A Legitimate Question
Posted in Science on | 1 minute | 37 Comments →
Atheists are quite fond of claiming that science is the best method we have of uncovering truth, so why do they spend so much time using philosophy and logic to wage their assaults on religion? Consider your average (a)theist discussion. Almost invariably, they boil down to the so-called Problem of Evil, or the argument from divine hiddenness, or the cosmological argument, or some other non-scientific treatise. The only time I ever really hear science invoked at all is when the discussion turns to evolution or free-will.
What, if anything, can we infer from this state of affairs?
Andres
says...As far as I know, no scientific paper has ever ended with the conclusion “Therefore, probably, God doesn’t exist.”
Even the free-will debate doesn’t have much to do with science.
We all know it’s all just lip-service. Science is a respected institution, by paying lip service to it they mooch off it.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Most materialists see their position as being the most consistent defense of science, but circularity would ensue from defending science by means of science.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...Science isn’t big on proving negatives.
Nolan
says...I think a lot of atheists extend science to include things like logic and good reasoning as well. I believe Sam Harris did this in a footnote in The Moral Landscape. To me, that sort of dilutes a useful conception of what science is, but that would explain some of what cl complains about.
Also, I think many atheists are consistent when they say that science is the best way of discovering truth, even if they use a lot of philosophy in showing the untruth of God’s existence. Atheists tend to rely on the current scientific view of the cosmos, and defer to the scientific consensus on matters like homosexuality as a choice. Insofar as they use evolution to undermine certain brands of theism, they are using science in theistic conversations as well.
Given atheists’ common use of science to inform their larger worldview, I think it is fair to say that a lot of them are consistent in claiming that science is the best way to discover truth, even if sometimes they need to rely on philosophy.
cl
says...My whole point was given all the lip-service, I’d expect to see, oh, I don’t know… something like a 20/80 ratio where 80% of the atheist’s arguments are founded on science. Instead, I seem to get the opposite.
Andrés,
Interesting take. Not what I expected to hear when I saw your name pop up.
Dominic,
No way, really?
Okay, I’ll be serious now: surely they could use science to prove the positive? Or will you deny that atheism also entails positive claims?
Nolan,
Greetings. As for yourself… atheist? Theist? Agnostic? Other?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...But there’s a reason closer to your heart, cl. One of the questions where you might expect science to be invoked is cosmology, and the way most cosmologists interpret the evidence, it’s fairly agnostic between atheism and theism (allowing pantheism and deism as forms). This was not always the case. When the steady state theory was dominant, it was cited in such arguments. The steady state model supported materialism.
I think this history rebuts those who say scientific developments have no bearing–that they are always agnostic. (It’s somewhat interesting that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists; wheras, it seems to me that agnosticism is modal for astrophysicists.)
cl
says...It depends who you ask. Many cosmologists think the current state of affairs testifies strongly in favor of theism, in particular, the Biblical narrative—and no honest person can deny that they are correct about two crucial elements: in the beginning there was nothing, and the first significant universal event was light. Of course, if one is an atheist, they’re forced to just write this off as a lucky guess, but you already know I ain’t buyin’ it… :)
How so?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...The steady-state model supported materialism because there was no creation. Materialism is probably most consistent with an infinite, eternal universe.
Of course it depends on who you ask; the same is true for evolutionary biology. But the most direct implication of evolutionary biology is materialistic, whereas cosomology is ambiguous. I’ll give you light (tentatively; unless Joseph drops by the show I shouldn’t) but not nothingness.
If the religious contention is there was nothing in the beginning, one way to negate it is to say there was no beginning because the universe is infinitely old. But a more ambiguous way to negate it–a more agnostic way, you might say–is to hold there was no beginning even though the universe is of finite age. That Stephen Hawkings view, and he’s somewhere on the cusp between agnosticism and atheism.
The most consistent materialist will probably speculate that our so-called universe is only one of many, and it grew out of another. That would be consistently materialist for the same reason that the steady-state model was. I think this view represents the trend, but it is still, to my knowledge, a minority view among cosmologists.
