MandM header image 2

Science and Religion: Theism and Explanatory Idleness

April 20th, 2010 by Matt

A few weeks ago I was a panelist at a forum on Science and Religion at the University of Auckland, the podcast of that forum is available here. After this forum a member of the audience sent me the following email. I have reproduced my response below.

Hey Matt

Unfortunately I didn’t have time to ask a question last night, due to having to leave early, so hopefully I can ask now.

I used to be a Christian, and I took my religion extremely seriously, and was very devoted to it.  Over time, as Ive read more and more about religion, trying to expand my knowledge of religion, my views have changed (my eyes have opened) and now I am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism.

My question to you is, why does God need to fit in with science anyway?  It seems very much that your God is just a ‘God of the gaps’ situation.  I have no problem with simply believing what science discovers about the universe and its origins (even you believe the earth is 14.7 billion years old, and believe the theory of evolution, both of which were discovered by science) and God has no need to be in any of this.  For example, the beginning of the universe (or the beginning of the current cycle of the universe), why does God need to be put in the place of creator?  I believe in a matter of time, science will find out how the universe actually began.  I believe science will find what originally started life on our planet, and I believe science will figure out all of the other mysteries we encounter, leaving no mysteries a God would be needed to explain.  If (or when) this day actually comes, which I strongly believe it will (most likely not in our lifetime), wouldn’t your faith become blind faith?  Or would you admit you are mistaken?

I realise you are an expert on this, I’m not trying at all to criticize you or bash your religion, I’m just trying to understand more.

My response was as follows:

If I understand you correctly, you seem to envisage theism (belief in God) as a kind of hypothesis that is postulated to explain things that science currently does not. Second, your suggestion is that, over time, science will fill these gaps and when it does, such theistic explanations will no longer be credible. Let me make two responses to this line of reasoning.

First, when theists argue for the existence of God they do not typically postulate God as an explanation for something that science has yet to explain. The standard arguments are addressed towards areas where there are reasons for thinking that science cannot explain the phenomena at all. This is because, as currently practiced, science commits itself to explaining phenomena in terms of natural causes and there are some things that an appeal to natural causes cannot, in principle, explain.

The cosmological argument, for example, postulates God to explain the existence of the universe or the origin of the universe and it seems that there are reasons for thinking that science could not ever explain this; the reason is, that science as currently practiced explains phenomena in terms of previous states of the universe and natural laws. But prior to the universe there was no previous state of the universe nor were there laws of nature.

Similarly, one cannot explain why the universe exists by appealing to the fact it does exist. Hence, it is not then that science currently does not explain this; rather, it is that reasons have been given for thinking a naturalistic explanation is impossible. You cannot provide a naturalistic explanation of the existence of nature and you cannot appeal to laws of nature to explain the existence of such laws.

The same is true with the arguments from design. One of the most enduring versions of this argument postulates God as an explanation for the regularities and laws of nature that govern the universe. It is hard to see how science can explain these things. Science typically explains one phenomenon by appealing to such laws but you cannot explain laws by appealing to them.

I would say the same about moral arguments. It is not that science currently does not explain morality, it is that there are arguments that purport to show the very real problems with attempting to demonstrate an ought statement empirically. When one appeals to God to explain morality then one is not so much filling in a temporary gap, one is rather answering a question that it seems science cannot and is not likely to be able to answer. So I think the contention that these are merely gaps which science has yet to explain is a misconstrual of the situation.

Second and I think this is a more important point, your argument assumes that God is rationally believed only if his existence is inferred by some kind of argument for the best explanation of a given phenomenon. As soon as all such arguments fail, belief in God is irrational (“blind faith” as you call it). This was precisely the point I challenged in my talk. Not all beliefs are justified on the basis of some kind of argument of this sort. As I pointed out, the claim that one needs an argument to be rational in believing something is subject to an infinite regress. If I argue for A on the basis of various premises the question can arise what is the basis for believing the premises. If I argue for these premises from further ones, the question arises about the further premises and so on, until we arrive at a set of ultimate premises.

There are plenty of things we believe that are not based on arguments. Our belief in the existence of the past or our belief that it is wrong to rape women or our belief that other people exist or that basic axioms of logic are true are not based on inferences to the best explanation so that they are rationally believed because they explain some phenomena better than all alternatives. It is rather that these beliefs are part of the background data that we use to assess proposed explanations against. These things are true because we experience or see them to be true, for example, I see that the basic axioms of logic are self-evident, I remember the existence of a past event, I intuitively see that rape is wrong and think anyone who does not see this is simply morally blind and so on.  These function as fundamental premises that we argue to other theories from.  My position is that believers and non-believers have different fundamental premises.

