What or whom would enforce such a requirement anyway?
Samuel Skinner responded on 09 May 2008 at 1:49 am #
Naturalism is required for science. However, naturalism leads to atheism. The only way to deal with this leads to cognitive disodence.
Why? Because you can’t just say “God did it” in science. It is a nonanswer.
Also, it is worth noting that although many of those people were religious it had nothing to do with their science research… except Farday. He thought the magnetic fields had to be circles because circles were divine- and he was right! About the fields, not the divinity.
It’s becoming a de-facto requirement that you not espouse any significant religious beliefs, lest you be branded an “irrational” or “unscientific” person. Look at what happens to people like Behe.
Samuel,
No, naturalism is not required for science. I can make a much more persuasive case that strict atheistic naturalism makes modern science impossible. Don’t forget that theistic assumptions formed the backbone of the scientific method.
Having religious convictions, and a theistic outlook does not mean you answer every question with “God did it.” I don’t know how much more I could proven that than I did in those two posts. Those are just some of the men who say, “God did it…but how?”
For you to say that their religion had nothing to do with their research is just ignorant. Boyle, Newton, and Kepler (just to name three) wrote an extensive amount about religion; they considered their faith and their research to be a single search for truth. Some of those men were led to their faith by their studies!
I’m just sick and tired of hearing about how religion and science can’t reconcile, and how “real” science has to be atheistic. Those are opinions born out of (and supported only by) bigotry towards religion. They have no basis in reason, history, or evidence.
Tony Hoffman responded on 09 May 2008 at 6:14 pm #
Medicine Man,
What’s your argument that strict atheistic naturalism makes modern science impossible?
What theistic assumptions formed the backbone of the scientific method, and by formed do you mean “once formed, but no longer do” or formed in the past and remain intact?
What do you mean by reconciling religion and science? Do you mean that science should teach us that there is a god, or that theism should concede that it cannot provide explanatory, predictive theories on the material world that compete with science? Because these are what I see as the approximate positions of the two, and I’m not sure who you think is going to make that compromise on either side.
Your last two sentences sound a bit extreme to me. If you want I’m sure I can think of some examples of how religion and science have found themselves at irreconcilable odds.
Samuel Skinner responded on 09 May 2008 at 6:44 pm #
Yeah Behe. Since he has joined the ID movement he has.. come up with buzzwords! Come on- I expect that of marketing, not scientists. I expect them to discover the thing that will be buzzworded.
God did it… but how…
…
…
…
I would cry, but I realize you are serious. Okay, here I go. If God did something, he did it by supernatural or miracle methods… in which case we can’t trace it. The only way to understand something is to follow it by nature methods. You could say “well God uses natural methods”, but that is rather stupid. I eat meat with metal utinsils- I don’t use flint tools. The idea that an all powerful creature would always choose the worst and most inefficient process is ridiculous.
Yeah- they considered both part of their search for truth. And you know what? They were right- religion falls under science. It just happens to be false. They thought otherwise, but they didn’t have all the pieces. And they were mostly deistic.
For you to say that their religion had nothing to do with their research is just ignorant.
Boyle, Newton, and Kepler (just to name three) wrote an extensive amount about religion;
Writing about religion doesn’t mean that religion had anything to do with their research.
they considered their faith and their research to be a single search for truth.
This also doesn’t mean that religion had anything to do with their research. AFAIK, there is no functional theology within their science. If you think you have a candidate, replace it with any other theology and see if you can conclude that their science would have been different. If any scientist could verify these religious scientists’ conclusions without reference to religion, then religion plays no part in those scientific conclusions. Religion may play a part in that scientist’s personality and how they were led to begin their science, but scientific conclusions, nearly by definition, are independent from any one person’s personal beliefs.
Some of those men were led to their faith by their studies!
This also doesn’t mean that religion had anything to do with their research, it means their research had something to do with their religion.
