Science & Atheism

[us38]

I am not sure why you would say that there must always be some first principle that is unjutsified.

It's called the incompleteness theorem, and it happens to be the fourth thing in my sig.

That is why the first principle of a worldview must contain enough information so it can justify itself and show there are no logical incoherances.

But that's impossible. Either a principle justifies itself or there are no logical incoherances, but both can't be true at the same time.

I say this because if you need to appeal to justification outside of your first principle, then it cannot be your ultimate authority and fails as a first principle.

In that case, nature is the first principle.

If your first principle fails, there is no foundation for the rest of your worldview.

Not necessarily. While a worldview may not be compatible with reality, it can still be a functioning worldview. Consider euclidean geometry. Eucliden geometry contains no contradictions. Unless one can find a place in the real world to apply it, however, it's meaningless. It's still correct, it's just meaningless.

Rather, the Biblical scriptures are my ultimate authority.

May I ask why?

But empiricism says that all our knowledge must come from our sensory experiences via observations. But the principle itself fails because the metaphysical idea behind empiricism cannot ironically be sensed or observed.

You're entirely wrong. Empiricism would fail if it could justify itself.

So this first principle cannot "rely" on itself because it fails it's own test.

Which is not really a problem.

But what is science that doesn't base itself upon empiricism? Is there such a thing? Even if there is such a thing how do you know it accomplished nothing?

Because we've seen people do it, and nothing was accomplished. Look at alchemy. 1500+ years of trying, and not one real accomplishment to be had.

Why would non-empirical science want to provide empirical observations? Isn't this a contradiction?

Non-emipircal science would want to provide empirical observations because otherwise we can't tell if there were any observations at all.

You said, "It is only with the introduction of empirical science that our knowledge progresses".

Then you have to show empirically that the only way knowledge can progress is through empiricism. At the moment, it's just an unjustified assumption.

You are, more or less, correct. The sentance would've been better worded "It was only with the introduction of empirical science that our knowledge progressed". That is an empircally testable claim.

But I find it strange that earlier you said that the use of science is our only way to progress knowledge and now you claim that, and I quote, "science does not and cannot seek true knowledge". So which is it? Is science fallacious or is it not?

Not fallacious. Science doesn't prove things true, it only shows that things haven't been proven false. That's all it does.

You said, "Science seeks a sort of practical knowledge, that is, a theory only has to be good enough to suit the available facts. If it breaks, we get a new theory"

So what is practical knowledge and is practical knowledge false knowledge (as you've already said science cannot attain true knowledge)? Doesn't practical knowledge assume empiricism? Again how do you justify such a thing?

Pragmatism. Practical knowledge is useful by definition. Wether or not it is the Truth (capital "T") is irrelevant. It's useful, and that's all it needs to be.

 

[us38]

As for the law of non-contradiction, well it doesn't convey enough information to be a first principle - you can't deduce an entire worldview from it (I don't think you can do so from empiricism either btw, which is why I say it's a bad first principle) and so there is nothing wrong with appealing to another proposition in your worldview to justify it.

Any logical system must contain at least two axioms.

However, an ultimate authority can still be justified.

No, it can't. If it can be justified, the either it is not an ultimate authority, or it is logically inconsistant.

So for example, I can make the statement "All knowledge comes through our senses, and everything we know about eithics, science and logic comes from emperical observation." At first glance the statement may seem to provide enough information to deduce a worldview from as it addresses knowledge, ethics and logic and how we come to recognise such things.

However, the statement itself fails because it can't be proven empirically - I'm not asking for it to be justified by some outside authority - it fails by it's own standards.

Again, this is not a problem, and would be problem if empiricism could justify itself.

But you don't know that science works and you can't justify the use of observation.

Are you serious? Do you not see the computer you're typing your message on? That's proof right there that science works.

As you said yourself, we might all be living in a dream in which case we're not really observing the real world.

Which is quite irrelevant. Even if this is a dream world, the science in this world is still useful in this world. The notion that this is a dream world is also entirely useless.

How would you prove we are in the real world?

You wouldn't

As a Christian, it matters not one way or another. Even if we are in a dream world my epistemology would be unaffected. However, an empirical worldview would crumble.

No, it wouldn't. Regardless of whether or not this is the real world, empiricism is useful.

 

[simguy83]

You have grossly misunderstood empiricism, naturalism, and science. You argue like a freshman philosophy student, and you lack the equipment to properly engage me; for me, it would be like attempting to construct a house out of mud. I will not continue this discussion.

