starting point. If God is the logos—that is Reason itself—then logic and reason are built into the universe as reflections of his nature. Logic works because God is a logical God and we, as rational creatures, bear his image. Thus, we can understand and use reason to discover truths about the created order.
Thirdly, morality must have its grounding in God. The concept of classifying things as right or classifying them as wrong is central to theology. One cannot have the absolute standards of right and wrong without appealing to a being who transcends all of creation. That is God.
Lastly, the fact that a God of reason created us with the capacity to reason gives us grounding for believing our capacity for reason itself. AS part of God's created order, we can experience it in meaningful ways.
Science is a wonderful tool that tells us much about a very small slice of reality: the natural world. But the world is much bigger than its mechanics. Logic, ethics, aesthetics, relationships, mathematics, abstract concepts, and spiritual realities also comprise our lives and our experiences. Not only can science not explain these things, it must assume them before it gets going. It cannot explain its own assumptions, and therefore shows its incapacity for being the proper starting point.
What grounds Christianity? The same thing that grounds Hinduism, Scientology, Baha'i, Islam, Sikhism, Taoism, Judaism, and Mormonism: a book. Is a book really the very best way for us humans to know that supernatural beings exist, or might there be a more direct, clear and consistent way?
ReplyDeleteChristianity is a specific revelation, but it isn't the only thing that grounds the belief in God. We can infer God from the created order and other things we know.
ReplyDeleteNot all books are similar, either. Unlike most of the faiths you list, Christianity is grounded in a very specific historical event.
How can we know that the order we see was created by a god and did not occur in some other way?
DeleteIf naturalism is true, how would you ground the consistency and fine tuning of the universe?
DeleteHowever, what would it take to have caused the universe in which we find ourselves? Something can't come from nothing and nothing can create itself (as in, nature can't create nature). What ever did must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and extremely powerful. Much like what we talk about when we talk about.......God. If this type of God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the type of fine tuning and consistency we see in the universe. Its all about what the best explanation is for the evidence we have, not what could imaginably be possible.
If naturalism is true, how would you ground the consistency and fine tuning of the universe?
DeleteHowever, what would it take to have caused the universe in which we find ourselves? Something can't come from nothing and nothing can create itself (as in, nature can't create nature). It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and extremely powerful. Much like what we talk about when we talk about.......God. If this type of God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the type of fine tuning and consistency we see in the universe. Its all about what the best explanation is for the evidence we have, not what could imaginably be possible.
What is the "book" (it's actually 66 books)? It's a collection of first person accounts of events that are claimed to have taken place. If you want to dismiss the claims of Christianity solely because the events are communicated via the medium of historical writings, you will also have to throw out most everything that we know of the history of the human race prior to the 20th century (including the writings of Socrates). If you want to try and defeat the claims of Christianity you will need to deal with the claims themselves and the evidence for those claims, not just dismiss them out of hand.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input. My aim is not to defeat anything but to get at what's most likely to be true. What would you say is the best piece of evidence that Christianity is factually true?
DeleteWhat is the "book" (it's actually 66 books)? It's a collection of first person accounts of events that are claimed to have taken place. If you want to dismiss the claims of Christianity solely because the events are communicated via the medium of historical writings, you will also have to throw out all that we know of the history of the human race prior to the 20th century (including Socrates). If you want to attempt to defeat the claims of Christianity you will need to deal with those claims themselves and the evidence for them, not just dismiss them out of hand with reasoning like you have given.
ReplyDeleteScience is a methodology of inquiry. At its heart it is simply the application of reason (applying logic) to observations, with some extra criteria (falsifiability, replicability) to root out falsehoods. Doubtless a makers manual for reality would be useful if we had any such thing, but in the absence of that science (the study of reality) seems the best method we have so far.
ReplyDeleteWe do have to make several basic assumptions, but are these assumptions really more likely in a theistic than an atheistic universe?
Reliability, for example. In an impersonal mechanistic universe we could reasonably assume reliability, things will behave regularly, patterns and Islands of order will arise. The universe will behave largely as it has done before. In a theistic universe, one subject to the whim of an omnipotent mind can we have the same assurance? What happens when a man steps of a boat? Does water stored in an amphora transmute into wine? The Bible is full of miracles which break the natural order. Surely reality would be less reliable I'm the second?
In the same sense logic would be expected to hold in an impersonal universe, but holds no power (we are told) of a god. Logic is generally considered to be axiomatic, a necessary truth (any attempt to describe a "thing" assumes A=A) upon which all things, even gods, are contingent. As above we would expect a logical universe under atheistic assumptions, but not so much under theistic ones.
What about ethics? We do see unethical scientists, studies are funded with specific conclusions in mind and results are spun to get desired results. But generally these are found out as science contains self correcting criteria to root out bias and error. I think it's worth noting that theistic belief doesn't contain these methods, and the proliferation of different factions and schism within religions shows this. Science assumes fraud and error and attempts to stamp it out. By testing our ideas against reality we can see whether our reasoning is solid, as it might not be!
I think science has become something of an icon for atheists and a bugbear of theists when it is better regarded as the effort to look at reality and see what appears to be true.