I have noticed that in many online debates I’ve participated in, particularly with believers, there is a general lack of understanding of, and hostility towards, the scientific method. Whenever I advance a scientific argument for a point I’m trying to make, I am told things like:
-
Scientists always contradict each other
-
Scientists always disagree with one other
-
There is a conspiracy within the scientific establishment to ‘hide the truth’
-
Science is just another religion
…and from this they conclude that Science can’t be relied upon to support my case, and my argument gets rejected. (This is usually the case when I am debating the subject of evolution by natural selection with believers.)
In this post, I’d like to explain WHAT science is, HOW the scientific method works, how scientific research is done, and how a consensus is reached. Thereafter, those doubtful of the validity of science might hopefully be able to understand why science, while not perfect, is considered the most reliable method of inquiry available to mankind.
They might then also be able to better appreciate the importance of taking seriously the scientific consensus on various issues, and why they should be wary of dissenters from the consensus who choose to take their fights to the media and the general public – rather than relying on the established, tried and tested, peer review method to validate their claims.
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
Encyclopaedia Britannica defines science as, “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation.”
The reason why science as a form of inquiry trumps all others is because it recognizes the human propensity for bias and error, and methodologically seeks to minimize the possibility of those factors influencing the outcomes of experiments.
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method, by extension, is the “the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses”. It normally includes the following elements:
-
Define the question
-
Gather information and resources (observe)
-
Form hypothesis
-
Perform experiment and collect data
-
Analyze data
-
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
-
Publish results
-
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
Let’s see how this works in practice:
Say, a scientist, Dr. X, who has been gathering information over a period of time, believes he has stumbled upon a scientific breakthrough. He has made certain observations and has formed a hypothesis out of it. To have his hypothesis accepted by the scientific community, and thereafter gain public acceptance, Dr. X must first write a paper, outlining all the details of his hypothesis, plus detailed descriptions of what experiments he carried out to test and confirm his hypothesis. This description of the experiment should include the protocol [i.e. detailed specifics of how the experiment was conducted].
The purpose of including the protocol is to allow other scientists to independently attempt to replicate your experiment, to check if the conclusions you state in your research paper are in fact warranted by the experiment you carried out. Looking at the protocol will also allow other scientists to comment on whether the controls applied were sufficient to rule out any ‘noise’ or other factors that could influence the outcome of the given experiment.
It is after such a paper has been submitted for publication in a PEER REVIEWED scientific journal and scientists in his field have had a chance to scrutinize and assess its details, study the protocols, that Dr. X’s hypothesis is accepted as valid, and the paper published.
Once a significant majority of scientists in his particular field have either successfully conducted the same experiments, and/or studied the published paper and found the protocols to be sound – then a scientific consensus is achieved.
PEER REVIEW
It is important to point out that the peer review process borders upon being cruel, in the sense that is extremely rigorous, and merciless. Hundreds, if not thousands, of research papers are reviewed by professionals in a given field and many, many ideas end up getting rejected. The highly respected Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, reject well over 90% papers submitted for publication.
Many scientists, whose ideas have been rejected through the peer review process usually go back to the drawing board and try to develop better experiments, with tighter controls in response to the criticism they’ve received. Sometimes their ideas are later able to pass critical scrutiny of their peers, thereafter gaining acceptance, and other times they have to abandon that idea all together for failing to sufficiently demonstrate its validity. In short, one has to be thick skinned if they want to be professional scientists.
The peer review process is the back-bone of science’s self-correcting quality. Other fields of study and academic disciplines also now use the peer review method to ensure as much accuracy as is possible and to weed out bad ideas.
DISSENT
If a scientist wishes to challenge an existing accepted scientific theory (or consensus view), he too, is required to publish his paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal (pertinent to the subject matter), and state his case, with evidence. There is no other way. The merits of its arguments will be critically studied to see if they are valid. If they ARE valid, then that new discovery gets incorporated into our existing body of scientific knowledge – and if they are not, they’ll be tossed out the window.
The problem with many (not all) dissenters from the scientific consensus on a particular is issue is that they don’t want to do the hard work required to develop an air-tight case that can withstand scientific scrutiny, and have those ideas subjected to the peer-review process. Instead, what they do is take their case DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC – by publishing books for the mass market, staging news conferences, appearing on radio and TV talk-shows, publishing in websites, blogs and magazines. They sell their ideas to the lay-person, who is not qualified to critically analyze the ideas that are being sold to them. This strategy is typical for most promoters of pseudo-science (e.g. Intelligent Design and Parapsychology), pseudo-history (e.g. Afrocentrism) and medical quackery (e.g Acupuncture), whose ideas usually resonate well with an ill-informed, gullible public.
Examples of quack science being disseminated via popular-level books
Indeed, many books (like those above), press and internet articles, and blogs have been written to challenge the consensus view on evolution, anthropogenic global warming, HIV-AIDS, sexual orientation and a host of other issues for which there is a scientific consensus – from a seemingly scientific basis, by dissenters.
As it stands, books and articles are not where the real battles are supposed to be fought in scientific academia. Those battles are fought through the PEER REVIEW process, and it is only after a scientific idea has undergone this rigorous process, and found acceptance by the majority of scientists in the relevant fields, that it should be disseminated to the public as an accepted scientific fact.
Dr. Kevin Padian, Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and Curator of Paleontology, University of California, discussing the importance of peer review.
POLITICISATION OF SCIENCE
Unfortunately, in the recent decades, science has been highly politicised, with people in support of fringe views opting to go straight to the media rather than do better research in order to prove their ideas to their scientific colleagues through the tried and tested peer review process. They, after all, are after winning the hearts and minds of the general public (for ideological/political reasons), and not that concerned with actually doing good science. Of course, the media is equally guilty for playing into their hands and intentionally creating confusion, by always looking for fringe views so that they can generate controversy – hoping to attract more readers/listeners/viewers by doing so.
Many people have taken great pleasure in pointing to dissenting views, and minor controversies appearing in the news – and using these to undermine the scientific enterprise as a whole and making doing science seem akin to mere speculation, yet it is clearly not the case. It just so happens that news outlets tend to give undue prominence to fringe views in an attempt to create controversy just so that they have a ‘story’. The fringe scientists, once given a media platform, then make exaggerated claims about ‘disagreements’ within the scientific community, with the sole intention of sowing seeds of mistrust of the wider scientific establishment by the general public.
The best way to know when an invalid, fringe position (in any discipline) is being represented is if its proponents appear on mainstream media crying “foul”. Other notable catch-phrases of quackery are claims of “scientific orthodoxy”, “scientific dogma” or the phrase “science is their religion”. Good scientists NEVER stoop to such low levels and utter such nonsense. They instead go back to the lab and quietly try to build a rock-solid case to prove the validity of their ideas, if they desire to have their ideas accepted by the scientific community. Any attempts by them to slander the scientific community, attack the peer review process, or undermine the scientific method should set off alarm bells in your mind. Such attempts are symptoms of quackery.
CONCLUSION
Over the last 500 years the scientific method has demonstrated itself to be the MOST EFFECTIVE and MOST RELIABLE tool of inquiry at the disposal of human beings. It is the scientific method of inquiry that has made it possible to save millions of lives through advances in medicine and improved methods of practicing agriculture (leading to larger crop yields, thus feeding more people)…
Science has given us cars, planes, ships, refrigerators, televisions, radios, telephones, mobile phones, computers, internet, tables, chairs, clothes… and an uncountable number of innovations which today we take for granted, but actually cannot imagine being without…
Science has shown us what is taking place in the microscopic world, and continues to amazes us with a greater understanding of the macroscopic world as well. We’ve put men on the moon, and have been probing and photographing the planets and moons of the solar system for decades. We have seen hitherto unknown parts of the universe, thanks to the Hubble space telescope, and recently the Large Hadron Collider was commissioned in Europe, which seeks to recreate the conditions that were most likely prevalent during the early stages of the universe to give us a better understanding of the origins of the universe…
Artificial DNA has been synthesized, and so have self replicating RNA enzymes – indicating that it may only be a matter of time before we unlock the mystery as to specifically how life was formed on this planet…
Indeed, many questions remain and this is where scientists see opportunities for further discovery. They don’t throw their hands in the air and say “oh, this is too impossible to comprehend – it must be the gods!” No, they keep investigating. Many phenomena for which the supernatural was invoked as an explanation have been shown to have natural explanations that explained them, better and more thoroughly – because people kept investigating. Volcanoes, floods, sickness, thunder, droughts..etc..which used to be thought of as deeds of the gods are now explained by science. Yes, there are many more as yet unanswered questions, and that is where scientists are hard at work.
