Science & Atheism

[simguy83]

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

 

[IzzyPop]

Try Hume. He explains this pretty well.

 

[simguy83]

I have read a bit of David Hume, but havn't seen any rational response to the objections I raised. Does he justify induction, science & empiricism in syllogistic form?

If so, would you be kind enough to point out where?

Thanks

*edit*
In fact, from what I understand about Hume, he generally agrees with me that induction is not justifiable but yet he still relies on it anyway.

 

[IzzyPop]

I have read a bit of David Hume, but havn't seen any rational response to the objections I raised. Does he justify induction, science & empiricism in syllogistic form?

If so, would you be kind enough to point out where?

Thanks

*edit*
In fact, from what I understand about Hume, he generally agrees with me that induction is not justifiable but yet he still relies on it anyway.

Now that you mention it, you may be right on that. I think his reasoning goes along the lines of induction isn't objectively justifiable, but it is the best we have found so far, so might as well go with it until something better comes along.

I am not the best person to argue these points. If you are truely interested, I can give you a web addy and person to talk to that knows what he is talking about. I do not want to link to an atheist web site here...

 

[simguy83]

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

 

[Yggdrasil]

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

I'm curious to know what you mean by "not having faith in science"? Science helps expose fact in our natural world.

 

[The Nihilist]

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).

You are mistaken about the Achilles heel.

This is silly. There must always be some first principle that is unjustified. For christians, it is belief in God. More broadly and more interestingly, it is also the principle of NonContradiction. One can never make an argument against the principle, because it already relies on itself. The reason this essential principle of thought and existence must be accepted is entirely pragmatic; if one denies it, he is absurd.
It is the same for science. For 1500 odd years, nonempirical science accomplished nothing. Metaphysics accomplished nothing. It is only with the introduction of empirical science that our knowledge progresses.
You are correct about one thing, however. Induction is not sufficient for true knowledge. However, science does not and cannot seek true knowledge, precisely because it relies on induction. 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. Problem solved, the end.

 

[The Nihilist]

Sometimes I am so smart I even amaze myself.

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

Hello. Atheism is just a disbelief in god/gods. There's really no binding principle beyond that (although you could make suppositions based on this initial conditions, i.e. naturalistic universe, but not for all).

As to whether empiricism is my basis for a world view, if you mean how I interpret my experience of the world and make reasonable conclusions on the nature of the universe based on past experience, then yeah. I justify to myself because without experience there is nothing right?

I'm more of an atheist due to the lack of evidence of a god/gods, rather than any substitutive detailed scientific theory.

I have no idea if this helps, but its my two cents (or pence as the case may be.)

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You are mistaken about the Achilles heel.

This is silly. There must always be some first principle that is unjustified. For christians, it is belief in God. More broadly and more interestingly, it is also the principle of NonContradiction. One can never make an argument against the principle, because it already relies on itself. The reason this essential principle of thought and existence must be accepted is entirely pragmatic; if one denies it, he is absurd.
It is the same for science. For 1500 odd years, nonempirical science accomplished nothing. Metaphysics accomplished nothing. It is only with the introduction of empirical science that our knowledge progresses.
You are correct about one thing, however. Induction is not sufficient for true knowledge. However, science does not and cannot seek true knowledge, precisely because it relies on induction. 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. Problem solved, the end.

Kierkegaard was a christian, and he disproved, or dismantled the law of contradiction, did he not?

Either/Or did so, im almost positive, yet he still retained his theological implications and beliefs. Kierkegaard was an incredibly radical theologian.

 

[SeraphymCrashing]

I fail to see how the philosophical problem of induction somehow makes the alternative of simply accepting a 2000 year old myth an acceptable alternative.

I don't really understand what your objection to empiricism is. Empiricism is simply stating that we can only get knowledge through what we experience. I suppose divine revelation would be an alternative method of recieving knowledge, though I have yet to come across a believable record of anyone "knowing" anything objective divinely.



Science is our best method to date of understanding the world around us. Science works, when it doesn't we find out why, and change the theory until it does work. Science is why we can have this conversation on this internet forum. No other method of increasing human knowledge has anywhere near the track record of science. To disregard it is to disregard almost everything you use and encounter every day.

 

[quatona]

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?

Atheism makes no statements about that.

 

[simguy83]

You are mistaken about the Achilles heel.

This is silly. There must always be some first principle that is unjustified. For christians, it is belief in God. More broadly and more interestingly, it is also the principle of NonContradiction. One can never make an argument against the principle, because it already relies on itself. The reason this essential principle of thought and existence must be accepted is entirely pragmatic; if one denies it, he is absurd.
It is the same for science. For 1500 odd years, nonempirical science accomplished nothing. Metaphysics accomplished nothing. It is only with the introduction of empirical science that our knowledge progresses.
You are correct about one thing, however. Induction is not sufficient for true knowledge. However, science does not and cannot seek true knowledge, precisely because it relies on induction. 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. Problem solved, the end.

I am not sure why you would say that there must always be some first principle that is unjutsified. Your first principle must be your ultimate authority and you must be able to deduce all your propositions from it. However, you still need to justify the principle because if you don't, then any further proposition that you make can logically be ignored or dismissed.

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. 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.

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

By the way, I do not assert God as my first principle so this is a claim on your part that just isn't true. Rather, the Biblical scriptures are my ultimate authority. Yes, I believe we all have innate knowledge of God's existance however this is also deducable from scripture.

You said, "One can never make an argument against the principle, because it already relies on itself". But if empiricism is your first principle then everything must be deducible as such. 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.