I think belief in God is like the beliefs above in that it is a basic-belie, something a person directly sees to be true via direct experience or intuition of some sort.  Hence, I would reject the assumption that belief in God needs to be based on an argument of any sort. It follows then, that even if belief in God could not be established by some kind of argument from explanation it would not follow that it is irrational – anymore so, than the fact that my belief that rape is wrong does not explain any empirical data proves that my belief in the wrongness of rape constitutes blind faith.

RELATED POST:
Has Science Disproved God?” The Podcast

Tags:   · 50 Comments

50 responses so far ↓

  • This was an excellent response Matt. Please don’t consider this comment a response to yours, but in parallel. These thoughts came to mind in response to the discussion about theistic belief as hypothesis for scientific gaps.

    Personally, I doubt the author of the email ever held to theistic beliefs due to them offering an explanation for scientific phenomenon and only rejected it after studying whether or not theism offers an explanation for scientific questions. Belief structures are far too complex for this simplistic account. Furthermore, I’ve never met a person who came to faith (or lost faith) solely on account of their assent or denial of the validity of a theistic proof. Maybe there is an exception or two, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule.

    In my life, here are a few factors that have shaped my belief structures:

    1. I was raised by a godly Christian mother who made sure that I learned the gospel from a young age.
    2. I had an unfaithful father who forced me to think through the implications of Christian ethics as a teenager.
    3. I had a spiritual void in my life that I sought to find answers to and have always seemingly been more concerned about spiritual things than my peers.
    4. I was in a life-threatening auto accident whenever I was a teenager, where I was thrust into thinking more deeply about the reality of death.
    5. I did my undergraduate degree at a school of religion that forced me to think more deeply about the tenants of my Christian beliefs in the face of daily challenges from professors.
    6. I continued and did graduate work in religious studies and ended up finding more intense study to be faith affirming.
    7. I married at a reasonably young age (21) and have a very faithful, Christian wife.
    8. I had children younger than most my age (first child at 25 and two more before 30).

    These are influential things, which have influenced my Christian faith greatly…but none of these are the reason I believe.

    1. I think many of the theistic proofs are good. I’ve read a ton of books and papers on them from both sides, done some academic study on them and think they hold up well.
    2. I think the historical evidence in support of the resurrection is strong and has more than stood up to two thousand years of countless challenges.
    3. I agree that belief in God is properly basic and find Plantinga’s trilogy persuasive. Furthermore, I think (along with Plantinga) this is true of much Christian belief.

    But, it would be dishonest to say that I am a Christian because of any of these things.

    As influential as all of these factors are, I’m a Christian because about 20 years ago, as I heard a sermon, the Holy Spirit convicted me of my sin, drew me to repentance and made me alive together with Christ.

    A skeptic would say that in the situation I’ve just described, you must first prove each individual proposition before assent is justified. I deny this, and find life far too complex (especially in terms of relationships) to live with such a perspective. In fact, I believe its impossible to live with such a perspective on rationally assenting to every proposition that comes our way before making decisions, living and loving, etc. And when you consider the deep relationship between desires, rationalities (there is no uniform ‘reason’) and beliefs, it all becomes much more difficult to speak of anything like “pure reason.” Following Macintyre, building on Augustine and others, I would say that none of these three are absolute or objective, nor are any ever free from the influence of the other two.

    All of that is to say that I think too many people oversimplify the issue. They say, “If only there was evidence, I would believe in God.” Well, I would contend that there is an abundance of evidence, so why do they continue in unbelief? They might respond, “If only there was sufficient evidence that meet my criteria, then I would believe.” I doubt it, but this shows the subjectivity of the response. They might say (as in this email) that “I used to believe, but when I really studied the issues my beliefs fell apart.” This may be the case, but its never the whole story. I’m sure that there was much more going on that could have influenced those beliefs one way or another.

    Beliefs are shaped by so many things, and from the Christian perspective, they are ultimately shaped by the Holy Spirit. I know these types of verses infuriate some skeptics, but Jesus says in John 6:65 very clearly, “no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” It’s not about anyone proving God to themselves via their subjective rationality, but about God revealing Godself to them.

    Does this mean apologetics are worthless? By no means! I think it’s essential. But its importance is for defending the faith. We aren’t called to “prove” God first, then “prove” the resurrection and then each proposition of Christian belief. No, our calling is to proclaim the gospel boldly and offer a defense of it when called upon.