No other method of enquiry possesses anywhere near the same degree of thoroughness, reliability, and efficiency in helping us better understand this universe that we live in, as science does.
Let’s make the most of it!
Freethought Kampala 
50 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 17, 2010 at 4:41 pm
phillip
Excellent read!
wow… you could pass for my professor (more interesting i add!)
i liked this part…..
‘Indeed, many questions remain and this is where scientists see opportunities for further discovery. They don’t throw their hands in the air and say “oh, this is too impossible to comprehend – it must be the gods!”No, they keep investigating.’
way to go James!
March 17, 2010 at 5:18 pm
James Onen
Wow, I feel honoured to have a molecular biologist appreciate this article! Thanks for the comment, Phil.
March 17, 2010 at 7:32 pm
wesley
Science already exists! Our job is to discovering more about it! Thats why we use terms like breakthrough, discovery, Practice, etc…
We can apply science only up to the level of the latest discovery…
But this is a article.. I agree with most of the stuff here.
March 20, 2010 at 11:27 pm
The 27th Comrade
Hi, Fat Boy. I had come here to plug my latest post, because it is going to be the last direct polemic I write against you, I guess. The things I’ve written of late have exposed me to enough attacks. For example, I even go out on a limb and defend Intelligent Design theory (though I do have my problems with their approach). If you think it is worth wasting time on, my blog has some defences of belief in God. Go and discipline this ignorant superstitious guy. I figured I now have enough stuff to be replying to your second post. (Heh, that’s how slow I be.)
The latest post is here, and it seems a bit on point for this post. Consider this an invitation to start sniping at me. 😀 You too, Phillip.
My own opinion is that science can be trusted. However, the reasons we can trust science (such as “reproducibility”, and “rigour” and the like) cannot come from science: instead, they are presumed before we can carry out science. If they are good, then, if science is good, then we have proof that there are good things that are unchangeably external to science. (Science is one such thing.)
One other such thing, outside of science but valid, is belief in God. But I guess that the atheist believes in scientism, on top of science. I deal with that in the post I linked. That you believe in scientism is why you think that just because science works, then atheism works. Indeed, the opposite is true: if science works, it is because we have a Law-Giver, God.
March 21, 2010 at 10:57 am
James Onen
@ Comrade
Thanks for linking to your blog response.
In this post I was arguing for the reliability of science, and not the non-existence of gods. I am therefore happy we generally agree on what I was actually writing about.
March 21, 2010 at 12:22 pm
The 27th Comrade
Well, since the usual New Atheist schtick is to say “science … therefore, atheism,” I wanted to alert you on the outset that if science is reliable, then atheism is wrong.
I think we agree on that.
March 21, 2010 at 4:18 pm
James Onen
Wrong. I don’t agree on that. If science is reliable, we can safely say that currently there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of any gods – especially gods to whom attribution is made for purportedly answered prayers and purported miracle healing (i.e. Christian god.)
March 20, 2010 at 11:39 pm
The 27th Comrade
Pardon this second comment. I’ve just seen the two links on lab creation of cell biochemistry, and I had to pause and think.
Hmm. Did you say this was a refutation of intelligent design? Do you really not see the oxymoron in that? “We have taken the most-intelligent people in the lab to do a task that was well beyond other intelligent people. We have thereby proven that life was not developed intelligently.”
Sometimes people are so blinded by confirmation biases that it cannot be funny at all unless you are an immoral sadist who laughs at people’s disabilities and other similar misfortunes.
Fat Boy, do honestly not realise that you are re-inforcing the case for intelligent design? Or did I completely miss the point? (In which case I am sorry, of course.)
March 21, 2010 at 11:09 am
James Onen
Err..I completely don’t understand what you are getting at here. It doesn’t seem at all like you’re responding to anything I wrote in this post.
You’ve lost me.
March 21, 2010 at 12:32 pm
The 27th Comrade
I’m responding to the entire post, basing on the two links you gave me.
First, as I’d naturally expect of an atheist, you take Intelligent Design to the back and club it over the head for being “pseudo-science”. (Let’s ignore for now that, if Intelligent Design is pseudo-science, then things like Forensics are also pseudo-science. For the modern definition of science, I agree for both things. I think I, more than anybody I know, will insist strongly that Intelligent Design theory cannot be part of modern science.)
Now, if Intelligent Design is pseudo-science, how can you link to two complex, intelligent cases where people mimick some of the cell biochemistry and then hit a limit, and then praise that as how science is done? If appealing to Intelligent Design is a fallacy, why is intelligent design of cell biochemistry not a fallacy?
Essentially, such experiments as the one you linked to are some non-trivial support that Intelligent Design is legitimate. After all, the only thing them scientists do is intelligent design (of cells, no less).
So, I’ll ask you a question, sir: based on the current, modern research in cell biochemistry, such as the two papers you linked to, do you think Intelligent Design is a superfluous hypothesis when talking about the origin of the first cell biochemistry?
March 21, 2010 at 5:08 pm
James Onen
I do not reject Intelligent Design or consider it psuedo-science just because I am an atheist. After all, a space alien could be the designer in question (proponents of Intelligent Design even grant this possibility, by the way). I reject it, and consider it pseudo-science because, as far I know, the hypothesis is not testable, and neither can it make testable predictions.
You asked about forensic science. According to one source, forensic science is defined as: “The recognition, collection, identification, individualization, and interpretation of physical evidence, and the application of science and medicine for criminal and civil law, or regulatory purposes. ” I am not sure whether in and of itself it is considered to be its own academic scientific discipline. There seems to be is alot of discussion out there on this question, and much skepticism from the scientific community.
To answer the last question you asked, about whether I think ‘Intelligent Design is a superfluous hypothesis when talking about the origin of the first cell biochemistry’ I would say yes, I think it is superfluous. There seems to be no reason to suggest intervention by a sentient agent to account for the processes in question. But I’m not a biologist, so if you really want an answer I’ll have to suggest you seek information from those that are doing actual research in the field pertinent to your question. Perhaps Phillip should jump in on this one – he’s a molecular biologist, so he would know more than both of us on this topic. Phil?
For a summary of scientific views on the subject of cells, maybe you can check out CELLUPEDIA. Seems like a good starting point, because they’ve got bibliographies linking to various studies cited.
March 21, 2010 at 10:07 pm
The 27th Comrade
Why is this the case? Do educate me. 😀
March 21, 2010 at 10:29 pm
The 27th Comrade
I know that some atheists are pro-ID. But there is a positive co-relation between anti-ID attitude and atheism. If you assume that the intelligence responsible for biology is extra-terrertial, fine. But ultimately, that intelligent design (of the extra-terrestial) would have to have been designed by an entity many people, such as myself, call God. That is unpalatable for atheists. Indeed, the extra-terrestial can be what they call God. After all, Raelians are atheists … and pro-ID. 😀
If I maintain that the pyramids were built by intelligence, is that a testable hypothesis? If I maintain that Midsummer Night’s Dream was written by a professional playwright, is that a testable hypothesis? If I maintain that the frescoes of the St. Peter’s Basillica are by a talented artist, is that a testable hypothesis? If I maintain that the culprit we will find for the murdered, dismembered child is going to be a theist[1], rather than a pack of dogs, is that a testable hypothesis? If it isn’t, and testable hypotheses are what it takes to not be pseudo-science, then that scoop of Intelligent Design theory above is indeed pseudo-science.