Your arguements were flawed, your worldview is flawed and you say that I don't have the necessary equipment to engage you? This is what's known as an unjustified assumption.

How have I misunderstood empiricism, naturalism, and science? How do you know?

What is empiricism? How do you know?

What is naturalism? How do you know?

What is science? How do you know?

What is the necessary equipment to engage you? How do you know? Do you have the necessary equipment?

What do you mean by "equipment"? Do you mean knowledge? How do we get knowledge? By empirical observation?

You leave so many propositions undefined in everything you said throughout this topic. Every sentance, no, every word you have just assumed without justification, and you've asserted, asserted, asserted and asserted. You have done so right upto and including your last post... then you have the nerve to say I sound like a freshman philosopher. LOL!

All I have heard are the rantings of yet another hysterical unbeliever and you didn't defend or even attempt to defend anything you blurted out in the discussion.

 

[uberd00b]

To the theist, science is the study of Gods creation.

 

[simguy83]

Are you serious? Do you not see the computer you're typing your message on? That's proof right there that science works.

Yep, I'm serious

I don't deny that I "see" the computer I am working on (or maybe I don't really see it but I will grant in your favour for now that I do). Now please write out as a syllogism, the process of reasoning that would affirm that because I can "see" the computer, I have proof that there is a computer.

Please justify each premise of the syllogism with an arguement and make sure the premises inevitably lead to the conlcusion that "there is a computer". If your premises are not justified or could also lead to a different conclusion then you have failed in showing that sensing is proof of anything.

*edit*
I don't wish for this post to sound harsh, but this is what you must do in order to form a rational objection against my epistimology that I would then need to defend.

 

[Mysticus]

Yep, I'm serious

I don't deny that I "see" the computer I am working on (or maybe I don't really see it but I will grant in your favour for now that I do). Now please write out as a syllogism, the process of reasoning that would affirm that because I can "see" the computer, I have proof that there is a computer.

Please justify each premise of the syllogism with an arguement and make sure the premises inevitably lead to the conlcusion that "there is a computer". If your premises are not justified or could also lead to a different conclusion then you have failed in showing that sensing is proof of anything.

*edit*
I don't wish for this post to sound harsh, but this is what you must do in order to form a rational objection against my epistimology that I would then need to defend.

P = posting on internet
C = computer exists

P implies C
P
therefore C: Justified by Modus Pones

There's a syllogism for you...

 

[us38]

I don't deny that I "see" the computer I am working on (or maybe I don't really see it but I will grant in your favour for now that I do). Now please write out as a syllogism, the process of reasoning that would affirm that because I can "see" the computer, I have proof that there is a computer.

Strictly speaking, there is no way I can prove that there is a computer. However, that's not what I, or science, need to do. The assumption that this is some sort of world wherein the computer you "see" does not actually exist leads nowhere. Since science only seeks to be useful, it need not be the Truth (capital "T").

Please justify each premise of the syllogism with an arguement and make sure the premises inevitably lead to the conlcusion that "there is a computer". If your premises are not justified or could also lead to a different conclusion then you have failed in showing that sensing is proof of anything.

Don't need to. All my assumption has to do is be more useful. That's the entire point of science. The Truth (capital "T") of infections may be that invisible pixies from Mars cause the symptoms of infections, bacteria show up to fight the pixies due to an old rivalry, and the pixies decide to leave when you start taking antibiotics. Science would never be able to deduce. The truth (little "t") that science does get is more useful. The notion that bacteria cause the infections and antibiotics kill the bacteria may not be the Truth (capital "T"), but it's far more useful.

*edit*
I don't wish for this post to sound harsh, but this is what you must do in order to form a rational objection against my epistimology that I would then need to defend.

No, it's not. I need only to show that my epistemology is more useful than yours. Neither will likely lead us to the Truth (capital "T"), but mine can still lead to a truth that's more useful than yours.

 

[simguy83]

P = posting on internet
C = computer exists

P implies C
P
therefore C: Justified by Modus Pones

There's a syllogism for you...

For this syllogism to work, you need to show that "P" is true. To attempt to do so by appealing to sensation would beg the question as the syllogism is to show that because I see something I can know it to be real.

Also, you would need to show that "C" is necessary for "P".

As it stands, both premises are unjustified.

Strictly speaking, there is no way I can prove that there is a computer. However, that's not what I, or science, need to do. The assumption that this is some sort of world wherein the computer you "see" does not actually exist leads nowhere.

So you're saying that if your epistemology is false then we're left with absurdity but you have yet to show that your epistemology is true and havn't shown that if it wasn't we would be left with absurdity.