MedicineMan responded on 09 May 2008 at 11:52 pm #
Tony,
” What’s your argument that strict atheistic naturalism makes modern science impossible? | What theistic assumptions formed the backbone of the scientific method…”
These go together, so I’ll answer them together. Every fact is subject to interpretation. Some interpretations make more sense than others, and some match the evidence better than others. Those interpretations require presuppositions – they necessitate preconceptions. In theism, you have a structure which presumes that nature is arranged in a specific and orderly way, and that it is consistent. That order is presumed because of the presumptions of an orderly Creator. Without that, the whole idea of experimentation and hypothesis testing falls apart. Briefly (criminally briefly, I know, but I’m not up for dissertations tonight), an atheist has no reason to assume that anything is consistent or orderly. Even experiments and experiences that seem to suggest repeatability only speak to the experiences that specific person has had – you have nothing other than presumption on which to assume that those rules hold for everyone else.
Theism not only includes that presumption of order, but it puts it into a context that logically expects it. In short, theism presumes that nature is orderly, on the basis of its creation. Atheism has no basis on which to pre-assume that nature is orderly. These assumptions remain intact. When scientists study far-off galaxies, they presume that the laws of physics are at least generally the same ‘out there’. They presume that physics will behave tomorrow as it does today – those are givens under theism, but uncertain guesses under ‘strict’ atheism. Also, theism provides a reason to believe that the universe is something that we can understand using reason and intellect.
What I mean is it’s entirely false to say that science and religion cannot coexist without contradictions (“be reconciled”). Scientific evidence does given powerful suggestions of design, intent, and order. Theism is not a “form” of science, so your second idea is nonsensical. Theism is a worldview, science is a process. What you said is like asking if Democracy, Hedonism, or Existentialism can provide predictive, explainable theories that “compete” with science. Religion (particularly Christian theism) and science are not fundamentally at odds, and only the ignorant proclaim otherwise.
If my last two sentences sound extreme, then so be it. History does not support the idea that religion must be rejected or set aside to make scientific progress. Logic and experience don’t support it, either. Those who say so aren’t basing that opinion on fact, they’re basing it on prejudice. There’s plenty of shallow rhetoric from New Atheism, but it cannot be plausibly supported that science cannot survive in a religious worldview, or vice versa.
I could probably come up with more examples of specific religious beliefs being solidly contradicted by science than most people can – but you can’t look at history, fact, or reason and find any support for the idea that all religions and religious ideas are scientifically wrong. Not all ideas are created equal, and seeing non-truths cut down by reason is exactly what you’d expect. Debunking falsehoods doesn’t change the truth. This list of strongly religious scientists puts the lie to any suggestion that all religion falls before science.
MedicineMan responded on 10 May 2008 at 12:01 am #
Samuel,
“I would cry, but I realize you are serious…”
Well, I’d laugh, but I realize you’re seriously putting those forward as arguments against the idea of God. For example, why assume that everything God does has to be with super-natural methods? That’s like criticizing an engineer for designing a tractor and then using it to plow a field. God designed the universe, doesn’t it make sense for Him to use what He designed? In particular, if He designed the universe to do certain things, doesn’t it make sense for Him to use it to DO those things? And what great insight gives you the perspective to say that God’s use of natural methods is the “worst and most inefficient process”? And who says we can’t “trace” it? SETI spends millions of dollars looking for coherent data from space. If they ever got a message-rich code as sophisticated as the DNA strand, they’d be ecstatic. When even the hardest of skeptics comment about the “appearance” of design, I think you have to be a bit more open to those ideas that your comment suggests. I think you’re buying anti-ID rhetoric a little too easily. (Oh, by the way – note that you may think metal utensils are “the best”, but other cultures disagree. The “best” method isn’t quite so easy to pin down. And, you’re still using a tool for its intended purpose – why can’t God do the same?)