But no, if you had established that in the beginning there was nothing–or even that science currently favored that view–you would have proved your case. Period. Materialism is inconsistent with creation of something out of nothing. No reputable scientist that I’m aware of has said (in recent times) that creation came from nothing: that there was ever a first point in time, like I think the Bible would require. In fact, general relativity proves that the so-called first point in time can’t exist–it is only approached as a limit.
Nolan
says...Thanks cl. I’d say atheist is an accurate label, in that I lack belief in any gods, and hold a positive belief in the non-existence of many specific Gods.
cl
says...Nolan,
So you’re technically a strong atheist, then? I like your gumption. Not many of your ilk are willing to go that far.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...“Not many of your ilk are willing to go that far.”
I don’t think that’s right, in that most atheists I’ve heard of could say at least what Nolan expresses. Perhaps you’re reading “positive disbelief” as “certain disbelief.”
Nolan
says...Thanks! I’m probably a strong atheist with respect to a lot of Gods, but since there are so many types and conceptions of God, many of which I don’t understand or haven’t thought about, I simply lack belief in those Gods.
Nolan
says...I’ve had the same experience I think. Most atheists I know (probably some selection bias going on) believe that God, at least the Abrahamic type, does not exist. They’re not 100% certain, but they do more than lacking belief.
cl
says...Nolan,
What factors combined to convince you that the Abrahamic God doesn’t exist?
Peter Hurford
says...Science doesn’t answer all questions — instead, we often have to turn to history, logic, and plain personal experience. But on nearly every question where the scientific method can apply, I think it does come up with the answer most likely to be accurate. Just because science doesn’t answer every question doesn’t mean that science is not the best method for uncovering truth.
~
Clever you stop right where the similarities with the known universe ends. Why is it a count in favor of the Bible that it allegedly predicted these two crucial elements, but not a count against the Bible that it thought the Earth came before the Sun, that plants came before the Sun, that all other stars came after our Sun, and that the Earth came into existence at the beginning of time?
Lastly, I’m interested in the data on how large “many” is — how many cosmologists think the current state of affairs testifies strongly in favor of theism? Which ones are they? How strongly do they view this testimony? The last definitive study I’ve seen in 1998 shows 79.0% atheism among physical scientists.
cl
says...Peter,
I don’t know, but I was thinking the same thing when you said,
How large is “nearly every,” Peter? Again, I think you’re either purposely distorting or negligently misunderstanding the facts about science. We have, ironically, an array of credible scientific data suggesting that MOST published findings are false and/or inaccurate, especially in the medical field (see here, here and here). I could go on, bringing several (meaning at least 6) more sources to support my case, but here’s the take-home: don’t sit there and spout these pretentious “science is accurate on nearly every question” canards when that is easily demonstrable as false. You need to be skeptical of scientists, much more skeptical. It is a human institution. After all, the universe isn’t static, it’s supposedly older than 7 billion years, and QM appears to be true. I’d venture to say the list of false “scientific” claims is in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds or even millions.
Nonsense. Generally speaking, Genesis lists the progression of life as, “sea creatures -> birds -> mammals -> man,” which matches the evolutionary narrative.
I didn’t say it “predicted” them.
I realize that these parts of Scripture conflict with the contemporary model, and I understand why you’re so cocksure. From your own essay on the subject:
Given that it gets so much else overwhelmingly correct, I take that as reason to be skeptical of the contemporary model. It is, after all, just a model. Models are extrapolations from observations. Models change all the time. In 100 years, maybe they’ll think the universe began with numbers and not light? Scientists have told us countless things that turned out to be utter BS. Scientists told us the universe was 7 billion years. Scientists told us the universe was static. Scientists told us QM was impossible. On and on ad infinitum.
A suggestion for your writing, one that would serve you well and that would serve us all well: stop personifying science, and use “scientists” when appropriate. This might help remind you that “science” is not the be-all, end-all, awe-inspiring truth oracle you make it out to be, but, rather, a flawed and fledgling enterprise guided by fallible human beings.
I challenge you to extend to science even one-tenth of the skepticism you extend to religion. Doors will open.