  • I am fascinated by this sort of statement:

    “believe in a matter of time, science will find out how the universe actually began. I believe science will find what originally started life on our planet, and I believe science will figure out all of the other mysteries we encounter.”

    Isn’t this just a sort of science of the gaps?

  • No, Max, because whereas the god explanation is the end if the matter the idea that rational imperical
    investigation may find how something happened us only the beginning.

    Confidence that humanity can discover things, that it is OK to say “I don’t know” and then to add “let’s find out” is far mire honest than to say “god did it!”

    Gods of the gap prevents knowledge and understanding, science enables them.

  • Think it through a little more Ken and you will see why I said that.

  • Absolutely, science of the gaps 🙂

    For everything you want to believe but have not yet any evidence or answer, just say that in time science will know the answer … but what guarantee that science will ever have answer for xyz? nothing of course, it’s a belief by faith in science… or in other words science of the gaps.

  • Ken,
    Allow me to disagree. Whereas I see what you are saying, and understand why an atheist might think that, it’s not the way history has actually panned out in regards to Christianity and science. As many have shown, they have for the most part had a working relationship leading to better understanding.

    Even at the extreme fringes, YECers are pretty excited about the Large Hadron Collider, because they see it as providing insights into the mind of God. As you know, the majority of scientists have always held this assumption. Investigating nature is investigating God’s creation and always exciting. To quote Galileo “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Such a view has been the standard view of Christians in dealing with science, and a minority of Americans who were persuaded by an late 19th and early 20th century populist movement don’t change this fact.

    As such, I think the “god answer” actually provides a fine reason for searching even deeper, both into the nature of the process of the events and the nature of this God. It doesn’t stop the search for answers at all. At the same time, it provides a meaningful explanation for why we are able to interpret the universe, why it is rationally explainable, mathematically elegant, etc.

    You might be interested in Cambridge professor Denis Alexander’s wonderful article, “What has theology ever done for science?”

    http://graphite.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/issues/Alexander_Issues.pdf

  • Max – the only reason I can think for you saying this Max (and I have thought about it) is to justify “gods of the gaps” by using it as a default when crticising “science of the gaps.”

    My point – if you want to justify “god of the gaps” do so. Present your arguments.

    To clarify this science position. Scientists never make the claim that we will always understand every phenomena. We freely acknowledge that humanity may never reach an understanding of some things. Maybe some things are beyond us, and will always be beyond us for technology reasons. Maybe we just don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand and investigate some things.

    However, we would not be human if we were not inquisitive and didn’t have the urge to know and understand. And it is dishonest to rule anything or some things out of bounds to human investigation.

    And of course just because we say now about some thing “we don’t know” (a position which I am happy with) doesn’t give any justification for saying “my god did it.”

    Frankly if empirical and rational human investigation cannot provide the answer now (and maybe not in the future) an irrational, non-empirical approach like religion is certainly not going to be able to. Look how poorly it has functioned in the past.

    Anon – I think this also answers your question. You misunderstand the scientific attitude. We don’t say what you claim.

    Ranger – I can’t understand how what you say relates to my point. Taking you quote from Galileo, though, isn’t he saying exactly the same thing as me? Isn’t he saying that the “god of the gaps” is forgoing the use of sense, reason and intellect?

    How the hell can belief in a sky pixie “provide a meaningful explanation for why we are able to interpret the universe, why it is rationally explainable, mathematically elegant, etc.”

    In 40 years of scientific research I never had problems accepting our ability ” to interpret the universe, why it is rationally explainable, mathematically elegant, etc.”. And in all the time (and more) I never had to appeal to a theistic philosophy. Far from it. And I think that was true for most of my colleagues (all if they were honest).

    Those sort of arguments (together with the claim that religion invented science) are just part of theological doublespeak.

  • KEN SAYS: …if you want to justify “god of the gaps” …

    I have no interest in justifying a “God of the gaps”! But to do a similar thing with Scientism (note: not science) is just as dogmatic and unscientific. That was my only point.

    “Scientists never make the claim that we will always understand every phenomena.”

    I agree! BUT certain atheists who use a ‘science of the gaps’ strategy do. They are not being scientists when they do this, so this in not a comment on scientific method – but on bad philosophy.

    “. And it is dishonest to rule anything or some things out of bounds to human investigation.”

    Very wise words. And a “science of the gaps” mentality has the effect of ruling out theistic explanations by saying – sure.. a theistic explanation is the most logical and scientific BUT… I believe on faith that future science will provide a full explanation of this!