Since science only seeks to be useful, it need not be the Truth (capital "T").

Do you believe truth is a relativism? I am asking because of your capital "T".

Don't need to. All my assumption has to do is be more useful. That's the entire point of science.

What do you mean by "useful"? Besides, you havn't shown how your assumptions are useful.

The Truth (capital "T") of infections may be that invisible pixies from Mars cause the symptoms of infections, bacteria show up to fight the pixies due to an old rivalry, and the pixies decide to leave when you start taking antibiotics. Science would never be able to deduce. The truth (little "t") that science does get is more useful. The notion that bacteria cause the infections and antibiotics kill the bacteria may not be the Truth (capital "T"), but it's far more useful.

But again this goes back to your "if my epistemology is false then we have absurdity" type arguement.

No, it's not. I need only to show that my epistemology is more useful than yours. Neither will likely lead us to the Truth (capital "T"), but mine can still lead to a truth that's more useful than yours.

But this is only an assertion. I could do the same sort of thing. For example,

I need only to show that my epistemology is more useful than yours. Only mine can lead us to the Truth (capital "T"), and mine can lead to a truth that's more useful than yours.

 

[Mysticus]

For this syllogism to work, you need to show that "P" is true. To attempt to do so by appealing to sensation would beg the question as the syllogism is to show that because I see something I can know it to be real.

Also, you would need to show that "C" is necessary for "P".

As it stands, both premises are unjustified.


So you're saying that if your epistemology is false then we're left with absurdity but you have yet to show that your epistemology is true and havn't shown that if it wasn't we would be left with absurdity.


Do you believe truth is a relativism? I am asking because of your capital "T".


What do you mean by "useful"? Besides, you havn't shown how your assumptions are useful.


But again this goes back to your "if my epistemology is false then we have absurdity" type arguement.


But this is only an assertion. I could do the same sort of thing. For example,

I need only to show that my epistemology is more useful than yours. Only mine can lead us to the Truth (capital "T"), and mine can lead to a truth that's more useful than yours.

The fact that you are reading a post on the internet on your computer has existential import... and indeed justified.

On the computer does follow-- posting on the internet... a true statement.

You posting on the internet will follow with the conclusion that you are using a computer, which follows in accordance to the rule of inference Modus Ponens.

 

[us38]

So you're saying that if your epistemology is false then we're left with absurdity but you have yet to show that your epistemology is true and havn't shown that if it wasn't we would be left with absurdity.

It doesn't matter if my epistemology is true or false. If it's true, it's useful, and if it's false, it's useful. If you hold the belief that your computer is actually nonexistant, and it breaks, there's nothing you can do to fix it. Under my assumption that the computer is real, if it breaks, I can try to fix it. I can check to see if it has virii, or if there is a problem with the hardware, etc. You can't. You can only throw your hands up and hope it will work later.

Do you believe truth is a relativism? I am asking because of your capital "T".

Yes and no. The truth (little "t") is a relativism. It depends on the method used to deduce it. The Truth (capital "T") is not a relativism, and is the world as it is and works. The problem with the Truth (capital "T") is that is almost always (if not always) unknown and most likely unknowable.

What do you mean by "useful"? Besides, you havn't shown how your assumptions are useful.

By useful, I mean that more truth (little "t") and be obtained from the truth (little "t") already obtained. My assumptions prove themselves to be useful. Just look at everything science has made and accomplished.

But again this goes back to your "if my epistemology is false then we have absurdity" type arguement.

I never argued that if my epistemology was false, we would have absurdity. I only argued that my epistemology is more useful.

But this is only an assertion. I could do the same sort of thing. For example,

I need only to show that my epistemology is more useful than yours. Only mine can lead us to the Truth (capital "T"), and mine can lead to a truth that's more useful than yours.

You would first have to show that your epistemology can indeed lead to the Truth (capital "T"). I'm not saying it can't, it just doesn't likely take us there, nor would we even know if it did. As for being which is more useful, mine is quite easily more useful than yours. For example, it was at one point thought that all illness were caused by demons. This is absolutely useless, as it is impossible to know why the demons cause the sickenesses they do to certain people, how the demons cause these ailments, or how we can get rid of them. Science, however, tells us that these diseases are caused by microbes. It tells us how these microbes spread, how they act, and how we can get rid of them.