Peter Hurford
says...From your lovely fan page:
Of course it’s over the top, but I think it makes a fair point. What do you think?
Peter Hurford
says...(Er, I meant to link to this lovely fan page…)
cl
says...Peter,
LOL… what do you see as the “fair point?”
Peter Hurford
says...How exactly do you know the Ancient Isrealites didn’t have electron microscopes and superballs? Archaeologists have been wrong before, you know.
cl
says...I don’t *KNOW* they didn’t. I *CONCLUDE* they didn’t, based on a series of demonstrable, logical premises.
cl
says...Anticipating questions of the variant, “Well then why is it ‘cocksure’ for me to say God doesn’t exist, since I, too, base my conclusion on a series of demonstrable, logical premises,” therein lies the difference. You haven’t demonstrated your premises, and many of them are illogical.
For example, it’s one thing to say that the institutions which could have produced complex scientific instruments did not exist until recent centuries, therefore we can safely the Israelites didn’t have electron microscopes. It is wholly another thing to say that because you stubbed your toe, or because you can’t think of a possible higher good to some instance of evil, that there is no God.
The former is pretty close to airtight, the latter has more holes than a boxer’s mouth.
Crude
says...I’m a little jealous, actually. I’ve pissed people off, but to my knowledge I have no fan page to speak of. Lucky you!
Peter Hurford
says...But just previously, you said:
Can’t we just look at these models and see how they make conclusions based on demonstratable, logical premises — very similar premises to those used to infer Isrealites couldn’t have electron microscopes?
After all, your knowledge of the history of electron microscopes are also extrapolations from observations, namely observations that fit in with history, which indeed has been wrong before. (And I would say that this kind of conclusion counts as “knowledge”, but apparently you have a much stricter definition.)
As you yourself mention in this essay, the Universe began with the Big Bang, and this Big Bang itself had light. We can confirm that by observing the Cosmic Microwave Background and by extrapolating the current trajectory of galaxies backward to a common point. Earth clearly did not exist yet because it wouldn’t be able to fit before inflation happened.
The backtracking of this acceleration gives a clear time variable that can be used to find the age of the universe — 13.75 billion years (+/- 0.8%), which is also consistent with the differences in temperature across the cosmic background ration.
Additionally, the Earth has been thoroughly dated to be 4.55 billion years (+/- 1%) through a combination of five different independent types of radiometric dating done on hundreds of samples.
Lastly, just for fun, we can even note the constant speed of light in a vacuum and use that to figure out a lower bound for how old observed stars once we get a good idea of how far away they are, generalized with the concept of redshift.
Since we’ve now observed galaxies of stars with a redshift of 10, we know that light from them took 13.2 billion to reach us. Thus, stars came before our Earth.
Sure you can throw out all of these in order to avoid saying there are some errors in Genesis, but I think that’s a very huge helping of extreme skepticism. If you applied even one-tenth of that skepticism to the Bible, you’d be making sequels to the Zeitgeist movie.
~
What else does the Bible get overwhelmingly correct?
~
And maybe in 100 years, they’ll think the universe began with Jello and Easy Mac. Point is, while we can’t be 100% certain and our current claims may be later overturrned, this doesn’t entail a “Scientists were wrong before, therefore they’re wrong now, therefore anything could be true” attitude.
Progress within science is not a matter of binary 100% “right” and 100% “wrong”, but rather being slightly more right than previous theories — accounting for more information with higher accuracy.
~
I actually didn’t say science is accurate on nearly every question. I said science “come[s] up with the answer most likely to be accurate”, and that was in comparison to all other ways of acquiring knowledge.
Sure, there’s a large risk that most scientific findings in medicine are false, but what other way of coming up with knowledge on medicine do you think would be better? Should we speculate about what medicine to use to cure someone? Pray? Develop philosophical arguments about which medicines to use? Turn to the Ouija board?
~
Except the Bible has all land creatures, including reptiles, popping up on Day 6, after Birds (Day 5), which doesn’t match the narrative. Additionally, it’s worth noting that some sea creatures like whales came from land creatures.