    I have similar standards when investigating illogical atheism as when investigating illogical theism… you have double standards!

  • Ken,
    Let me begin by saying that I’m interested in an intellectual conversation, okay? Nobody here believes in a “sky pixie” or believes in God against reason (ala irrationally), so instead of making such silly comments, try instead to discuss what we’re actually saying and I think we might be able to make some progress.

    You said (with my additions in brackets to make it readable), ” the god explanation is the end [o]f the matter, [but] the idea that rational [e]mperical investigation may find how something happened [i}s only the beginning.”

    I disagree with this statement, not necessarily with your comments on a “god of the gaps.” The “god explanation” has never been the end of the matter. In fact, it has been the inspiration for scientific pursuit by the vast majority of scientists throughout history. That’s why I quoted Galileo as an example of the “god explanation” inspiring critical thinking, further investigation, etc. In the history of science, such inspiration from the “god explanation” has been the norm, and continues to be the norm for many scientists today.

    This is to be expected, because in a theistic belief system, things like rationality, intelligibility, meaning, etc. find their ultimate source in God. Things like constants and laws make sense in a theological framework and inspire scientists to dig deeper in order to understand the mind of God and His works in Creation.

    You say, “In 40 years of scientific research I never had problems accepting our ability ‘to interpret the universe, why it is rationally explainable, mathematically elegant, etc.’. And in all the time (and more) I never had to appeal to a theistic philosophy.”

    I don’t doubt that you make the assumption that the universe is rational, mathematically elegant, intelligible, etc. I never suggested such a thing. If any of these qualities were not true then science itself would obviously be impossible. The more important question, which is what I’m actually asking, is why you assume they are true at all?

    Can empirical data alone ever show a law to be true beyond some (very) weak pragmatic justification? Can it make any claims without appealing to metaphysical assumptions? Is an empiricist even justified in speaking in terms of laws from a nontheistic framework? David Hume clearly showed how such concepts, which are necessary for science to even get off the ground, are a priori beliefs with no real rational justification and not nearly enough empirical justification. The very assumptions that (pure) rationalism and empiricism rely on to work are in themselves nonrational beliefs that must be assumed to be true in an empiricist framework. Since most empiricists are also naturalists, then these assumptions about rationality, intelligibility, simplicity, etc. that transcend the natural are enough problems in themselves.

    If you can show justification for holding to such things as the intelligibility of the universe, the mathematical consistency, etc. that doesn’t beg the question from within an atheistic framework, then we (and the late David Hume) would love to hear it outlined.

    To go beyond this question even (although I would like to hear your answer to it first), why would an atheist have more motivation toward scientific exploration than a theist? What motivation do they have for actually pouring their lives into the “how” questions of science? Don’t assume that I don’t think there are any reasons, because I do…but I would simply like to hear your justification.

  • Max, I am currently reading Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk, by Massimo Pigliucci . He makes the point that whenever the word scientism comes up you can be sure its being used as a term of abuse (ironically because he tends to use it, inappropriately I think, a bit himself). For me the word is a flag for strawmannery – because it is hardly ever used appropriately.

    I just wish people would look at the issues more closely and deal with them instead of using such meaningless and inappropriate words.

    However, I find you comment confusing. On the one hand you agree with me that the “science of the gaps” position is not one any scientist makes. Great.

    Then you raise the issue of “atheists”? Can’t see why. What the hell have atheists got to do with it? The problem is that atheism/theism covers an extremely narrow aspect of an individuals outlook – the belief/non-belief in gods. These terms cover a multitude of sins. People from extreme idiots (not worth listening to) to extremely bright and worth listening to.

    OK you may have found an atheist who advances a “science of the gaps.” So what. All I would say is that person is at least naive, possible ignorant. (Or misreported perhaps).

    Then you say – they are not being scientists. Well obviously. But why bother with such irrelevant people and arguments. You and I had already ruled them out as scientists anyway.

    But you do talk about “certain” atheists. You have people in mind? Well, come out with it. Let us know who they are and what they said. (Perhaps we can check it out, Perhaps you are mistaken. Perhaps they are people we should expose).

    So we have agreed that no scientist is proposing a “science of the gaps” argument. No-one of any consequence appears to be doing it. In fact this is the first time I have heard the phrase.

    But then, strangely, you say someone is “ruling out theistic explanations by saying – sure.. a theistic explanation is the most logical and scientific BUT… I believe on faith that future science will provide a full explanation of this!”

