Pim: This first sentence already shows that scientism is not 'science'
since it
assumes that it is the paradigm of truth. Science does not lay such
claims
to the truth but merely relies on the best observations available and
the
best perceptions of its time to describe as well as possible the
perceived
reality.
I did not claim that scientism and science are identical. In fact,
throughout this thread I have sought to delineate between them.
Keith: If something does not square with currently well-established
scientific beliefs, if it is not within the domain of entities
appropriate
for scientific investigation, or if it is not amenable to scientific
methodology, then it isnot true or rational.
Pim: Again science does not lay claims to that which cannot be
observed. If it
falls outside the realm of science it is inappropiate for scientific
investigation and methodology but truth or rationality of it cannot be
addressed.
I think it would help to distinguish between science as it is formally
defined and science as it is actually practiced. I agree with you that
science should limit itself to the realm of what is capable of
observation (although science does make inferences from what is observed
to that which is unobservable as is the case with subatomic particles,
magnetic fields, etc). Nevertheless, there are many in the scientific
community who do not refrain from making philosophical assertions as
though they are scientific pronouncements. Take Carl Sagan's infamous
declaration: "The cosmos is all there is, all that there ever was, and
all that ever will be." for example.
Pim: If it cannot be observed then it is a matter of belief and
subjective
opinion. Science is our model of the best intellectual effort to
describe
our understanding of observations of the perceived world around us.
Again, may I ask how you know that observation is the sole source of
knowledge?
Pim: That depends on our definition of knowledge. To me knowledge does
not
include my (possible) belief in fairies or the UFO behind Hale Bopp or
the
existance of the Greek deities. Perhaps we could include faith in
knowledge but then the meaning of the word knowledge would not be the
same
as it used to be for me..
The denial of fairies, UFO's, and finite Greek deities does not result
in the philosophical and intellectual dilemmas that we are discussing.
It is the Christian claim that the rejection of the revelation of the
God revealed in the Scriptures results in philosophical foolishness and
internal contradiction. The Bible is clear that man's moral rebellion
has adverse intellectual consequences:
"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave
thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools,..."
(Romans 1:21-22).
Keith: It is this theory of knowledge that is self-destructive because
when held to its own standard it fails. The claim that all knowledge is
derived from sensory experience is not itself known to be true (nor can
it
be) on the basis of observation or by means of science since science can
neither confirm nor falsify such a universal claim about the limits of
knowledge.
Pim: Nor is the claim that knowledge includes more than the sensory
perception
necessarily true either since we cannot observe it we cannot address
such
a statement. So if you want to include in knowledge a faith in the
supernatural then science cannot oppose this or support this. THere is
just no evidence to support of falsify this assumption.
I do not reject the claim that all knowledge is limited to empirical
observation on the grounds that it is not capable of being
scientifically verified but rather because it is self-refuting; kind of
like uttering "I can't speak a word of English."
Pim: I am curious about the laws of logic ? What are they ?
I had in mind the fundamental principles of reasoning: the law or
contradiction, the law or excluded middle, and the law of identity.
These are necessary and universal truths which I contend are not known
on the basis of observation. Empirical observation can tell us what is
true at a particular time but they cannot tell us what MUST be true AT
ALL TIMES. From the following paragraph as well as your previous posts,
I conclude that you believe that there are certain principles of
rationality that we know to be true. For the sake of consistency, you
would have to say that we have knowledge of these rudimentary principles
on the basis of observation. Is that so?
Pim: So your are saying that there might be knowledge which does not
exist in any observable form, cannot be supported or falsifies but
should still be considered knowledge? I believe that this weakens the
word knowledge to include anything from superstition to prejudice to
irrationality.
First of all, no "knowledge" exists in an observable form. Have you
ever seen knowledge? What did it look like? How much did it weigh?
What physical properties did it have? What I am saying is that there is
a universal knowledge of God mediated through what he has made.