~
Nice so-called Fyfeian “us all” there. Regardless, it’s still appropriate to say “science tells” rather than “scientists tell”. “Scientists tell” means that I surveyed a few scientists on the issue and asked them their opinion; “science tells” means that I looked at the data myself and made my own conclusion.
Both have lots of room for error, and neither is the end-all oracle you make it sound like I make science out to be, but that’s the distinction I make.
cl
says...We are having some major disconnects here. This is why I’m so pissed at Matt DeStefano and Andrés Ruiz. Their New Atheist freakout in our debate has led multiple people to conclude that I’m some sort of YEC / literalist, and you seem to be one of them, despite my stated condemnation of various YEC / literalist tactics strewn across this blog. Argh. Majorly frustrated with those guys, and those who abandoned critical thinking and bought into their error.
Since I never said we couldn’t, why would you ask this question?
Since I never argued that Earth existed before inflation, why would you ask that question?
Since I’ve never once written that Earth came before stars, why would you ask that question?
Since I’ve never argued, “Scientists were wrong before, therefore they’re wrong now, therefore anything could be true,” why would you express such a laughable sentiment and portray it as mine? Have you literally no respect for me as a fellow critical thinker?
We aren’t debating the best method of uncovering truth, and I haven’t limited the scope to medicine. The question, rather, is: if we have an array of credible scientific data suggesting that MOST published findings are false and/or inaccurate, isn’t your claim that science “come[s] up with the answer most likely to be accurate,” questionable, at best?
It would take a full essay to fully unravel this mess, so I’ll leave it for now, sufficing only to say that “let there be” != “created” in Hebrew.
Don’t be silly, it’s true. We all would benefit from clarity with words. We are all impacted by language.
Not necessarily, not even usually. It *CAN* mean that, but you don’t seem very interested in my point here, so I’ll drop it. Let me know if you *ARE* interested, and I’ll try to explain.
Because there are so many things, many of which will be included in my upcoming response, I’m actually going to flesh this answer into multiple posts for you. For now, Genesis also asserted that man’s body was composed of the dust of the earth. Genesis 2:7 reads, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” The Hebrew word used to denote dust in this passage is apar, and as opposed to dirt, apar refers to the “fine or porous particles of the Earth.” Today, science confirms that the protoplasm which forms man’s flesh is a composition of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorous, chlorine, sulfur, potassium, sodium, calcium, iron, magnesium, silicon, iodine, fluorine and manganese, i.e. dust, and more specifically, the fine particles of the Earth. Researchers at NASA’s Ames Research Center confirmed that every single element found in the human body exists within ordinary soil. One of the scientists purportedly concluded, “We are just beginning to learn. The biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be not far off the mark.”
But I know… just another lucky guess, right?
Crude
says...Sure you can throw out all of these in order to avoid saying there are some errors in Genesis, but I think that’s a very huge helping of extreme skepticism.
Who determines whether or not one type of skepticism is extreme compared to another?
To be dead honest – and I say this as a lifelong theistic evolutionist – by my own reckoning, YECs are in a better intellectual position than, say… materialists. Take a good look at the Churchlands, or Alex Rosenberg, or others when it comes to the existence of selves, subjectivity, etc.
Your extreme skepticism is someone else’s provocative idea.
That gets highlighted more regarding this:
The backtracking of this acceleration gives a clear time variable that can be used to find the age of the universe — 13.75 billion years (+/- 0.8%), which is also consistent with the differences in temperature across the cosmic background ration.
It’s not just YECs who deny this being the age of the universe: it’s also regularly denied by materialists. The idea that the universe has a finite age is reviewed as repugnant to quite a lot of atheists, so what happens? It’s just plain denied. The card “we’re holding out for more information, this issue isn’t settled” is played.
Progress within science is not a matter of binary 100% “right” and 100% “wrong”, but rather being slightly more right than previous theories — accounting for more information with higher accuracy.
How exactly do you know this? I know this is the popular narrative, but it’s not like scientists keep taking a test and – hooray – their answers matched the test sheet better this time. The best you can say is something like, ‘Well, more accurate predictions are being made more often’, but A) the theories those predictions are based on could still be fundamentally wrong, and B) to be dead honest, this usually gets into some funky playing with domains. To use a Vox Day quote illustrating the problem, “We can trust evolutionary biologists, because physicists get incredibly accurate results.”