    Who is doing that?

    And what the hell is a theistic explanation that is logical and scientific? If an explanation is logical and scientific we don’t need to add any descripter like theist or non-theist to it. We just apply the normal scientific process of testing/validating against reality.

    The fact that the idea may have been proposed by an atheist or theist is completely irrelevant.

    Now if someone is saying that an argument is just a god of the gaps one we know they mean it is not an explanation. That it is in fact the end of inquiry, not the beginning of inquiry. And it is far better to say “I don’t know”, but then to get stuck in and do some work to investigate it.

    Newton’s explanation for the planar orbit of the planets was a “god of the gaps” explanation. It was advanced after all else failed for him (ironic because he was capable of producing mathematics which would have provided a solution). It was a statement of ignorance and failure. He was giving up.

    Up till then he used scientific methods – this was actually out of character.

    That is why he didn’t discover the reasons and others did.

    Surely this is a clear example of how “god of the gaps’ is not a method of discovery but of ignorance.

  • “Then you rainse the issue of “atheists”? Can’t see why. What the hell have ahteists got to do wioth it?”

    Um.. because that is what my initial comment was about in the first place?… and Um… because the question Matthew originally received was addressing this issue?

    “OK you may have found an atheist who advances a “science of the gaps.” So what. All I woulds say is that person is at least anive, possible ignorant. (Or misreported perhaps).”

    – exactly my point and I was claiming no more than this. Where is the confusion?

    “Then you say – they are not being scientists. Well obviously. BGut why bother with such irrelevant people and arguments. You had already ruled them out as scientists anyway.”

    – because again… this was the very issue I was talking about in the first place, and you seemed to be asking for an explanation about what I meant by ‘science of the gaps’ so I gave you one!

    “So we have agree that no scientist is proposing a “science of the gaps” argument.”

    – no, many scientists propose this fallacy. But they are not doing science when they do so. You need to be more careful with your terms.

    “But then, strangely, you say someone is “ruling out theistic explanations by saying – sure.. a theistic explanation is the most logical and scientific BUT… I believe on faith that future science will provide a full explanation of this!”'”

    – why does this confuse you? Again I am merely giving you clarification on a term which seemed to be causing you some confusion. I hope that clears thing up.

    The rest of your rant does not really address anything I said so I will let it lie.

  • Ranger – my example of Newton’s errors in my previous comment is relevant to yours.

    I think you are attempting to divert/widen the argument. I don’t have any problem with that but I wish to nail this “science of the gaps” characterisation first.

    Except to say that your resort to magical thinking (pixies have no less possibilities to my mind than gods) to explain the order and explainability of reality is just a typical “god of the gaps.” It doesn’t explain it at all (but it might give you a warm feeling that you have a justification for your magical thinking).

    Perhaps I can leave you with what is probably my only assumption – “matter is what exists objectively and has the ability to interact.” I think that’s all we need, it is continually being reinforced by experience. We may feel a need to modify it some day (after all we have in the past).

    But it is infinitely more powerful than saying reality is ordered because a god, Thor, pixies or whatever made it so.

  • “god, Thor, pixies or whatever made it so.”

    Everytime someone says this it makes me cringe in embarrassment.

    It has the sophistication of the Creationist who says “well how come no monkey’s is having human babies today then?”

    Is your understanding of Theism REALLY that bad Ken?

  • Ken,
    You say, “Except to say that your resort to magical thinking (pixies have no less possibilities to my mind than gods) to explain the order and explainability of reality is just a typical “god of the gaps.” It doesn’t explain it at all (but it might give you a warm feeling that you have a justification for your magical thinking).”

    Obviously you’re incapable of a civil, rational discussion and would rather play such word games than actually discuss the topics at hand. As such, I will no longer continue.

  • Magic is magic – whether it is done by a pixie, angel, fairy, Max’s god, Ranger’s god, Thor, Allah, etc (you name it there are literally thousands). I am being inclusive, not offensive.

  • “Magic is magic – whether it is done by a pixie, angel, fairy, Max’s god, Ranger’s god, Thor, Allah, etc (you name it there are literally thousands). I am being inclusive, not offensive.”

    I don’t find it offensive – just astoundingly ignorant. Honestly – you come across to me as the aforementioned Creationist would come across to you. I don’t mean to be offensive, but it makes it rather hard to discuss the issues with you if your comprehension is at this level.

  • Max – that”s a cop out. You are allowed your “scientism” offense. Surely I am allowed to equate all gods, as I see it in my contribution.