 

[SonicBOOM]

just a random thought about this topic. I don't think Evolution or God's existence have enough in common to be used as arguments against each other. I think given these grounds any Christian who argues with creation is in deep ignorance of creation itself. At the same time any Atheist who uses Evolution to argue is in deep ignorance on what Evolution is. It amazes me how long we have gone without realizing that the 2 have absolutely nothing in common what-so-ever.

 

[quatona]

just a random thought about this topic. I don't think Evolution or God's existence have enough in common to be used as arguments against each other. I think given these grounds any Christian who argues with creation is in deep ignorance of creation itself. At the same time any Atheist who uses Evolution to argue is in deep ignorance on what Evolution is. It amazes me how long we have gone without realizing that the 2 have absolutely nothing in common what-so-ever.

Amen to that.

 

[onewithnature]

You know something is true when the pieces fit. That is logic.
Science is simply asuming something without complete use of logic. Once logic is added, the theory is no longer a theory, but a law.


Science doesn´t say God doesn´t exist. In fact, science is like a tool given by God so we can solve the puzzle.

 

[SonicBOOM]

You know something is true when the pieces fit. That is logic.
Science is simply asuming something without complete use of logic. Once logic is added, the theory is no longer a theory, but a law.


Science doesn´t say God doesn´t exist. In fact, science is like a tool given by God so we can solve the puzzle.

I totally agree with this all creation says is that God created the world. All Evolution does is give a step by step process on how the world came into existence. I think anyone with an eye for wisdom will instantly see that the 2 are not opposites at all. Science neither proves nor disproves God.... Science is about the studying of life and everything in it. It's an extremely handy tool... but your misusing it and are in massive ignorance of it when you seek to use it to prove or disprove God.

 

[Mysticus]

I totally agree with this all creation says is that God created the world. All Evolution does is give a step by step process on how the world came into existence. I think anyone with an eye for wisdom will instantly see that the 2 are not opposites at all. Science neither proves nor disproves God.... Science is about the studying of life and everything in it. It's an extremely handy tool... but your misusing it and are in massive ignorance of it when you seek to use it to prove or disprove God.

Perhaps the Universe is God and creation is a constant...

 

[AsTruthUnfolds]

Science doesn´t say God doesn´t exist. In fact, science is like a tool given by God so we can solve the puzzle.

Nicely said. Now we just need a better working definition of "god".

 

[MewtwoX]

I think the OP may be misunderstanding something about Science and its underlying assumptions.

Earlier on, Science was justified by a Logical Positivist stance which claimed that Science can bring about propositions about nature that are the closest to the Truth (big T).

Logical Positivism has fallen out of favour with most Science Philosophers in favour of a more Pragmatic justification of Science.

It is in pragmatism that we find that the most useful propositions are those that are considered to be the most likely true (at least, in Pragmatic theories of Truth).

This is why many people are mentioning now that Science need only demonstrate its usefulness above alternate methodologies, as its value is not in abilities to approximate the Truth, but in its utility.


As for Induction, you might like to take a look at one possible solution to the problem of induction, presented on the Rational Responders website:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/w...roblem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right

 

[Fear]

As a Christian, I have my faith in God, not in science. However, I would be interested in hearing the flip side of the coin, and would like to hear about the atheist's propositions.

How could one even begin to defend the scientific method when it incorporates induction? How can induction be justified? Also doesn't the scientific method assume empiricism? How can empiricism be justified?

Is empiricism the first principle of the Atheist's worldview? If so how can empiricism be justified empirically?

Thanks

Empiricism/science consistently yields results, why wouldn't we use it? It's a tool, not an end-all philosophically satisfying theory. *gasp* How can you justify using unproven axioms? Epistemology is stupid.

I guess I should toss back the obvious question... how do you justify having faith in God? Does God-belief give you objective results that you can demonstrate to us?

 

[phsyxx]

Thanks for your response. I am interested in researching atheist's responses to these objections, because I feel that I have stumbled across their achilles heal so to speak.

After all, if their first principle can't be justified then how in the world could they justify anything they believe in (by "they" I mean atheists).

Sorry, off to bed now, but thanks for your replies. If you have any websites that you don't want to post here please PM them to me, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

simguy83 -
in response to your original post , I would like to bring up the philosophical approach that stemmed from Wittgenstein's work in Tractacus - LOGICAL POSITIVISM.

The theory, if you know how it works, is self-defeating.
Since it states that all information is only valid and useful if it can be empirically verified - it cannot empirically verify itself, and therefore it is bunk. (to put it simply)

Since your position is one of criticism when Science has to "infer" or "guess" at things when the entireity of information is not known - I thought I would show you that a completely empirical stance would not just be unrealistic, but impossible to maintain.