Forensic science can look at a murder scene and say that it didn’t come about unless someone had wanted to kill. This is inferring the murderous design of the situation. It is Intelligent Design theory in practice. Still, it could be useful (like religion) without being science. I think it is not (modern) science at all, and cannot be. Just like ID theory.
Even as sentient agents are the only ones science knows of that have copied part of what happens in the cell, and getting linked from here with high plaudits? Do you even believe what you are writing? Or are the biases that formidable?
James, my dear friend, you linked to them. Their answer is in your post, sir.
I’ve seen the link to cellupedia. I remember having to study such things and, interestingly, there were no subjunctives when we asked if life was formed that way. There were subjunctives, however, when we asked how it was formed. You will note that I have no “perhaps” when talking about whether intelligence is needed to make the cell, as per current biochemistry research. The reason is partially what you linked to.
As my friend likes to say: “For every cell that dies along with the dead whale, the excuses we make unaided abiogenesis become increasingly comical to me.”
[1] Had to humor you. After all, everybody knows that theists are absurd baby-sacrificing goons! 😀
March 22, 2010 at 11:18 am
James Onen
You’ve said a lot here and I guess all you’re basically trying to argue here is that god made the first cell because you can think of no other way. Ha ha..the standard argument from ignorance. I don’t know how it happened, therefore..Goddidit! 😀
Don’t jump to such conclusions yet. What if one day scientists are able to synthesize a cell by recreating the conditions that could have allowed cells to form naturally? You never know, it could very well be within our lifetimes that this comes to pass. The way things are going, I’m inclined to think this will be the case.
There are several plausible scenarios on offer that are worth looking into. No need to stick god into that current gap in our knowledge. Be patient.
March 22, 2010 at 11:33 am
The 27th Comrade
Did you answer my questions? Or did you, characteristically, dodge them?
Did you understand them before replying? I am not saying that God made the first cell. I am saying that the only thing science supports right now (especially as linked to from this your post!) is that intelligence caused the first cell. Why is this so difficult for you to deal with? Go where the evidence leads, or you are paying lip service to science.
I know I am probably asking for too much of you. Overcoming the Clever Advocate Trap is non-trivial.
Sherlock Holmes would (not) be amused. Forensics is argument from ignorance, if that is also argument from ignorance.
My comment (if you read it, if you understood it, or both) is that I know what happened (in the lab) and intelligencedidit!
Don’t jump to conclusions yet. In particular, don’t jump to what science is falsifying, dear James. Don’t spit into the wind.
When intelligence is required in abiogenesis, don’t jump to conclusions. When intelligence is demonstrated as not required, jump to conclusions.
Very, very logical and rational and scientific! 😀
Make peace with reality, my dear friend.
March 22, 2010 at 11:38 am
phillip
‘What if one day scientists are able to synthesize a cell by recreating the conditions that could have allowed cells to form naturally?’ JAMES said.
well what a powerful statement, i suppose the first step would be to create a cell in a lab…. then recreate conditions naturally that would allow such an event to occur. thus illustrating life can arise from seemingly innate raw materials… (not so oxymoronic now is it?).
but i suppose it’s easier when lacking an answer to claim that god did it…. as opposed to actively looking for an answer?
….well am kinda happy the world doesn’t work that way anymore… otherwise we’d still think the world is flat.
March 22, 2010 at 12:46 pm
The 27th Comrade
Goddidit is a legitimate answer, if (for example) OJSimpsondidit is also a legitimate answer.
If you have a bias against God being an answer, fine. Just don’t go around pretending you don’t have faith of some sort. Or heavy cognitive biases. After all, goddidnotdoit is a legitimate answer.
“Head I win, Tails you lose.”
That the World is flat (where I take it that “World” refers to “the planet Earth”) is flat was not a theistic argument. Also, if by “world” you mean the area of the planet known to an individual, the answer varies. If you know as much as modern astronomy renders, then you think of the planet as the world, and “flat” is wrong. If the world is the East African plains to you, saying it is “round” would be foolish and unscientific. And wrong.
What was your point, again?
March 22, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Hassan
27th Comrade, no doubt you’re a Ugandan! I won’t be surprised if you use that childish trick you’re using to respond to James and Phil. It’s called mimicking and it’s quite annoying, that’s why teenagers on MTV use it in the dissing competition (‘Yo mama’) to irritate and distract their opponents. Personally, i have read and reread your comments but i’ve failed to comprehend your argument except that you’re simply interested in disagreeing and you’re also obviously enjoying the replies. May i ask though, what kind of critic are you? cos i’m confused, you jump at any slight mistake; you use every single weakness of one’s utterance to your advantage. That’s pathetic cos it makes this a competition rather than a rational argument/debate that it is intended to be. I really want to take you seriously but it seems you’re deliberately trying to play ‘Mr. Know-It-All’ to frustrate James and Phil by being incoherent and trivial. You must be a big fan of the NRA guerilla war to call yourself or even be “The 27th Comrade”; but this isn’t a political debate for you to apply such political tricks, Comrade! Sorry i can’t counter your criticism of James’ article cos i honestly don’t understand your argument and if that makes you heads and me tails; go on n b big-headed and i proudly remain a tail! Thank you, Comrade.
March 22, 2010 at 5:24 pm
phillip
he he… play on words…. am getting the hang of it!
OJ Simpson did it, well if he did then you would need to have evidence to that effect… if not then that is just speculation. to say I DON’T KNOW is something thiests can learn from atheists i think… (as opposed to feigning some imaginary being to blame for every single thing they do not understand).
you said…..”If you know as much as modern astronomy renders, then you think of the planet as the world, and “flat” is wrong. If the world is the East African plains to you, saying it is “round” would be foolish and unscientific. And wrong.”
wow, all that paragraph was just capitalizing on the word ‘world’…. well here are some synonyms…. Globe, earth, planet earth, mother earth… etc… your understanding of the word does not change the truth! what it is called or perceived hardly robs from the fact that it’s still spherically shaped and revolves around the sun…(ignorance is hardly a defence for anything in the ‘world’ these days…lol)
but to humor u… right from your argument one can see that the authors of the bible had a terrestrial view….!!! (i.e were seeing things from down here… here being planet earth). isn’t the bible god inspired? u’d think he would have a bigger panoramic view… (foolish and unscientific indeed).
actually if u take time to read up on the history of Galileo Galilee you will find that was the theist stand point (roman catholic) up until 1992 when pope John Paul issued a formal apology. my point is simple, theists tend not to accept scientific facts easily….which wouldn’t be a bad thing but to question facts on basis of faith is just rather strange.
i prefer to question science with science…. fact, logic and reasoning.
March 22, 2010 at 7:50 pm
wesley
Hassan, A debate is a competition actually… can you handle competition?
March 23, 2010 at 10:10 am
phillip
f you read any antiscience screeds, at some point or another most will claim that science is based on faith just as much as religion is. For example, the horrific Answers in Genesis website has this to say about science:
Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of our divergence with Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).
This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.
The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That’s it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.
A simple example: we see objects going around the Sun. The motion appears to follow some rules: the orbits are conic sections (ellipses, circles, parabolas, hyperbolas), the objects move faster when they are closer to the Sun, if they move too quickly they can escape forever, and so on.
From these observations we can apply mathematical equations to describe those motions, and then use that math to predict where a given object will be at some future date. Guess what? It works. It works so well that we can shoot probes at objects billions of kilometers away and still nail the target to phenomenal accuracy. This supports our conclusion that the math is correct. This in turn strongly implies that the Universe is following its own rules, and that we can figure them out.