    Anyway. Forget about gods. My motives have, as I have said, purely been to nail the “science of the gaps” delusion.

    Gods can look after themselves and are always a diversion, anyway. I am certainly not interested in discussing them.

  • “Anyway. Forget about gods. My motives have, as I have said, purely been to nail the “science of the gaps” delusion.”

    So did you do it then; did you nail the delusion?

  • “Surely I am allowed to equate all gods, as I see it in my contribution.”

    Sure if you want to argue against something which no-one actually believes in. Again it is a bit like the Creationist arguing that no monkeys he ever saw gave birth to a human so evolution must be wrong. I guess he is entitled to his idiocy – and you to yours 😉

    “the “science of the gaps” delusion”

    — but you have already admitted above that some people do in fact think this way. It is a delusion I agree – but a common one.

    “Gods can look after themselves and are always a diversion, anyway. I am certainly not interested in discussing them.”

    Just as well! But if you are not interested in discussing them… why did you bring them up? Since you *were* the one who brought them up may I suggest you spend a little time actually learning about what a Christian conception of God is. I am surprised that you have not picked up a little from reading this blog to be honest… but given your misunderstanding I guess you have not.

    Now to get you started try to work out in what ways a monotheistic conception of God differs from he gods of ancient Rome, or from a Pixie or a Unicorn. It seems your knee-jerk response is to say there is no difference (and to parrot that hackneyed “I just believe in one god less than you do” nonsense), but try to avoid this auto-response and really think about whether or not they are really the same.

  • Max, far from “admitting” as you claim I actually said I did not know any scientist promoting a “science if the gaps” argument. Initially you also said the same. Then you changed your mind.

    So in the intrerests of clarity how about letting us know who these scientists are and perhaps what they have said to make you think this.

    I repeat I am unaware of any who have claimed science necessarily know everything eventually. But I am always interested to learn new things about science and scientists.

  • What ARE you on about Ken? Do you want me to give you a list of people I have talked to? Do you want me to get their permission first or should I just start listing names?

  • Max, you did say “many scientists” advance this fallacy. Now it turns out it is only some you talk to.

    Do you have a lot of contact with scientists?

    Personally, I think we have a problem with misinterpretation on your part.

  • KEN:

    Serious question:

    Are you asking these questions to try to find stuff out, and advance your understanding of another person’s position, or are merely trying prove your “opponent” wrong? I can’t figure out what it is you are trying to prove here.

    If the latter let me know so I can stop wasting my time. As far as I can see reading the list of comments again I have answered all of your questions and don’t see the point of typing the same thing out again.

  • Max, I think I understand your position OK now. I was just trying to get evidence that anyone was really advancing a “science of the gaps” argument. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence so I guess it’s the common position of you putting your own words or meaning into others mouths.

    You are really advancing your own subjective picture which really misrepresents the true situation.

    I wish people would let us speak for ouselves without feeling the necessity to distort our position.

    Science is not the enemy, unless one is interested in deception.

  • “Max, I think I understand your position OK now.”

    – Good. Then this exercise has been a success.

    “I was just trying to get evidence that anyone was really advancing a “science of the gaps” argument.”

    – Please try and remember how this all came up in the first place! That was a comment on the email Matthew received from someone who was considering atheism (that’s where that came from by the way) partly because of their strong faith that science would eventually answer any and every problem which only religions seem to address at the moment. The evidence you are looking for is thus at the top of this page. You have got so sidetracked that I think you have forgotten the issue being discussed here!

    “You are really advancing your own subjective picture which really misrepresents the true situation.”

    — See above!

    “I wish people would let us speak for ouselves without feeling the necessity to distort our position.”

    — See above… I never said it was *your* belief Ken! Don’t be so self obsessed :).

    “Science is not the enemy, unless one is interested in deception.”

    Please! No one ever, not once, in this discussion, or on any other discussion on this blog has ever said “science is the enemy.” Your problem (and its a common one so don’t feel too bad) is that you confuse science, materialism, and atheism.

  • The story of evolution leaves no room for a supernatural Creator. Evolutionary processes are supposed to be purely naturalistic. This means that even the need for a supernatural Creator disappears because it is argued that the natural world can create new and better or more complex creatures by itself. The implication of this is very revealing: evolution means “no God” and if there is no God, then there are no rules—no commandments, no God-given rules which we must obey. We can therefore live our lives as we please, for according to evolutionary philosophy, there is no God to whom we have to give an account. No wonder molecules-to-man evolution is attractive to so many, for it allows them to live as they please. This is called relative morality.