“Scientists tell” means that I surveyed a few scientists on the issue and asked them their opinion; “science tells” means that I looked at the data myself and made my own conclusion.
So intelligent design is a case of science telling us that such and such was designed by an intelligent agent?
cl
says...Crude,
Duh! Peter Hurford, of course.
I never thought of it that way, but I agree. At least YEC’s don’t move the goalpost and usurp every scientific discovery as a triumph for creationism. They stick to the same basic, falsifiable concept, whereas the materialist’s creed is inherently unfalsifiable. Materialism isn’t even a scientific theory. It’s a metaphysical presumption.
Unlike most atheists, I try to avoid claiming knowledge of things I don’t know. You’ll NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER hear or read me giving some purported age of the universe. Not only is it wholly irrelevant to anything worthwhile in my life, but last century, the universe was 7 billion years old, and before that, younger. There’s a damn good chance 13-14 billion years will be obsolete one day, too.
He doesn’t. He’s going from his gut.
Crude
says...cl,
Well, I think it’s worse than even that. In the case of Rosenberg, etc, you’ve got denials of bedrock data. It’s easy to see some ways YECs could be right. Any ‘age of the earth’ data could just be apparent and not actual. The bare claims of YEC about the world, sans God, are even apparently possible on a materialist understanding of the world, oddly enough. (‘We’re in a simulation.’ The simulation doesn’t need to be 14byo.)
With materialist claims about the mind – and I’m, again, calling out the reductionists and eliminativists here, though I think materialists as a whole are in the same boat – there’s good reason to doubt their claims are even coherent, so even possibility in principle isn’t assured. Yet Rosenberg, Churchland, etc aren’t treated as whackjobs. They ‘have a minority, even unpopular, view’, but are otherwise treated with respect.
That’s one of the things that cured me of any YEC hostility. Until Rosenberg and company are treated as pariahs, why should I treat any YEC with disdain? They’re making crazier claims, claims that couldn’t run more direct against evidence and experience (seeing as experience itself is part of the problem). They just have better press and social protection at the moment.
cl
says...Crude,
Well, that and they’re not Christians, but you bring up an interesting point as usual. Can you direct me to any writings where Rosenberg or any other materialist denies the contemporary narrative? Then, next time a flippant atheist starts running mouth against YEC’s, I can ask why they don’t extend similar scorn to Rosenberg et al.
Thanks Crude!
Crude
says...Doesn’t get more complete than this. Obviously, not exactly an unbiased presentation of his views, but it’s also the most thorough treatment you’ll find online. And it’s not a view specific to Rosenberg either, he’s just done everyone the favor of being a cheerleader for the view.
The same deal comes up with others – the Churchlands, Dennett to a degree, etc.
Either way, just to repeat, my main point is that the YEC views really aren’t very crazy compared to that of many materialists.
I hope the link’s of use/interest.
cl
says...Thanks, it is useful. However, do you happen to know exactly where Rosenberg casts doubt on the contemporary narrative / age of the universe? I perused all of Part III and didn’t really see anything… if not no big deal, it will just take a reaaaallllly long time to go through each of Feser’s posts.
Crude
says...cl,
Thanks, it is useful. However, do you happen to know exactly where Rosenberg casts doubt on the contemporary narrative / age of the universe?
Sorry, I think we got some wires crossed here. Rosenberg says nothing about the age of the universe – I just meant that’s a common deal among internet atheists. Suggesting that the universe is, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, eternal in terms of age, etc.
What Rosenberg doubts is all mind-related.
Peter Hurford
says...I agree we’re having major disconnects.
1.) Can you elaborate on what you meant by “Given that it gets so much else overwhelmingly correct, I take that as reason to be skeptical of the contemporary model. It is, after all, just a model”?
2.) Can you clarify to what extent you think the Bible is literally true? …to what extent the Bible is free from error?
3.) How likely would you think it is that the universe is only 6000 years old? How likely to do you think it is that humans evolved from a common ancestor via natural selection?