Now, of course that is a very simple example, and is not meant to be complete, but it gives you an idea of how this works. Now think on this: the computer you are reading this on is entirely due to science. The circuits are the end result of decades, centuries of exploration in how electricity works and how quantum particles behave. The monitor is a triumph of scientific engineering, whether it’s a CRT or an LCD flat panel. The mouse might use an LED, or a simple ball-and-wheel. The keyboard uses springs, the wireless uses radio technology, the speakers use electromagnetism.*
Look around. Cars, airplanes, buildings. iPods, books, clothing. Agriculture, plumbing, waste disposal. Light bulbs, vacuum cleaners, ovens. These are all the products of scientific research. If your TV breaks, you can pray that it’ll spontaneously start working again, but my money would be on someone who has learned how to actually fix it based on scientific and engineering principles.
All the knowledge we have accumulated over the millennia comes together in a harmonious symphony of science. We’re not guessing here: this stuff was designed using previous knowledge developed in a scientific manner over centuries. And it works. All of this goes to support our underlying assumption that the Universe obeys rules that we can deduce.
Are there holes in this knowledge? Of course. Science doesn’t have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.
Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It’s a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it’s always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn’t work, we’d see it. Our computers wouldn’t work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn’t get off the ground, our electronics wouldn’t work, our medicine wouldn’t work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.
And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.
To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.
March 23, 2010 at 10:27 am
phillip
Science is a faith is a statement that reflects a straw man argument propagated by apologists to attempt to discredit “belief” in science as being no more logically sound than believing in a religion. However, this represents a categorical misunderstanding of science,… which is explicitly based on logic, with ideas developed through demonstrable, repeatable experiments or studies. Religion, on the other hand, is based solely on, as inherent to the argument, faith.
Development of Scientific “Beliefs”
Most respected scientific papers, a key step for introducing new concepts into widespread belief, are peer-reviewed, in that other scientists in the relevant field are able to judge the experiment or study detailed in the paper for soundness of both experimental design and conclusions reached. Additionally, the process described should, when replicated, produce results that support the same conclusion — scientists continually replicate and often refine experiments in order to test the validity of claims and refine theories.
Claims that scientists make, therefore, are supported by developed systems of logic and reason. Anyone with the resources to replicate an experiment or the intellectual capacity to criticize conclusions is free to do so, leading to a continual development of more complex scientific concepts through more nuanced understanding of our world.
In fact, the reliable functionality of so many of our modern technological conveniences rely heavily on the replicability of science. For example, modern telecommunications technology, which use the exchange of “packets” of encoded information over a myriad of mediums, from wireless technology to fiber optics, is able to, with incredible accuracy, relay complex information in a way that can be decoded by the recipient.
While there is always the possibility of error due to unforeseen or unaccountable occurrences, the integrity of the data is far more often than not preserved and not due to “faith” in the functioning of the electronics, but rather to the collaboration and continued efforts of not only scientists, but also business men and maintenance workers, who all work together to maintain to the standards of the technological model.
Religious Beliefs
Religious beliefs, however, are supported most often solely by faith alone. The Christian evangelical who promises the potential convert a paradise after death has no means to demonstrate their claims any more than the mere existence of God. Relying on outdated “sacred” texts and dogma, their beliefs have no basis for logical understanding and rely simply on accepting these works as factual, without any logically sound basis for this belief.
March 23, 2010 at 10:32 am
The 27th Comrade
Guys, allow me a general reply here.
@Hassan:
What kind of critic? Well, I’m one who is frustrated that people do not know that not logical structure can be both complete and consistent. This is logic 101. And many people here are pointing to the components of science, as though they stand in isolation to logic.
My handle, “The 27th Comrade” has many meanings. NRM is a recent realisation, but a poetic one as well.
Also, I’m not arguing politics.
@Phillip: On the authors of the Bible having a terrestial view … well, did you expect them to have a microscopic view? The Bible is not a science text book. The third-latest blog post on my blog deals with that.
I gave you and answer to this Galileo Galilei stuff, but I think it was deleted by James. I do not see it anywhere. I still have it, but it is in the context of another comment. I don’t know if I can post it again. I’ll see.
How do you get to think that what I’m saying is anti-science? See the second-latest post on my blog.
Another corollary to seeing a universe that has laws is this: there is a Law-Giver.
Phillip, are you teaching me what science is? 😀 You say “Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence.” Yes. Because, to get science, we had to use science. Very logical.
March 23, 2010 at 10:59 am
phillip
In science and mathematics, axioms are relatively simple ‘truths’, from which more complex theorems are constructed. For a theistic religion, the god ‘axiom’ is the most complex thing imaginable. Any ‘theories’ derived from it must by definition be less complex, which is in direct opposition to science. Once you believe in the most complex thing imaginable, everything else is a given – no further thought is necessary.
With regards to the argument that we cannot prove that the universe applies its rules consistently throughout time and space, while it may be a philosophical problem, it certainly doesn’t put science at a disadvantage to religion. If science notices something wrong then, eventually, the axioms will be questioned. Religion seldom (ever?) does this.
For example, in the case of a calamitous natural disaster, some theists will add a “wrath” theory, while others will add the “moves in mysterious ways” theory to patch the cracks (of course I’m not suggesting that scientists are perfect in this respect, but science allows and actually demands that the basic tenets are subject to review) .
March 23, 2010 at 11:44 am
Quitstorm
Since Comrade27 can pray and have answers,let him pray to whoever he believes to tell all the reader’s my phone numbers,by the way i have 7 numbers,so to make sure that your prayer worked,you need to list down all my numbers,otherwise i will guess that someone gave it to you
On Scentism * Am atheist.I dob;t believe in “scientism” and i don’t know what that term mean but I do respect scientific research and honer it than religions or dogma.
As an atheist,personally i have human rights of all people,justice,peace,freedom of choice,rule of law, logic,reason and critical observance as my guidelines to better living. That’s all,i don’t like to live for eternity,because its not even there. So no reason to worship or pray.
Comrade27 is disturbed by fear of death,so his desire to live forever creates god or gods in him.
I don’t fear death.
March 23, 2010 at 5:48 pm
David K
Amazing article. ’nuff said…
March 24, 2010 at 7:42 am
phillip
the bible is god inspired or does that no longer hold? 😉 ….ur god is supposed to be the all seeing eye, after all he shaped the heavens and the earth (u’d think he’d remember the shapes and tell his people about it! *bazinga* )
so yes, i’d think they’d have a global view as told to them by god (he did tell them about the promised land which they had not seen, or maybe he wanted them to use their brains… who knows?). and ur right its not a science text book, its more of fictional fantasy…. (u know, leviathans, talking donkeys, man-not eating whales… the list is endless).
well maybe i keep misunderstanding you (am not as smart as you are), but scientism is based on a belief in natural science so to question scientism would mean to attack science at it’s core….???!!?? (which your posts have pretty much been doing. changing goal posts are we???) 😉
well unlike you… am still open to learning. hence why am taking time to read and understand what you are saying. i reiterate science is based on evidence on observation followed by logic reason and deductive reasoning and not on FAITH.
but from ur silly argument about using science to get science, according to such a narrow minded perception that would mean you need logic to get logic (circular reasoning). in which case why bother making logic based arguments… isn’t that self contradiction?!??!!??? 😉
March 25, 2010 at 1:36 pm
The 27th Comrade
No, it is not a contradiction to me, or circular reasoning, because my logic is not born of logic. It is born of faith. I rely on logic (a very powerful tool) but I arrived at it by faith.
The reason science is not an exercise in circular reasoning is because it is not born of itself (as you people who believe in scientism seem to think very foolishly), but because it is born of faith.
Things arrived at by faith can be reliable, of course, and science is Exhibit A.
You, on the other hand, do not believe in anything you have not arrived at by logic. So, (why) do you believe in logic?
I am glad you see the circular reasoning. Infinite regress doesn’t happen, because there is faith to be at the start of the causal chain.