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

You said, "It is the same for science. For 1500 odd years, nonempirical science accomplished nothing".

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

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 said, "You are correct about one thing, however. Induction is not sufficient for true knowledge. However, science does not and cannot seek true knowledge, precisely because it relies on induction".

Yes, induction is always a fallacy. 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?

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?

Finally you said that it's "Problem solved, the end" but you seem to have raised more questions than have been answered! Uh oh!

 

[simguy83]

Atheism makes no statements about that.

I know, lack of belief in of itself is not a postive worldview, but atheists do have a postive worldview and atheists do discuss these issues.

 

[The Nihilist]

Kierkegaard was a christian, and he disproved, or dismantled the law of contradiction, did he not?
Either/Or did so, im almost positive, yet he still retained his theological implications and beliefs. Kierkegaard was an incredibly radical theologian.

I'm not really sure, but I am familiar with Either/Or to a degree. My guess is that he wouldn't have attacked the law of contradiction as the governing rule of logic, but rather in the ethical realm. Furthermore, I would guess that he did so purely as an attack on Kantian ethics, which is entirely justified because Kantian ethics are dumb, despite how ridiculously smart Kant himself was.

 

[Yggdrasil]

I know, lack of belief in of itself is not a postive worldview, but atheists do have a postive worldview and atheists do discuss these issues.

Why not?

 

[quatona]

I know, lack of belief in of itself is not a postive worldview, but atheists do have a postive worldview and atheists do discuss these issues.

Sure. You can have my personal opinion on pretty much anything, but don´t mistake it for atheism and don´t conclude it is related to, based on, founded in or a product of my lack of belief in gods. The way you worded the OP suggested there might be such a misunderstanding.

 

[The Nihilist]

I am not sure why you would say that there must always be some first principle that is unjutsified. Your first principle must be your ultimate authority and you must be able to deduce all your propositions from it. However, you still need to justify the principle because if you don't, then any further proposition that you make can logically be ignored or dismissed.
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. 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.
If your first principle fails, there is no foundation for the rest of your worldview.
By the way, I do not assert God as my first principle so this is a claim on your part that just isn't true. Rather, the Biblical scriptures are my ultimate authority. Yes, I believe we all have innate knowledge of God's existance however this is also deducable from scripture.
You said, "One can never make an argument against the principle, because it already relies on itself". But if empiricism is your first principle then everything must be deducible as such. 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.
So this first principle cannot "rely" on itself because it fails it's own test.
You said, "It is the same for science. For 1500 odd years, nonempirical science accomplished nothing".
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? Why would non-empirical science want to provide empirical observations? Isn't this a contradiction? Please make sense!
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 said, "You are correct about one thing, however. Induction is not sufficient for true knowledge. However, science does not and cannot seek true knowledge, precisely because it relies on induction".
Yes, induction is always a fallacy. 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?
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?
Finally you said that it's "Problem solved, the end" but you seem to have raised more questions than have been answered! Uh oh!

This criticism is broken and poorly organized. I will answer it as can best be done.
I think the first principle must be unjustified because I am smarter than you. Seriously, though, consider the principle of noncontradiction. If you ask my why I think it is true and I give an answer, then I have attempted to justify it by another principle, and it, therefore is not the ultimate authority. If you attempt to justify the next principle, you have the same problem. If you tell me why you believe in scriptures, then you have appealed to an authority other than scripture. Let me say again, the first principle can never be justified; it must be of such a nature that it must be assumed, and if it is not assumed, then absurdity is the result.
I think we are understanding empiricism in different ways. I understand it as purely naturalistic science. If you mean something else, then I think you may not be talking about science.
What modern science accomplishes that premodern science has not is results; this is what I meant by empirical science vs nonempirical science. Premodern medicine bled people to release demons, modern medicine actually manages to save lives. This is the difference. Science is based on observation and induction, and insofar as it actually works, is undeniably preferable to premodern methodologies.
By true knowledge, I mean metaphysical knowledge. Science can never tell us the nature of metaphysics, or whether we have a soul, or whether we are all characters in a dream in the mind of a butterfly. The practical knowledge we get from science is unrelated to questions of this nature and instead discusses the goings on in that dream or metaphysics.
Seriously, though, what on earth do you mean by empiricism?

 

[simguy83]

I would define empiricism as a first principle (albeit a very bad one), and it proposes that we aquire knowledge via our sense observations.

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.

However, an ultimate authority can still be justified. It can be justified by showing it's own internal coherance, in other words you don't have to appeal to an outside proposition.

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. This is why empiricism is fallacious as the ultimate authority of a worldview. And if we are to accept empiricism, it would have to be the ultimate authority.

Science is based on observation and induction, and insofar as it actually works, is undeniably preferable to premodern methodologies.

But you don't know that science works and you can't justify the use of observation. As you said yourself, we might all be living in a dream in which case we're not really observing the real world. How would you prove we are in the real world? That would be a start to defending empiricism. 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.

 

[The Nihilist]

I would define empiricism as a first principle (albeit a very bad one), and it proposes that we aquire knowledge via our sense observations.
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.
However, an ultimate authority can still be justified. It can be justified by showing it's own internal coherance, in other words you don't have to appeal to an outside proposition.
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. This is why empiricism is fallacious as the ultimate authority of a worldview. And if we are to accept empiricism, it would have to be the ultimate authority.
But you don't know that science works and you can't justify the use of observation. As you said yourself, we might all be living in a dream in which case we're not really observing the real world. How would you prove we are in the real world? That would be a start to defending empiricism. 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.

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.

ExistencePrecedesEssence, feel free to continue take my place if it amuses you.