Now, before you fire off a post dismissing me as "circular" in my
reasoning, using the Bible to prove my points, please consider the
nature of ultimate epistemological authority. Unless we are going to
have an infinite regress of prior proofs for every belief we hold as
true, our knowledge must rest upon something that we regard as being
self-verifying and of ultimate authority. The empiricist, when asked to
justify his approach to knowledge, will, if consistent, appeal to
sensory experience. In a similar fashion, the individual who believes
that logic is the ultimate epistemological authority will appeal to
logic in justifying his belief. If, when asked to prove that my
ultimate source of authority is in fact ultimate, I appeal to any other
source of knowledge, IT and not my stated authority is in actuality
ultimate. Thus, when it comes to the matter of ultimate authority in
the realm of knowledge all of us will be circular in some sense. By
necessity we will employ our standard of knowledge in defending it.
This is by no means peculiar to the Christian. We all stand on level
ground at this point.
The Christian worldview presupposes that God possesses exhaustive self
knowledge. In addition, He possesses complete knowledge of the universe
because He has created it according to His plan and He sovereignly
directs its affairs according to that plan. Furthermore, this God has
created all things in such a way that they clearly manifest Him. There
is no fact of nature, according to the Christian position, that is not
revelatory. This God has also created the human mind in such a way that
it can perceive this self-revelation clearly. According to Christian
theology, man is not left to himself to try to figure out God but rather
God has given revelation (both in creation and the Scriptures that He
has inspired) that bears His self-verifying authority. Therefore, every
fact of human experience bears witness to God. To say that God must
prove Himself according to some other presupposed standard of knowledge,
is but a more sophisticated way of rejecting and resisting His absolute
authority.
In contrast to the Christian, the unbeliever begins with his own
presuppositions regarding what is absolutely authoritative as the
criterion of truth- his own autonomous reasoning. In the spirit of
Protagorus he shouts "Homo mensura!" "Man is the measure." He is the
final authority concerning what is good and what is true. Instead of
submitting to the revelation of the One who alone has exhaustive
knowledge of reality, he sets out with himself as the point of
reference, to construct a comprehensive philosophy to unify the various
particulars of his experience. Like a sailor using an untethered buoy
to gain his bearings in a storm at sea, man seeks to make sense of
himself and his world using himself as his point of reference. But
because he insists on interpreting himself and his environment in terms
other than those revealed by the only One who sees and knows reality
thoroughly and without error, he formulates internally inconsistent life
and world views that are not only incapable of providing the necessary
preconditions for his experience but which would make such
unintelligible. All the while he contends that his rejection of the
Christian message is due to his concern for rationality and logic.
Keith: Thus, the motivation for scientific inquiry was the conviction
that
it was possible (in a limited fashion) to "think God's thoughts after
Him." Any attempt to make Christian theism and the scientific method
inherently antithetical is historically and theologically uninformed.
Pim: Historically you might be right but this is irrelevant for the
discussion
about knowledge, science and faith. After all one does not need the
belief
in a specific deity to feel the need to 'think god's thoughts after
her/him'. What if one believed that mother nature was the deity ? What
would prevent such a belief from using the scientific method ? That
historically christianity was prevalent in (western) europe and that
many
of our present science relies on scientists from that era and region
does
not mean that scientific method is uniquely rooted in a belief in a
deity.
My argument was never that adherents to other religious/philosophical
beliefs cannot employ the scientific method. Rather, it was that the
Christian is being consistent with his presuppositions when he does. I
also wanted to counter what appeared to be a suggestion that belief in
the Christian God was somehow detrimental to scientific exploration.
Although in recent posts you have conceded that there is no inherent
conflict between the Chrisian position and the scientific method, such
was not always the case. Previously you have suggested that belief in
God, rather than being a stimulus for scientific inquiry as I have
claimed, is a deterrent to such since the theist would do nothing more
than "cop out" and cry "god did it" to account for every as of yet
unexplained phenomenon. I join you in attacking the "God of the gaps"
mentality for the Scriptures do not support it.
Keith