I will deal with all this in depth in an up-coming series of blog posts on my personal blog.
March 26, 2010 at 8:56 am
phillip
you said….. No, it is not a contradiction to me, or circular reasoning, because my logic is not born of logic. It is born of faith. I rely on logic (a very powerful tool) but I arrived at it by faith.
science is based on axioms which are actually observations…. things that are self evident… not faith! (ur perception of the issue is personal and rather convoluted…)
THAT IS CIRCULAR REASONING!!!!! …this is a fallacy using a stolen concept! you are still using logic but now basing it on a lie! 🙂 say hi to ur sky-daddy for me…
March 30, 2010 at 6:04 am
James Onen
Phillip is right.
The same applies to the laws of logic. The most fundamental law of logic is the law of identity, which also has its basis in the axiom of existence. The axiom of existence is a perceptually self-evident fact.
‘God’ is not a perceptually self-evident fact. It is merely a made-up invisible magic being which is accessible to the human mind exclusively by means of imagination. 😀 Therefore it fails to qualify as an axiom upon which to ground logic, or anything else.
Theism, using presuppositionalist logic, refutes itself.
March 30, 2010 at 10:28 am
The 27th Comrade
Hi, James.
After you got the point I was trying to make (perhaps in the comments of some other post), I let your friends be, assuming that they will learn from you. But alas … This, by the way, is not difficult to understand, so you all do not see it because of a cognitive bias, not because it is unintuitive.
You said Phillip is right. This is what Phillip said:
You said that is right? So, is self-evidence an axiom in logic? Did we prove that self-evidence holds? Did we prove that proving (say, proving that self-evidence holds) is reliable and in fact logical? If you hold self-evidence to be valid, you do so strictly by faith.
Meanwhile, you positivists, by saying all things must be arrived at logically, you deny self-evidence. Did you even know that?
Lastly, God is self-evident. I have covered this in a number of posts on my blog. You can go to the archives and start with the one called Inventing a Contradiction, and the one that follows it (and summarises it) called Previous Post, Tersely. They are replies to your claim (once blogged on here and vigourously debated in the comments) that we invented God.
God is not an invention of man, and is self-evident.
(If you can see that there is an equivalence between the Kuratowski-Zorn lemma and the ontological arguments for God’s existence, you are about to see why God is a fundamental axiom: the Kuratowski-Zorn lemma is equivalent to the axiom of choice in the ZFC set theory upon which is built mathematics.)
Now, a short lesson for you. There can be no such thing as “the most-fundemental law of logic”. You cannot have any law without the law of the excluded middle, and you cannot have that law without the law of non-contradiction, and you cannot use either of those without the modi ponens et tollens.
So stop this positivist segregation amongst the laws of logic. It may be a common naive expectation, but it is wrong.
Nice try.
Dear James, there can be no contradiction between two truths. This is why your atheism runs into self-refutation whenever it uses logic and science – the latter two are true.
Now theism, on the other hand, holds that (a) unless God exists, we cannot have logic (since logic requires that we have faith, say faith that truth doesn’t change, that man is capable of arriving at truth, as intended by He who upholds truth and gives it the eternal attributes we know it to have, and also He who is the furnisher of faith, and since we are in God’s image and capable of arriving at at least some truths, etc), and also that (b) logic is rooted in faith, such that the entire enterprise of logic is wholly unsustainable without faith, and is therefore incompatible with atheism, and hence why it is born of theism. I deal with this in a post called The Things That are Made II on my blog. You could also look up some atheists who, unlike your band here, can think to the implications of atheism, even this nihilism of not having logic. I can recommend Prof. Alex Rosenburg’s Disenchanted Naturalist’s Guide to Reality.
Since you seem stuck on this idea that scientism somehow survives, watch my blog for an up-coming series on logical structures (like science and logic itself, and mathematics) and their completeness and consistency.
In the meantime, do understand that scientism refutes itself. It can’t be helped. Deal with it positively. You are not the first to meet this reality. At the very least, you will have the example of the Vienna Circle.
March 30, 2010 at 6:03 pm
James Onen
Hi Comrade
Boy are you persistent.
Actually, all of us have realized the emptiness of presuppositionalism and are challenging it directly, much to your chagrin, evidently:-D .
What is your problem, Comrade? Self-evidence is the description of a proposition, where that proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. An axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths. No one here has claimed that axioms need to be proven, or that ‘self-evidence’ is an axiom. Jeez..
Lol. First of all, I wonder why on earth you call me a positivist. I do accept that axioms exist, therefore I do not deny self-evidence (I think you’re reading way too much Bahnsen). My view is that as far as I know, humans can only perceive of facts about existence through the senses, including cognition. If you disagree, would you mind suggesting to me another way, besides through our senses and cognition, that we can apprehend facts about existence? How, besides using your senses (be they introspective or extrospective), have you arrived at the conclusion that self-evidence is a concept, for example? This should be interesting to hear 🙂 .
Oh really? Sorry. God is not axiomatic. A statement must satisfy three conditions to be considered axiomatic:
1. It must be irreducible to prior concepts
2. It must be self-evident to introspective and extrospective acts of cognition
3. It must be undeniable without direct contradiction
The concept of “God” fails to meet each of these:
1. One can reduce the concept of God to an unembodied mind, thereby rendering the concept of God as non-foundational
2. The concept of God is not self-evident to all acts of cognition
3. The denial of God does not lead to direct contradiction, in stating that “God does not exist” one is making use of various axioms but not presuming the existence of God.
As such, we can reject the notion that God is an axiom.
Jesus Christ, you are nitpicker! OK, maybe I should have said ‘one of’ the most fundamental laws of logic. (I was typing fast). Happy? But it doesn’t change the validity of what I was trying to say with regards to the laws of logic. And what the hell does this have to do with positivism???? Jeez..
Ha ha ha.. the folly of presuppositionalism reveals itself. 😀
In order to construct a valid argument to defend any of your premises, you would need to presuppose that logic is a valid method of reasoning in order to arrive at the justified belief that those premises are true. Why must it be presupposed? Because in order to understand any syllogistic argument you might present to demonstrate why logic is a valid method of reasoning, you would have to presuppose that logic is a valid method of reasoning first! Don’t you see? It’s so obvious. Even Christians cannot avoid this circularity.
There really is no argument that anybody could possibly give to demonstrate, or ‘account for’ why logic is a valid method of reasoning that wouldn’t completely beg the question. EVEN IF you chose to attribute the validity of logic to your god, the circularity in your argument will still be inevitable. That’s the whole point, my dear Comrade – and that’s why presuppositional apologetics is not taken seriously by anyone besides presuppositionalist apologists, and is considered a waste of time by most sensible people, including many theistic philosophers, by the way.
There are some beliefs that are foundational and the belief in logic as a valid method of reasoning is one of those things, and as such, Atheists and Christians alike are justified in thinking that logic is a valid method of reasoning. Even without being able to ‘account’ for why this is so.
I think maybe you should stick to the classical arguments, Comrade – they at least make more sense, and are definitely more interesting than this game of semantics called presuppositionalism.
I must say, Comrade, your infatuation with this blog from the moment of its inception is admirable and your persistence in these exchanges is awe-inspiring.
Please feel free to continue ranting about us and our articles on your personal blog as much as you like. We’re getting good publicity, thanks to Blogspirit, you and others all over the world that put up links to our various posts, and talk about us. I’m getting a lot of positive feedback, and more people are getting interested in the option of non-theism.
I do have a confession to make, though. I actually don’t read your blog. It is therefore highly unlikely that I will ever read your upcoming posts. Good luck anyway, and I hope your readers find your series interesting.
I don’t subscribe to scientism. I subscribe to the view that science is the most reliable method we currently have for investigating the universe – for goodness’ sake, I said so in this very article! I agree that scientism refutes itself – that’s why I do not subscribe to it. So from now on stop bringing it up in this discussion, ok? Or does the Presuppositionalist Manual™ require you to arbitrarily label your atheist opponents that way so that their views are easier for you to challenge? Your desperation and cheap tactics scream at us, Comrade.