~
But again, I didn’t say science will come up with answers that are likely to be accurate. I said science will come up with answers that are more likely to be accurate than other methods for uncovering the truth. I think that holds with very little exception.
~
I look forward to it.
~
Sweet. Tell the Bible to join the club.
Peter Hurford
says...I agree. I think that Rosenberg and the Churchlands are indeed deeply confused about philosophy of mind.
~
Yeah, it’s a dumb and unfalsifiable card.
~
Sure. But the increasing success of predictions being made does point to some progress within a lot of different sciences. You’d think that if it was fundamentally misguided, it wouldn’t be putting up results. And I think this takes place within each domain — evolutionary biology has had a lot of predictive success specific to its field.
~
Sure again. I’d just deny the conclusion made from looking at science was valid.
Peter Hurford
says...Those definitely aren’t the YECs I’m familiar with. There’s tons of goal post moving in what they’d accept as evidence for evolution (especially with transitional fossils) or the age of the earth. And what basic, falsifiable concept?
~
What exactly is the materialist creed anyway? Materialism isn’t even a scientific theory. It’s a metaphysical presumption.
~
Damn good chance? Have you run the numbers? Is this Cl using probability as a synonym for “I feel like”? I jest, but the good news is that we have the cosmic microwave background now, plus concrete understanding of galactic acceleration that was missing before. There’s still room for error and nothing is for 100% certain, but I think you make this out to be significantly more tenuous than it actually is.
cl
says...Peter,
I mean that “models” are complex inferences built from facts and assumptions. They are not the same thing as facts and I don’t really think it’s fair to treat them so. For example, I don’t think science books should contain statements like, “The universe is X years old.” That statement is fundamentally different from, “water boils at 100 C,” which is fine stated as is. Science is always in a state of refinement. Assumptions are often overturned. Paradigm shifts happen. I guess I just have a preference for conservatively stated claims. I think they’re more scientific because they’re pliable. WRT anything “age of the universe” related I really do remain pretty agnostic. I understand the support for the models. I don’t have anything riding on the age of the universe. It doesn’t matter if it’s young or old.
I don’t know what you mean by “literally true.” The Bible contains many different narrative styles. It uses hyperbole and allegory. Other portions seem meant for historical, “literal” interpretation. For example, I’m not going to literally gouge my eye out ala Mark 9:47. I believe there was a flood, definitely, but there’s room for debate over things like magnitude and to what extent the account should be taken literally.
As for the first question, I don’t have any reasonable way to answer, and I just explained my basic “age of the universe” beliefs above. How do you make a meaningful probability statement for a question like that? As for the second question, if by “evolved” you mean “arose by chance material interactions without a Creator,” then I don’t think it’s likely.
AHEM. At #15 you wrote, and I quote the sentence in full, “But on nearly every question where the scientific method can apply, I think it does come up with the answer most likely to be accurate.” which is why I asked: if we have an array of credible scientific data suggesting that MOST published findings are false and/or inaccurate, why should I believe you when you tell me otherwise? In fact, given your own criteria, I *SHOULDN’T* believe you. The scientific method certainly applies to the ratio of true / false findings, therefore, by your logic, those results are likely to be accurate. So, if I were to follow the scientific evidence here, I should *REJECT* your claim that, “on nearly every question where the scientific method can apply, I think it does come up with the answer most likely to be accurate.”
Crude
says...Peter,
First, Newtonian physics was – quite literally – fundamentally misguided. The predictions it made were stellar, but the ontology of the world attached to those predictions was a failure. And that was with regards to what… centuries worth of solid predictions? So it seems we have a historic example of it being entirely possible to be fundamentally wrong yet make some serious predictive success.
Second, evolutionary biology looks pathetic compared to physics in terms of predictive success. Hell, it looks pretty pathetic compared to softer fields, at least when we’re talking about deep time and ancestry. Its strength is in the simplified model and narrative it provides, the rule of thumb. It’s manifestly not in any predictive successes.
There’s a disconnect. The ID proponent says that their conclusion IS a scientific conclusion. Not a conclusion made from “looking at science”.