Re: Signs of Scientism

Dave,

I strongly agree. Perhaps in mathematics, where in a certain sense we function as creator, proofs may not require faith. But at any point at which I assert that my concepts apply exactly to the world I did not create, I must exercise some degree of faith. That faith may be in the reasonableness of certain assumptions (such at the time-invariance of laws you allude to) or in the legitimacy of extending my intrinsically limited understanding to a universal rule, but it is there. Our successes may have led to a kind of victory disease, which seems sort of ironic on the anniversary of Einstein's miracle year.

Pete Cook
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Opderbeck
  To: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
  Cc: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca ; kbmill@ksu.edu ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:14 AM
  Subject: Re: Signs of Scientism

  Proofs do not require faith.

  But they do, don't they? "Proofs" as we conceive them require faith in our noetic capabilities and in our rational capabilities. "Scientific" proofs require the further unprovable (although reasonable) assumption that physical laws remain uniform over time. This is one of the things that's disturbing me about the notion of carving "science" out as a separate sphere of knowledge with its own epistemelogical rules. It seems to me that distinctions between "science / faith" or "proof / faith" are exaggerated. It seems to me that the central question should be "how well do my conclusions conform to Reality." Any answer we give to that question entails foundational assumptions that are beyond "proof." Carving "science" or "proof" out from the broader context of what consititues human knowledge seems to lead sometimes to strange conclusions about what can be considered "true."

  However, let's just say, for the sake of consideration, that this were true and you just read it in the newspaper? Would you burn your bible and join the atheists?

  The problem here may be the phrase "the origin of life." When I hear the word "origin," it sounds to me like "ultimate cause." If God is not the ultimate cause of life, then we should burn our Bibles (or at least read them merely as interesting literature rather than as authoritative in any sense), because the narrative of our faith would then be false. As Richard Bube said in a PSCF article, "We Believe in Creation." ( http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1971/JASA12-71Bube.html) If science could offer complete naturalistic explanations for all causes preceding the Big Bang and back through eternity, it seems to me that the doctrine of Creation would evaporate. (I have trouble even conceptualizing this; it always leads me back to something like Acquinas' "unmoved mover.")

  I'm pretty sure, though, that the phrase "origin of life" has a different meaning as Ken is using it. Say, for example, that we could somehow confirm that organic molecules developed throughout the universe through "natural" processes and arrived on the proto-Earth through comet impacts. My guess is that would be the kind of solution to the origin of life question Keith mentions (assuming that neo-Darwinism really accounts for the development of life from those organic molecules). But that wouldn't cause me to throw away my Bible (though it would cause me to once again reexamine the first couple chapters of Genesis) because it wouldn't address the question of ultimate causation.

  On 1/16/06, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Gregory Arago wrote:
>
>
> Keith Miller says: "It is entirely reasonable given our current state of knowledge (both positive and negative) that a very plausible solution will be found to the origin of life."
>
> Please also excuse if I mention that this is one of the most obvious cases of 'scientism' I've seen. Is it not to most people at ASA? A solution to the origin of life? What science is so bold as to suggest such a thing? Does this not represent an opposite pole from the IDM's designer-did-it approach? At least the IDM is apparently wise enough to insist upon the mystery of life's origins, aside from making some scientific claim to proof.
>
>
> I don't expect it will be as easy as Keith's words at least suggest.
> However, let's just say, for the sake of consideration, that
> this were true and you just read it in the newspaper? Would you burn
> your bible and join the atheists? I would wager that we rely too much
> on science to answer a question that is largely one of faith. God does not
> have to conform to our rules, we have to transform to his.
>
>
>
> Such thinking, in combination with the El Tejon, shows why scientists don't belong in philosophy classes as much as it shows that philosophers shouldn't tell scientists what to think. Thankfully, there are many interdisciplinary thinkers and cross-over scholars who can help bridge gaps instead of making them into abysses that Science trys to tackle.
>
>
>
> Keith is only making an estimate: accurate or not as it may
> be and the results will depend entirely on experimental data. Science
> may have the capacity to answer _how_ it happened, but that is quite
> different from _why_ it happened or why we are here. The latter is
> crossing into scientism.
>
> What you need to recognize is that whether science can explain the origin of
> life or not, it does not prove there is no God, it does not prove the Jesus
> did not die for our sins, it does not prove that our salvation does not depend
> on faith and faith alone, and it proves nothing about the God's grace. The
> only thing it proves is that creationist notions are wrong.
>
> But I would also raise the point that creationists are also trapped in a rather
> convoluted form of scientism because they have tried to ramrod and twist
> the scientific data to fit their notions of what the bible says. That is an
> attempt to prove God by human means. Proofs do not require faith. Should
> we expect that something so simple as science could explain the mystery of
> our existence or why we should be moral and obey God?
>
> by Grace alone we proceed,
> Wayne
Received on Sun Jan 22 22:33:46 2006