Most professional philosophers (72.8%) are atheists – meaning that presuppositionalist arguments like the ones you flaunt here are just not convincing to them. Many of them used to be Christians, until they realized they were just wasting their lives. They saw no point in believing in an imaginary invisible magic friend in the sky that grants people’s wishes. [By the way, I’m still waiting for the healed amputee I asked you for ages ago. Bring him to me already! Quick, quick! 😀 ]
Atheism and secularism is increasing, and religion is slowly becoming irrelevant.
Deal with it positively.
March 30, 2010 at 7:27 pm
phillip
@ james…. quod erat demonstrandum 🙂
March 30, 2010 at 8:46 pm
The 27th Comrade
I thought you were talking to me. I thought that this time I was not exhausting your patience. Don’t worry, I’ll just say a few things and disappear into the crevice from when I crept.
Let me catch you in your own words. By the way, axioms are unproven propositions helpd to be true, where all other propositions are held to be true because they were proven so. Essentially, you can see the link between that and the Uncaused Cause. Here is what you said:
Now, do you not count self-evident facts among your opinions? “Do you exist?” And how did this opinion of yours get built “on the basis of science, logic, and reason,” but “not by faith”?
Now you see the emptiness in the position you proudly wave forth, and what do you say? “No one here has claimed that axioms need to be proven.” I’ll take it that, if you are consistent, then you have no axiomatic opinions.
Seeing as you yourself have managed to disabuse yourself of that emptiness, my work here is done.
Oh, cummon: “If you are an open minded person whose opinions are formed not by faith but on the basis of science, logic, and reason“; emphasis mine. Positivism is defined in that declaration of yours.
That is inconsistent with your other beliefs clearly expressed elsewhere on the blog and in the comments.
Like I’ve maintained for long now, atheism is only tenable if it is inconsistent, since when it is consistent it refutes itself.
I think that would be the presuppositional apologist. I have never read anything of his, and I don’t think I ever will. When I do presuppositional-style apologetics, it is usually too mixed and ecclectic that it cannot be honestly classed with such other (eminent) work. I think he would be scandalised. 😀
Counter-examples abound, in experience and logically. Instinct. The crying instinct is not apprehended through the senses. Cats do not hunting courses. Logically, the counter-example is that the exercise of the senses and cognition is itself not perceived by the exercise of the senses and cognition. There are instincts, which closely related to basic beliefs. We are all born with a firm grasp of the principle of non-contradiction, for example.
Knowledge can be instinctive. It is the same way I arrived at the conclusion that using the senses and cognition (and logic) can be an efficient way to arrive at truths.
God is not reducible to the unembodied mind, since He is the same. Reduction implies no identity. God is self-evident to right reason. (Not all truths are evident to simple reason. It’s why mathematicians are employed. Therefore not all axioms are self-evident. Right reason, on the other hand, is going to render God as axiomatic. That is why Goddidit is a more-common case than itdiditself, for example.) Axioms can be denied without causing contradiction, because they don’t import on every case where a proposition can be built out of that theory. (See axiom of choice, for example.) In any case, one cannot say, logically, that God doesn’t exist, because that would mean (a) that the speaker doesn’t exist (for the speaker, at the very least, will be God, if God is that greater than which none exists – see latest post), and (b) a proof that God doesn’t exist amounts to a proof that “He who upholds truth doesn’t exist”; so if the atheist conclusion is a truth, the proof itself is proof that God exists, and self-refuting. See The Things That are Made III.
Positivists are the ones who tended to rank the laws of logic into classes of sorts.
Yes, and the same applies to you. And that is why you rely on faith at every turn. Logic, you now understand, is built on faith. Nobody ever has proof that proofs work before one uses them. We use them by faith. I am glad we have come to a common understanding here.
I’m glad you see this. Now, the circularity is broken for the Christian by having beliefs (such as belief that logic works) that are not supported by logic or proofs, but by simple, blind, gut faith. The atheist has no such respite, and that is why you cannot break out of your circularity. I’ve been trying to tell you this from the beginning, and now you comne out and state it with exclamation marks! I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. Both seem strangely appropriate. (Incidentally, there is equivalence between the properly-basic beliefs and the proper classes of NBG set theory. However, the atheist account has no properly basic beliefs, as you have been saying over and over again – you believe stuff only due to science, logic, and reason. Let me see you survive the circularity.)
You’ve seen my point! This is why I tell you that we do not hold belief in logic because we proved it, but rather because of simple faith – faith in things not proven. Are you going to sneer at logic now? Hah.
Thankfully, I did not do any such thing. I just said that we believe in logic by simple, blind, gut faith. It happens to be the same with which we believe in God, and itself imparted by God. It is also not (fully) justified by logic. This is where the circularity breaks, because our faith in God and in logic and in faith itself is properly basic, and not justified by logic. You, on the other hand, have no such respite. That is why I maintain that your beliefs are self-refuting. And I’m glad you’ve seen it! 🙂
I don’t generally get swayed by argumenta ad authoritatem.
At any rate, the lowly presuppositional apologetics got you wound in a ball of self-contradiction. Where is your hope?
Fine, then. They should just not go saying foolish nonsense like “If you are an open minded person whose opinions are formed not by faith but on the basis of science, logic, and reason and are interested in meeting like-minded individuals – you are WELCOME to join us at this meeting” because the very logic, science, and reason upon which they base their grand posturiing is a matter of faith. I’m glad you have seen this. Always, James, you find the light.
Now, tell me again, why did you oppose what I first said? Why do you end up now agreeing with it? And will you teach your club over here to see things as you now do? Let them not say such self-contradictory stuff again.
I hang here to straight some ideas out that I perceive to be wrong. I’ve been pretty much the majordomo of the Ugandan blogging community since 2006, and this presence here is mostly in this my quasi-official authority. 😀 Don’t worry, though, I’ll give you some room. And easy way to dispatch me is to tell me to buzz off. Of course, I expect to fall silent before I get that far.
You are healed! Could this be the same guy who wrote “If you are an open minded person whose opinions are formed not by faith but on the basis of science, logic, and reason and are interested in meeting like-minded individuals – you are WELCOME to join us at this meeting”? They say transformations are only real when they are surprising!
Is science the most-reliable, even if it didn’t give us science?
You could just really drop it and see if it shows up again. It buoys New Atheism, and is necessarily going to show up in a criticism of the same. However, it is your blog. I will oblige you, as I have done in the past. I understand what it feels like to have sacred things affronted like that. 😀
I always provide reasons for labelling you. From my experience, you are usually just not in the knowledge of what labels your position qualifies you for, so you get surprised at what they are.
Argumentum ad authoritatem. Also, that survey you refer to has a good picture of what philosophers of mind and philosophers of religion believe. (Since you are playing the ad authoritatem here.) But I will give you words that are old and timeless. “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things … so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God” Emphasis mine, source 1 Corinthians 1:20-31. There is a post about this on my blog, behind the latest. If it was because of being very smart that people got redemption, you would get it but I wouldn’t, and most children would never get it either. Redemption is not a smartness affair. The absence of the smart is predicted by St. Paul. So that no one may boast before Him.
Actually, if he granted their wishes, they would still believe. God was not what they wanted Him to be (a deterministic algorithm that prepares their breakfasts), so they rejected Him.
Much of atheism is “God isn’t like the following … therefore he doesn’t exist.”
I haven’t yet got one. 😀
I see the problem, I see the challenge. I wish I was well-kitted for the job, but I am not. Even worse, I do not believe that belief will win in the end. This is going to be one long, long defeat until God spares us the entirety of it. I am pessimistic, of course, but I think I am also correct. What worries me the most is that some say this is supposed to be some kind of eschatological sign.