Well, if you think religion’s “false”, because they “didn’t have all of the pieces”, then I presume you don’t support evolution, abiogenesis, global warming, or the fields of history, archaeology, paleontology , and forensics. There’s more than a little “filling in the blanks” going on there.
MedicineMan responded on 10 May 2008 at 12:07 am #
Paul,
When you’re a scientist who believes that the universe was created by an actively-involved God, then it has everything to do with your research. Worldviews aren’t something you put on and take off like a jacket. I deliberately focused that list on men for whom religion wasn’t nominal, it was essential. I’d encourage you to find out more about Kepler’s writings, for example. He didn’t just brush science and religion together, he wove them side-by-side. Theistic reasoning makes up a notable part of his scientific work. Wikipedia is…well, wikipedia…but they include a convenient summation of Kepler’s (and many other scientists’) view:
“…motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.”
I can do a “replacement” theology for you right now: anything but theism. There’s a reason that modern science didn’t originate in places dominated by spiritism, pantheism, or animism. Note that until Darwin came up with a mechanism for evolution, it was even tough to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” as Dawkins (I think) put it. The basic concepts of science (orderly, consistent laws, repeatability, comprehensibility) are inherent to a theistic worldview. They don’t naturally flow from any other worldview. Perhaps you didn’t read some of the quotes I gave from people like Von Braun, Newton, or Pasteur. Those would begin to answer your charge that scientific conclusions have to be separate from one’s religious beliefs.
This is fallacious: If any scientist could verify these religious scientists’ conclusions without reference to religion, then religion plays no part in those scientific conclusions.
If any detective could verify these forensic investigators’ conclusions without reference to forensics (e.g. by finding a security camera tape), then forensics plays no part in those conclusions. Not true - in fact, there are a lot of things that science can now confirm without using the methods that were originally used; that doesn’t mean that the original methods weren’t part of mankind coming to those conclusions. It certainly would be silly to say that the original methods aren’t compatible with science.
And, this, of course, is the real key: If a scientist could verify these non-religious scientists’ conclusions with reference to religion, then non-religion is not a necessity for those conclusions. I don’t see how you can reject this, and accept your statement. It’s also slippery to say “without reference to religion” – don’t forget, my contention is that theistic assumptions are required, not that every scientific discovery has to be accompanied by chapter and verse.
If God did something, he did it by supernatural or miracle methods… in which case we can’t trace it. The only way to understand something is to follow it by nature methods.
Science does have limits, even under atheistic assumptions. There are things we can’t trace. Heisenberg showed us that. But we can know and understand things by means other than science. The limits of science are not coextensive with the limits of knowledge. In the case of God’s activity, we also have his revelation, and theological and philosophical reflection on it. We have our experiences, which include awareness of order in the universe, consciousness, conscience, free will, reason, and so on. Science can describe those things, more or less successfully, but it cannot explain all of them. In fact, some people holding to your kind of approach to knowledge think science explains them away (free will, ethics, etc.). That leads to some terrible inconsistencies, though.
So in sum, it is not true that the only way to understand something is to follow it by nature methods.
You could say “well God uses natural methods”, but that is rather stupid. I eat meat with metal utinsils- I don’t use flint tools. The idea that an all powerful creature would always choose the worst and most inefficient process is ridiculous.
I think you’re equivocating on “natural” here. In “God uses natural methods,” “natural” means something like, “in accordance with the regular workings of nature, set up by God in the creation.” When you talk about flint tools, “natural” means “not synthetic, or not manufactured through some extensive series of human interventions.” There is nothing inefficient about the first, and the analogy becomes irrelevant in view of the equivocation.
And they were mostly deistic.
As they say in Wikipedia, “citation needed.” Or as I would say here, I simply disagree. MedicineMan has shown us otherwise on his blog posts linked in my original post above. So if you want to convince us otherwise, please show us some supporting data.
