Because Science!

Since I have been posting on science and scientism, it has amazed me that so many people have actually defended scientism, or at least tenaciously disagreed with me. I have been accused of being anti-scientific, a wizard, an occultist, or that at best I am arguing for a strawman or a myth. I embrace science without overstating its usefulness, condemn occultism (as any Christian would), and I have been given no good reason to believe scientism is a strawman. In fact, I’ve given good evidence that it isn’t, citing non-theist scholars who argue for and against scientism.

Philosopher Edward Feser puts it more eloquently than I ever could:

Scientism is an illusion, a bizarre fantasy that makes of science something it can never be. Seemingly the paradigm of rationality, it is in fact incoherent, incapable in principle of being defended in a way consistent with its own epistemological scruples. It should go without saying that this in no way entails any criticism of science itself. For a man to acknowledge that there are many beautiful women in the world does not entail that he doesn’t think his own wife or girlfriend is beautiful. Similarly, to say that there are entirely rational and objective sources of knowledge other than science does not commit one to denying that science is a source of knowledge. Those who cannot see this are doubly deluded – like a vain and paranoid wife or girlfriend who thinks all women are far less attractive than she is and regards any suggestion to the contrary as a denial of her own beauty. Worse, like an already beautiful woman whose vanity leads her to destroy her beauty in the attempt to enhance it through plastic surgery, scientism threatens to distort and corrupt science precisely by exaggerating its significance.

I have had numerous people question whether any reliable knowledge other than scientific knowledge exists. Others have even tried to argue that reality, truth, and logic are discovered and proven by science. The fact is that all these things must be assumed in order to do science. Science can discover things that are real, but it can never show us if there is such a thing as reality. Science can discover things that are true, but it can never tell us if there is such a thing as truth. Science can even help determine whether things are logical, but it can never demonstrate that there is such a thing as logic. These are things that are presupposed by the scientist.

Ironically, only one of my detractors has even attempted to provide scientific reasons for their position. One would expect folks who believe science is the only valid basis for knowledge to provide scientific justification for their claims. Since scientism is actually a philosophical claim rather than a scientific one, it refutes itself. The truth is that the disciples of Dawkins, Krauss, and deGrasse Tyson are simply not consistent. Any reasonable person must conclude that there are other valid ways of determining truth other than science.

Science vs. Scientism

This week I listened to a couple of great podcasts on the relationship between Christianity, philosophy, and science versus the strange ideas of scientism. See definition number 2 from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

Main Entry: sci·en·tism
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən-ˌti-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1870
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

In this week’s Reasonable Faith podcast, Dr. William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris discussed an article by Massimo Pigliucci which is critical of scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s prejudice against philosophy.

Frankly, …someone who regularly appears on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and has had the privilege of remaking Carl Sagan’s iconic Cosmos series — in short, someone who is a public intellectual and advocate for science — really ought to do better than to take what amounts to anti-intellectual (and illiterate) positions about another field of scholarship. And I say this in all friendship, truly.
– Massimo Pigliucci

Dr. Pigliucci’s article is also critical of Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, calling the latter “another frequent philosophy naysayer.” Dr. Craig and other Christian philosophers and apologists have often criticized these atheist superstars for their antiphilosophical biases, but it is notable when Dr. Pigliucci makes such statements. He not only has scientific and philosophical degrees, but is an outspoken secularist. He certainly cannot be accused of a pro – Christian bias.

In this week’s episode of Straight Thinking, the podcast of Dr. Kenneth Samples, Dr. Timothy McGrew appears as a guest. The myth propagated by folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins is that science and religion (and let’s be honest–by “religion” we mean Christianity) are in conflict. In fact, Christianity is not just unscientific, but is actively anti-science. Dr. McGrew slays that dragon with historical facts and the sword of philosophical reason. Dr. Samples and Dr. McGrew also discussed the complementary relationship between good philosophy and good science.

There is certainly no denying that some Christians have misunderstood science, or bought into pseudoscience of one kind or another. However, modern science was birthed out of Christian convictions that the universe was created and designed by an almighty and all – wise God. Therefore, the universe functioned according to reliable, observable, and repeatable laws in an orderly fashion. Rather than being anti-science, the Christian worldview of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Copernicus, Galileo, Johannes Kepler and so many others set the stage for modern science.

