To Zach:
Here are some thoughts I have, for the sake of dialogue.
The idea that science can only study the natural world is not itself a scientific statement. In philosophy, this is called methodological naturalism. “Science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms.” Is that statement true? If so, only by definition. But not by science. That is, the sentence “Science cannot study the supernatural or spiritual realms” is itself not a scientific statement. Justifying it is very difficult, perhaps in principle impossible (and is something philosophy of science courses deal with).
Science attempts to “study the empirical world in order to find the truth.” Again, this is methodological naturalism. It is a philosophy, not “science.” It assumes that only science can find “the truth.” This position is in fact rejected by many scientists as well as philosophers.
Many, many scientists have no problem with faith. When I was a pastor at Michigan State University my church contained many scientists, science professors, and Ph.D. students in science who fully embraced faith in God. These scientists (and more) did not hold to the non-scientific, metaphysical position known as methodological naturalism.
Zach, how did you “realize” that you’ll never have enough information to “believe that all are equally likely as well as unlikely?” I think the information is there to make a decision. I believe strong inductive arguments can be made for the existence of God. I believe it is more rational to believe in God then to not believe in God. I also believe that inductive arguments for either theism or atheism are both more rational than reasons to be an agnostic.
I do not believe that the idea that “all are equally likely as well as unlikely” is not true. Probably the issue re. God or gods comes to down to but a few major positions with variations on them:
Theism (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam)
Polytheism (e.g., 330,000,000 gods as in Hinduism)
Pantheism (all is God)
Atheism (there is no God or gods)
Re. your Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” I find the Jefferson quote too biased and dogmatic. It puts far too much faith in “reason.” And the idea that God “approves of reason” more than “blindfolded fear” commits the informal logical fallacy of "false dichotomy.” Further, how could Jefferson, or you, know this to be true? Jefferson was a deist who was heavily prejudiced, in a largely unconscious way, by Enlightenment rationalism.
You write: “Why should anyone believe what I do? Well, if believing what I do makes someone happy or at peace with life, then by all means, they should believe in it. But if believing what I do doesn’t add anything positive to someone’s life, then they shouldn’t believe in it.”
I myself do not believe in this approach. I think there should be reasons behind what one chooses either to believe or not to believe. The criterion for belief should not be whether it makes me happy or at peace with life. That would not be “reasonable.” (But by “reason” I don’t mean Jefferson’s kind of reason, which I think has been largely refuted by many philosophers. There are alternative claims about the meaning of "reason" that I and others think are better than Jefferson's.)
I am very glad you asked me what I believe. For some examples of things I believe see my blog: theolobloggy.blogspot.com. I also made a post explaining what I think about strong agnosticism.
Finally, thank you for welcoming me to Joe’s blog. I’m glad you are on it and sharing your ideas. My wife Linda and I lived in Joliet for 7 years, and have a lot of friends there. You will probably see Joe before I do so please tell him hello!
2 comments:
Hey PJ, unfortunately since I'm without an internet connection and a Ph.D. it might take me a little while to touch on everything that may require my response from your post but I'll do my best. So tell me, do you think that science can study the supernatural/spiritual? For instance, can science create a test to determine if there is a God, or to find out how much a human soul weighs? (Assuming there is such a thing) Or even, is science able to determine that the sounds and lights coming from the dark corner of your room is really the spirit of your recently past Grandmother? I ask this because I have one Ph.D. (My Anthropology professor from college) telling me that science can't study these things and then another Ph.D. (You) telling me that science can. On a side note, since you're obviously a philosophy buff I was wondering if you have any thoughts on "The End of Faith" a book by Sam Harris? I ask because I just started reading it and thought you may know something about it.
Hi Zach – Thanks for responding back. Here are four thoughts or points I’d like to make in response to you.
My first point is not that science can study such things. Rather, I think that it is a non-scientific idea that science cannot study such things. Let me try to explain. The statement (A) Science cannot study anything outside of nature is itself not something that “science” can study. That is, the truth or falsity of (A) cannot be studied, or proven, by “science” if “science” means (A). (A) then is itself a non-scientific statement. So then what is the cognitive status of (A)? It functions like a belief or, perhaps, an axiom. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to defend. The question then can become: why accept (A)? This has led many to believe that, when it comes to the issue of truth, science-as-(A) has limitations. It then becomes obvious that there are truths that science-as-(A) cannot get at, because the truth of (A) itself cannot be arrived at scientifically. This is an issue that is explored in philosophy of science classes; viz., just what is the foundation for scientific knowledge? For example, philosophers of science study Thomas Kuhn and others in that stream who argue for the ultimate irrationality of science (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/#6.2). I know that sounds radical, but philosophers of science study the ultimate, ontological foundations of science. This is an area I have long been interested in. The ultimate “rationality” of science is not such an easy thing to show.
My second point is that scientists who are embracing Intelligent Design Theory argue that “effect to cause” science implies a Designer or Creator. See William Dembski on effect-cause reasoning as science in: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Defense_of_ID.pdf
A third point, for me and other philosophers, is that arguments based in science such as the anthropic teleological argument and the kalam cosmological argument, provide persuasive inductive arguments for God. (For the kalam cosmological argument see the work of William Lane Craig at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/existence.html) I don’t believe science can create a test to prove there is a God. But I do believe that scientific discoveries and theories such as, e.g., anthropic coincidences in physics, make it more rational to believe that there is an Intelligence behind such things than that they have come about by chance.
A fourth and final point for me is that philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga et. al. argue that science-as-(A) is itself philosophically indebted to “methodological naturalism.” And methodological naturalism, or even “naturalism,” is a philosophical position that is itself non-scientific. For some of Plantinga’s papers on this see: http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/Papersbyplantinga.html
All this and more lead me and others to doubt that science is the only way to knowledge, and to be interested in other ways to know about things. One also starts to deal with the cognitive limitations of science qua science.
No, I am not familiar with Sam Harris’s book. But because you mentioned it I looked up samharris.org and checked out some of his ideas. But I have not read the book. On a related note, though, I teach college courses in Logic and The Philosophy of Religion, so I feel I am quite acquainted with atheistic arguments against God. My initial guess is that Harris’s will all into that arena. But again I don’t know because I have not yet read him. I very much like reading books like that so maybe I will pick it up!
John
Post a Comment