  • M&M
    I found your blog interesting and just wanted to pass along the note. Good scholarship and good dialogue.
    With appreciation,
    Pastor Adam Barton
    Akron, Ohio

  • There are three ways, and only three ways, to understand/categorize the oh-so-common atheistic inability, which is on display in this thread, to follow and address the actual points being made:
    1) inability *ever* to understand;
    2) ignorance, leading to misunderstanding;
    3) disinclination to understand … or, at least, to admit.

    To understand Ken’s behavior in terms of option 1) is to say that Ken is too stupid to understand the matter and the arguments. I don’t see how any of us is ever justified in choosing to believe that about anyone.

    To understand Ken’s behavior in terms of option 2) is to say that Ken lacks some logically prior information or understanding, the lack of which is leading to his present erroneous reasoning. That is, that Ken’s error *is* error, but that it is honest error. However, has not his misunderstanding been explained to him multiple times in this very thread?

    To understand Ken’s behavior in terms of option 3) is to say that Ken is intellectually dishonest; it is to say/recognize that no amount of evidence and argumentation is going to sway him … because he never was interested in genuine understanding.

    Those are the three options; there are no others.

  • For the record, the Earth is believed to be 4.7 billion years old. It’s the universe that is believed to be 14.7 billion years old.

  • That was a brilliant response :-). I especially enjoy the point you make, which is no one can explain why the universe exists just because it does exist. Very interesting read…

  • […] Stumbled across this at M and M – seems like I’m not the only one to notice this sort of thing. There are three ways, […]

  • I quickly read the email and your response Matt which I enjoyed. The only comment I wish to make is that the email seems to be constantly referring to the gaps in scientific knowledge which are going to be filled, according to his confidence in science. Kind of faith in science actually. Actually I would say he posits “Science” as his god of the gaps. Projection anybody!

    Just read some of the other comments, “let it be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.”

  • ” Actually I would say he posits “Science” as his god of the gaps. Projection anybody!”

    – Exactly right! A common thing for scientists to do as well…

  • Ken,
    People like R. Dawkins have argued that religion in general (perhaps Christianity in particular) stifle the advance of knowledge and science. This seems to fly in the face of the evidence when the ratio of theist to non-theist scientists has consistently been about 40% over many years.
    A history of science or philosophy of science shows that the very idea of the intelligibility of the Universe presupposed by the early theistic scientists actually encouraged the research done in “natural philosophy”. If an intelligent God exists it seemed only natural to assume that He created intelligently therefore the Universe is intelligible.
    On the contrary I find that a) The sort of scepticism rampant today stultifies intelligent reasoning. Even thinking is going out of fashion, look at the appalling dumbing down in education. And b) In a book called the Empiricists by Laurence Carlin he describes the stagnation of the knowledge gathering enterprise up until the early empiricists (like Newton, Locke, Bacon, Hobbes and Hume, Boyle and Berkeley) The cause was the incumbent humanistic philosophy of Aristotle. This paradigm held sway for nearly 2000 years!

  • Except, Max, you don’t identify or quote from even one scientist to support your statement.

    In my experience I have never come across any scientist who has advanced such a position. Quite the contrary!

  • … we could play that game where I give you a quote, and then you do some sort of linguistic jelly wrestling and show that it is not really saying that, then I give another quote and you do the same… but we have played that game before. Just Google Dawkins on youtube and this line of argument comes up pretty quick. Now I know Dawkins is hardly an intellectual giant when it comes to philosophy but you seem to like the chap…

  • Albert Einstein quote –

    “The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility”

    If you would like to see the quote in my context please visit my site:

    http://struth-his-or-yours.blogspot.com/2008/11/mathematics-and-god.html

  • Max – you finally admitted it! You have never heard a scientist make such claims so you invented it. “Many” became “some” became “some you had spoken to” became Dawkins.

    This is an interesting phenomenon (You are not the only one to behave this way).

    Reminds me of the story I heard when Dawkins was behind stage at an event and someone walked past wearing a T-shirt with the statement “Dawkins is God.”

    Now Dawkins is a very humble person so he was a little surprised and said to someone – “Gosh, does that mean I don’t exist!”

    I have long thought, though, that one motive for man inventing gods is to use them as a receptacle for their own desires, wishes and values. A bit like “what would Jesus do?” Jesus being this entity we have idealised to represent all that is good.

    I saw this with left wing socialists from early on. Some of them were Russophiles – the had an ideal picture of the USSR and attributed all the things they imagined for their own vision of socialism to the existing socialism in the USSR – against all facts.