Wreaking Havoc on Scientific Materialism: C.S. Lewis on Natural Law and Divine Action in Nature

Melissa Cain Travis reminds us why C.S. Lewis had (and continues to have) such a profound influence on apologetics.

School of Christian Thought

There are two rather standard responses from materialist scientists and philosophers to the suggestion that a creator God guides the development and sustains the order of nature:

1) Our current scientific theories on the evolution of all things are sufficient to explain all natural phenomena. The idea of a creator has been rendered superfluous.

2) Science doesn’t have it all figured out, and truth be told, it may never give us comprehensive knowledge of natural history or a full explanation for the stability and regularities of the cosmos, but plugging God into these knowledge gaps is no better than the ancient Greek practice of attributing thunderstorms to Zeus.

Standard practice for an apologist faced with such statements is to describe the evidence for cosmic and biological design or the shortcomings of naturalistic theories when it comes to explaining the indications of rationality in nature. The apologist uses science to argue…

View original post 868 more words

Be Not Children in Understanding

Ifuvjcjjcjc kfk kfkfkvkvmc drjdggv bhdhx kfjjvv wwqxnkkgvvxdx. Do you know what I mean? Of course you don’t-this is just random gibberish.

Although some people deny absolute truth, no one actually lives as if there were no absolute truths. In doing so they deny their claims by the way they live. In fact, they demonstrate their underlying beliefs more clearly by their actions than their words. When they live as if there were absolute truths, they display to everyone that absolute truth exists and they know it.

Imagine if someone were to try to live out the belief that all truth is relative at the bank.

“Good morning! I’d like to withdraw $5,000.00 from my checking account.”

“I’m sorry, sir. The available balance of your account is only $50.00.”

“That may be true for you, but not for me.”

In spite of the relative truth claim, no more than $50.00 could actually be withdrawn from the bank account unless a deposit was made. Education would make no sense in a world without absolute truth. What would we ever learn? Things like math, logic, grammar, and science would be useless. In a world devoid of objective meaning or absolute truth, we could never really have communication. The sentence you are reading at this moment would be as meaningful as the first sentence of this post.

Truth is discovered, not invented.

Truth is true for all people, in all places, at all times.

Truth is not affected by belief or faith.

Truth is not based on our personal feelings or preferences.

Truth is not affected by our attitude.

Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one proclaiming it.

All truths are absolute truths.

Do you think I’m wrong? If so, you just refuted yourself by making a truth claim.

Most people will readily admit that things like bank account balances and empirically observable scientific laws are absolute truths, but continue to insist that religion or morality are relative. Here are some common objections to truth claims about religious and moral truth claims.

“Religious truth is beyond our knowledge.”

As a truth claim about religion, this is self-refuting.

“All religions basically teach the same thing.”

The fact of the matter is that they have superficial similarities, but differ widely on matters like the nature and character of God, the purpose of humanity, the origin of the universe, sin, and salvation.

“The claim that your religious view is the one true view is intolerant.”

This statement is self-refuting because it is intolerant of anyone who claims to have an exclusive religious viewpoint.

“The claim that your religious view is the one true view is arrogant.”

Professing a particular view as certain can be done arrogantly, but simply making truth claims to the best of our ability is not arrogant in and of itself. In fact, since truth is discovered rather than invented it should humble us to proclaim truth. Restricting ourselves from making justified truth claims for the sake of some misplaced sense of humility is actually rather silly.

Being humble… should not commit us to an epistemological quagmire. We may have justified certainty apart from absolute proof.

Any intellectual quest is sabotaged by quarantining certainty at the outset. It is like injuring a horse before a race on the general principal that a strong, swift and healthy steed is too proud to compete fairly and honestly. We should assess the strength of a given conclusion on the basis of the arguments given to support that conclusion, not by stipulating some “humble” ideal that forswears certitude in principal and in perpetuity.
– Douglas Groothuis

The question now is how do we determine the strength of an argument? I will write about this in future posts.

Ecclesiastes 7:19 ESV

Wisdom gives strength to the wise man more than ten rulers who are in a city.