April 4, 2010 at 11:01 pm
James Onen
Well, well, well. The lies and distortions persist…
An opinion is ‘a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.’ So to answer your question of how my opinion that ‘I exist’ got built ‘on the basis of science, logic, and reason’. I would say that while I do not have absolute certainty that I do exist, I do have sufficient grounds to warrant my belief that I do exist. The fact that I can apprehend your rhetorical question is one of those grounds. I do not, and have never claimed, certainty, or that I have proof of my existence.
My definition of faith is ‘belief in the absence of sufficient evidence’. Not ‘belief in the absence of proof’.
My belief in the laws of logic, for example, is not without evidence. I am yet to see, or hear verified accounts of anyone seeing, something being ‘itself’ and ‘not itself’ at the same time. However, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that something cannot be ‘itself’ and ‘not itself’ at the same time. So while I cannot ‘prove’ that this law of logic (non-contradiction) applies universally and holds true throughout the universe, there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that this is actually the case.
I also cannot ‘prove’ that logic is a valid method of reasoning, but there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that it is, rather than not. I cannot provide ‘proof’ that science is a reliable method of inquiry about nature – but there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that it is, rather than not.
The strength of the evidence in support of a proposition is what informs my opinion with regards to it – NOT faith.
So when I say ‘If you are an open minded person whose opinions are formed not by faith but on the basis of science, logic, and reason..’ I am talking about people whose opinions are formed on the basis of sufficient evidence – and not people whose opinions are formed only on the basis of what can be proven with certainty.
The application of our senses, logic, reason and science has led to us to being able to create a reliable model of the world around us – which in turn has allowed us to predict behaviour of nature and develop effective technologies (e.g., airplanes, cars, ships, construction of buildings, cell-phones, radios, televisions, rockets, nuclear reactors, computers, medicines, telescopes, extreme high precision microscopes, and everything else we can’t imagine our lives without today). These successes of science and technology – and their cumulative nature – suggest a real understanding of things, and suggest that the model of reality we have constructed using logic, reason and science closely matches reality.
To say that this is akin to religious faith is simply laughable.
It is precisely because ‘religious faith’ is not known to have any demonstrable way of showing that it corresponds with reality that it is not taken seriously. Until the day you bring forth an amputee, a 3rd degree burn victim or acid victim that has been instantaneously healed by your miracle-working god (upon the invocation of a specific prayer intended to persuade this god into bringing about these effects), your comparison of the reliability of logic, reason and science to religious faith will continue to attract the ridicule it very richly deserves.
Again, my opinions are not based on what can be proven, but on what is best supported by evidence. Axioms such as the laws of logic, even though belief in them might be considered basic, have sufficient evidence that they hold, rather than not. Have you ever seen them be violated in physical reality? On the other hand, we have consistently seen that they do, in fact, hold.
Your reliance on word games reveals your pitiful desperation, Comrade.
Fortunately, I’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you are wrong. This is a TIRED criticism of atheism that is as invalid as it is outdated – yet it still persists..
Maybe you didn’t read what I said. My specific words were, ‘humans can only perceive of facts about existence through the senses, including cognition’ Now, from reading your response it is clear that you do not understand the meaning of the term ‘to perceive’. To perceive is:
1. to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses.
2. to recognize, discern, envision, or understand.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perceive
Perception is cognitive – I wasn’t talking about instincts. Perhaps you should have a dictionary beside you next time.
Oh really? Maybe you really need to buy a dictionary, because this is happening too often. The definition of ‘knowledge’ is ‘the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning’ (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=knowledge). Also:
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge)
Knowledge is, thus, also cognitive.
You keep bringing up instincts. Let’s see what it actually means: “Instinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct).
It is through experience and interaction with nature that you, and all of us, arrived at the conclusion that using the senses and cognition (and logic) can be an efficient way to arrive at truths. Our continued experience and interaction with nature confirms this view every single day (of course, we have also come to learn that our cognition can at times be unreliable – hence the scientific method). Instincts are simply the behavioral manifestation of how we have been hard wired to respond to certain stimuli. It is not the same as knowledge, or perception.
I’m glad we have that out of the way now.
No, my belief that logic is a valid method of reasoning is not based on faith. Maybe for you. I addressed this point earlier. Religious faith does not yield any testable predictions that we can use to verify to any significant degree the validity of beliefs grounded upon it. If you really want to make progress in this direction you better present me that healed amputee I keep asking you for – otherwise back off.
Hah? Really? Again I say – not faith (as I defined it earlier), but EVIDENCE. I have not claimed that ‘proofs’ inform my beliefs.
*Yawn* I won’t repeat myself for the nth time.
I’ve already explained why this critique of yours is invalid. It is not by faith that I believe that logic, science and reason are valid. I also have not claimed that ‘proofs’ inform my beliefs. But since you feel that I spout ‘foolish nonsense’, I suppose there’s no good reason I should expect to ever see any of your comments on this blog again. Bye bye.
April 5, 2010 at 11:26 pm
The 27th Comrade
Hello, James.
Permit me an apology for starters. Sorry that I said “foolish” in the last comment. My sincere apologies. Of course you know that I do not consider you foolish – I would not be here. I should have been more-charitable, at least to respect your decision to host such a debate here. I hope that you have forgiven me.
I ask: do you believe in sufficient evidence due to having had sufficient evidence (say, sufficient evidence that the sufficiency evidence is sufficient, and sufficient evidence that sufficient evidence is sufficient evidence)? If you do not, do you realise that you just declared at least one thing that you believe in by faith? If not, do you see the circularity of your position?
See also. Let’s not dance around the issue, re-defining things. It is a problem at the root, not at the leaves.
Moving swiftly along, you say:
Do you not realise that you are using the law of non-contradiction to verify the law of non-contradiction? James, do you want to tell me that you cannot see a circular argument when you write it? Now, at this juncture I’d direct you to my latest post, but you are as good an atheist as any I ever knew, and you do not look at forbidden literature.
All the same, do tell me: how would you verify that you hold the laws of logic, not on faith, but because logic compels it? (Ignoring that you would be dancing in a pit of circularity, of course.) The only way to do is to suspend logic, for it cannot be its own judge. The “sufficient evidence” is verified by logic itself. In other words, you use logic when verifying the “sufficient evidence” in favour of logic, and hence end up using logic before you have verified it, and hence you prove me right: we will never get rid of faith at the root of all epistemological endeavour.
And in verifying the sufficient evidence, do you have sufficient evidence that you are a good-enough arbiter? And all this so you can avoid the superstitious appeal to faith? See also.
Because, as we all know (since we are not superstitious religious wingnuts) the strength of evidence as sufficient support is itself supported by strong evidence, and is therefore not superstitious. How do we know that strength of evidence is a good arbiter? Because of the strength of evidence.
Am I right?
Opinions such as the belief in the efficacy sufficient evidence?
Yes, when it comes to it, man, always run to this argument. It will never let you down. After all, those religious wingnuts are claiming that we created these things with magic chants! After all, those religious fanatics maintain that in a universe where there is God, it is impossible to use logic to understand and use the laws of the universe! After all, this religious fanatic also maintains that since we do not arrive at logic by practicing logic, and at science by practicing science, and at reason by practicing reason, he is also saying that these things are unreliable! Religious people, after all, say that founded on faith = unreliable!
And who was arguing otherwise? That science matches reality implies that things founded on faith can match reality.
You can only believe in your existence by faith, of course (as you said earlier), and it matches reality. See also (PDF).
The existence and reliability of science is, at least in this audience, the biggest vindication of simple, blind, gut faith. But then, so is logic.
After all, we all know that when one disobeys our command, one does not exist.
(By the way, when next you are given this evidence, don’t believe. It could be a stage magician. My point is that you are wholly insufficient to verify evidence. I hope I was not too blunt. When I was young, a conjurer faked me out of Shs. 5,000; and this was a me who only believed after seeing evidence.)