    Then the NZ Communist Party became Maoist and Sinophiles. China embodied the new ideal socialism.

    Then a falling out and it became Albania.

    Some splinter groups went for Cuba or one of the central American revolutionary states.

    Similarly some people must have a receptacle for all they consider evil – whether it exists or not.

    I find Christian apologists, other religious extremists and even some people who call themselves atheists do this with Dawkins. They love to hate him so they use him as the receptacle for all the evil things they hate.

    In a sense “Dawkins” is God. He doesn’t exist so we have had to invent him.

    So they imagine an evil called scientism – “Dawkins” represents scientism.

    You imagine an evil called “science of the gaps” so “Dawkins” represents that you.

    But this “Dawkins” doesn’t exist. It is a fiction of your imagination.

    The fact is of course that the real Dawkins has often indicated that there may well be things we never know or understand (I think he includes the detailed mechanism for the origin of life on earth in that, as well as the detailed mechanism of the origin of our universe).

    But he does usually add – if humanity can’t discover these mechanisms via evidence, investigation and reason they are certainly not going to find them through religion.

    But that doesn’t worry you. Just attribute anything you want to a fictional “Dawkins.” In your apologetics ghetto no one questions such silliness.

    They all love to hate him.

  • “Max – you finally admitted it! You have never heard a scientist make such claims so you invented it. “Many” became “some” became “some you had spoken to” became Dawkins.”

    No Ken – I merely suggested that you could find an example of this very thing in your own hero and mentor. This does not preclude that it also occurs in other people. Your grasp of logic is appalling if you really think your conclusion follows!

    As for the rest of your imaginary rant… don’t you think it incredibly ironic that rather than actually reading and trying to understand what I said you have invented an imaginary Max Whitaker which you can then hold up as an example of all that is stupid and evil about “Apologists.” Does this make me your god, Ken?

  • Alex – don’t flatter yourself. Alexism will never catch on!

  • Bloody hell, I need a holiday!

  • […] confronted these sort of arguments recently in a discussion with some religious apologists (see Science and Religion: Theism and Explanatory Idleness). They were criticising scientific arrogance. Claiming that many scientists had a “science of […]

  • An interesting site on Al Quran and Science

    http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/index.php

    Why Scientists convert to Islam

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IspK651RpY

  • Answering Islam on the relationship between the Qur’an and science.

  • Ken wrote I am currently reading Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk, by Massimo Pigliucci . He makes the point that whenever the word scientism comes up you can be sure its being used as a term of abuse (ironically because he tends to use it, inappropriately I think, a bit himself). For me the word is a flag for strawmannery – because it is hardly ever used appropriately.

    I see, so the criticisms of Alvin Plantinga by Jerry Fodor where he uses the term scientism positively and defends it do not exist. Similarly the discussions of this term in the literature where it is defined do not exist either.

  • Matt – strange that you are responding to a comment I made in April! – Almost 4 months old.

    I wish you had bothered to respond to several of my recent comments which were far more substantial and relevant..

    The fact remains that the word “scientism” is often used inappropriately, even, as I said, by philosophers of science like Pigluicci – who I admire and respect and who I think usually (but not always) gets it right.

    And, of course you probably didn’t notice because of your knee problem, the comment was actually referring to Pigluicci’s remark on the way the word is (mis)used.

    Yes, I do think that people on this blog, including you, Glenn and others, have used the word inappropriately.

    It’s always best, I find, to avoid such words and describe the activity you are referring to. It avoids stramannery – or at least enables one to deal with the real issues.

    It also helps avoid falling into the trap of demonising.

  • Ken, I came across it doing some research and thats why I made a quick note.

    In see however, you read one Philosopher decided you agree with him and made a false claim, and denigrated others on the basis of that claim.

    I provided evidence to the contrary in my post.

  • Didn’t see any evidence, Matt. As I said these things a best discussed specifically. Stay away from words which mean different things to different people. Especially when they are used to negate an argument that isn’t even considered.

    I did make some more important comments (Jul 25, 2010 at 1:53 pm, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:26 pm and Jul 18, 2010 at 3:42 pm)

  • I will just pick one point otherwise there are too many to discuss. Morality? A word is a word. A sentence is a sentence. Even if you say “sun rising” it does not mean that sun really rises. In the same way, even if you talk about morality, it does not mean there really is something called “morality” in us. We only named on a part of our brain activity. Christians often make this kind of silly non-logical claims, and think they are superior however, actually it is the other way around.