Evidence, and the evaluation of it, is called proving. I noticed that you pulled a dictionary on me. Hmm.
You have proven that proofs are reliable? Therefore you do not believe in proofs (by sufficient evidence, yes) due to faith, but because you proved it and found them reliable (by sufficient evidence, of course). You used logic in verifying the efficacy of logic. See also.
Your inability to see a circular argument demonstrates the roots of your atheism, James.
No doubt you have shown that you believe in sufficient evidence because you have sufficient evidence that sufficient evidence is sufficient evidence to compel belief in sufficient evidence.
And for that, sir, you get a trophy.
🙂
I think I misunderstood you there, yes. Congratulations, though, on catching it. It is a good skill to have.
🙂
🙂 I wrote that.
It is the interaction that I am talking about. The opening of the eyes to see, for example. Take it back to the most-basic instincts and see what I mean.
Of course. In other words, we believe we should cry to call for our mothers even before we know anything else. We also know that when we provoke action, we reach other people. Touching, crying. We also instinctively know that we can reason and arrive at truth. It is not based on logic, however reliable it is; we just know it. This is my point, and this is also why the people who were saying that all we know reliably is due to empiricism (I paraphrase) were wrong.
But, of course, the Vienna Circle certainly produced the brightest lights of that epoch, no doubt.
Ah, the irrefutable “obey-or-you-do-not-exist” argument! You, James, should bring me your left arm cut off and stuffed in a bag, or you do not exist! (And since I am theist, we can all concur that I am going to use it for witchcraft!)
Quit dancing around the point and redefining things. And you accuse me of word games? This sufficient evidence that you capitalise so strongly, and the verification of it, is what we call proof. Okay? It is the only meaning for proof that there is. So, you believe in evidence because evidence says so? Do you even see that you have fallen in what you so strongly renounced in your previous post? Do you see this circular reasoning, or not?
You know, you were much closer to the result of careful thinking (for you and for the philosophers who have trodden before where you now tread) in the last post than in this one. Now, you have regressed. I know how hard the faith conclusion is, but the reality isn’t ours to decide.
You can’t help it: (a) circular reasoning works because (b) circular reasoning works because (see a).
Or, alternatively, (a) evidence is reliable because we have evidence that (b) evidence is reliable because we have evidence that (see a).
By the way, I do not say this to discourage belief in evidence, but rather to preserve the validity of relying on faith, so that we can have a reason to believe in evidence. I do this for the sake of evidence, while the masses chant and call for my hanging, calling me “anti-evidence”. 🙂
No, rather that by logic, science, and reason you believe that logic, science, and reason are valid.
And that, of course, is very logical, scientific, and reasonable.
I am sorry that I was too loose with words. Perhaps I should not have used “foolish”. My apologies.
While I may be a bit disdainful of your other team-mates here, I certainly reserve much more respect for you. (I started this comment only to apologise and then run away, but these things take on a life of their own.)
April 1, 2010 at 10:02 pm
phillip
Several facts work in tandem to support the conclusion that the Christian god is merely imaginary:
1. Anyone can imagine a supernatural being, including the god described by Christianity or any other religion.
2. Religious philosophy provides no epistemological alternative to the imagination as a means of “knowing” its god.
3. Adherents learn details about their god from written stories (which puts the Christian god, for example, in the same camp as characters in texts which are known to be fictional).
4. Religious philosophy squelches reason as man’s only means of knowledge, crippling the mind’s ability to distinguish the rational from the irrational (thus allowing the adherent to believe that concepts like ‘omniscience’ and ‘omnipotence’ are valid).
5. The failure of religious philosophy to provide the mind with a sound metaphysical theory which securely and reliably allows the adherent to distinguish between reality and imagination.
6. The dominant role of allegory in religious thought provides the imagination with the fundamental material to work with in developing lifelike as well as larger-than-life psychological replicas of heroes, villains and events portrayed in religious literature while allowing for a strong element of personal relevance.
7. In Christianity, the bible requires adherents to have child-like faith, and a prominent feature of child psychology is an active imagination.
8. Intentional subordination of the world which the believer perceives and in which he lives, to alleged personal forces which he cannot perceive and which are indistinguishable from what is only imaginary.
9. Personification of imaginary beings (they “hear” the believer’s prayers, “see” his actions, “know” his thoughts, etc.) to amplify their impact on one’s emotional life.
10. Use of repetition to reinforce artificially a self-imposed obsession with the supernatural in a never-ending effort to convince oneself of something which in the end he can never truly believe.
11. basing entire arguments on fallacy… arguments from ignorance….presupposition… argumentum ad ignorantiam… poof! …Etc!
It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomenon in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is the supernatural action of God. This variant, known as the God of the gaps, is rejected by most theologians because it tries to limit God to the unknown aspects of human knowledge… interesting approach rooting logic in faith and god he he he….(not so novel and still not particularly clever…. still a fallacy….)…
December 13, 2011 at 11:07 pm
Carri Shanaa
Thank you for conveying really very good resources. Your website is so first rate, I am fascinated by the ideas that you have on this blog. It shows how well you understand this subject.I’ve bookmarked this page, and will come back for much more info. You, my good friend, ROCK! I located just the appropriate strategies and information which Id been researching everywhere and just couldnt find. What a great site. Just like this website your web site is 1 of my brand new favorites . I valued the info shown and it has given me some type ofideas to triumph for some reason, so thanks!
November 14, 2012 at 1:35 am
global warming
One, I’m now a Republican, at least for today, so I can vote in the Republican primary. It is predicted that “global warming” will increase water shortages in the near future. And these changes will not suit human life as it is.
January 21, 2013 at 8:52 am
black floaters in the eye Vision
This is a topic that is near to my heart… Best wishes!
Where are your contact details though?
March 14, 2013 at 8:46 am
large pizza stones for sale - www.squidoo.com
With the proper equipment and ingredients, you can make homemade pizza that tastes a thousand times
better than what you’ll find at your favorite restaurant. Remember to pre-heat your oven for at least 1 hour. Lay the dough on the tray or baking sheet, then dimple the dough until it’s a thick, flattened circle.
March 15, 2013 at 11:55 am
screen next
Hi there, just became alert to your blog through Google,
and found that it’s really informative. I am going to watch out for brussels. I’ll appreciate
if you continue this in future. Many people will be benefited from your
writing. Cheers!
March 19, 2013 at 1:43 am
Http://www.Theladylist.ie/
Turn the dough once to coat, then cover the bowl with a damp dishtowel.
Never try to remove a pizza stone from the
oven until it is completely cooled. Lay the dough on the tray or baking
sheet, then dimple the dough until it’s a thick, flattened circle.
March 30, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Tennis elbow treatment deep tissue Massage
Hi i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anyplace, when
i read this article i thought i could also make comment due to this brilliant article.
April 13, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Lesli
F*ckin’ amazing issues here. I’m very satisfied to see your post.
Thank you a lot and i am taking a look forward to contact you.
Will you please drop me a mail?
April 13, 2013 at 7:47 pm
Sienna
great issues altogether, you simply received a emblem new reader.
What could you suggest about your publish that you simply made some days ago?
Any positive?
May 23, 2013 at 7:16 pm
Theresa
Good site you have got here.. It’s hard to find high quality writing like yours these days. I honestly appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!
May 25, 2013 at 11:57 pm
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=325345
Magnificent goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too great.
I actually like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it. You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it sensible. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a wonderful site.
October 9, 2013 at 10:11 pm
wiredtree coupon
It’s enormous that you are getting thoughts from this piece of writing as well as from our discussion made here.
May 29, 2015 at 2:40 am
Randy the Atheist
I can condense this entire page for you.
Science is a method that is used to determine which – of all answers given – is in fact correct.
The success of this scientific method to consistently arrive at the correct explanations is reason enough to assume that it is the best method to discover the truth. And consistency of discovering truths is the best justification to continue using that method for discovering additional truths.