I think that even the anti-religious have to accept two ideas: First, that modern science was born out of theism. Second, that there are a wealth of examples of superb scientific minds, past and present, who hold strongly to religious beliefs.
I also think that everyone, skeptic and believer, has to admit that we sometimes let our dogmas interfere with our reason. We don’t like having our assumptions questioned, and we get resistant when something seems to do that. In the case of atheism, consider the Big Bang theory. An eternal, un-caused universe was a fundamental concept of historical atheism - so it was atheists who resisted it, at first.
I think a danger of the modern rhetoric is that, rather than allowing different ideas about those pre-assumptions to interact and compete, it stifles dissent. If Dawkins, Meyers, and so forth had their way, there would only be one perspective, and I think that’s antithetical to real science. Closing one’s mind to certain possibilities isn’t scientific, it’s dogmatic.
MM, I think you’re talking historically, and I was talking functionally or logically, in the following sense:
For instance, Kepler’s idea,
“…motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.”
is not necessary to do science. We don’t have to assume the reason why the universe if orderly (God created it) in order to do science, we merely have to look for whatever regularities happen to occur.
I can do a “replacement” theology for you right now: anything but theism. There’s a reason that modern science didn’t originate in places dominated by spiritism, pantheism, or animism.
Again, you’re speaking historically, and I’m speaking about the logical requirements of science.
Those would begin to answer your charge that scientific conclusions have to be separate from one’s religious beliefs.
I’m talking about the content of their science. The content of science is (should) be the same no matter one’s religion. I’m talking about, to take an absurd example, whether magnetism produces X electricity if you’re a Christian or whether it produces X+Y electricity if you’re a Hindu.
If any detective could verify these forensic investigators’ conclusions without reference to forensics (e.g. by finding a security camera tape), then forensics plays no part in those conclusions.
Not clear if you think this is parallel to my idea. It isn’t, because I’m talking about religion in science, and your example is talking about forensics in forensics.
Not true - in fact, there are a lot of things that science can now confirm without using the methods that were originally used; that doesn’t mean that the original methods weren’t part of mankind coming to those conclusions.
Agreed. I’m saying it means that those original methods aren’t essential, it is mere historical circumstance that it happened that way.
And, this, of course, is the real key: If a scientist could verify these non-religious scientists’ conclusions with reference to religion, then non-religion is not a necessity for those conclusions. I don’t see how you can reject this, and accept your statement.
Because religion adds extra items compared to the non-religious. Here’s why: everything that a non-religious scientists has to assume in order to do science is also assumed by the religious scientist (empiricism, experimentation, etc.), it’s just that the religious scientist adds on the God stuff, which is unnecessary. QED. The empiricism, etc., though, is, by definition, necessary for science. Religion happened historically in science, but I wouldn’t call religion necessary in a logical or intellectual sense.
We don’t have to assume the reason why the universe if orderly (God created it) in order to do science, we merely have to look for whatever regularities happen to occur.
Even in that statement, you should be able to see the problem. There’s an assumption of regularity, intelligibility, and order in science. There is no rational reason for a person to assume such things, devoid of a theistic framework. Just because you observe it doesn’t men it will always be that way, or that it’s going to be that way anywhere else. Theism gives you the rationale to believe that; that’s why it was theism that birthed science.
The logical requirements of science still demand those assumptions of regularity, intelligibility, and order. There is still no rational basis to believe in them outside of theism.
I’m talking about the content of their science. The content of science is (should) be the same no matter one’s religion.
Yes, of course. Experimentation and observations, controlled for the right variables, should produce the same results no matter who is involved. That does not mean that religious ideas or arguments are not, or cannot be, part of that reasoning.
In the topic we’re discussing, you’re trying to erase the difference between methodology and assumptions. All science proceeds with those same assumptions, but only theism gives you a rational basis to start with them. You’re also insinuating that if a person isn’t citing the Bible in a lab report, that their religious views are irrelevant to their research. Again, there are ample examples, past and present, of people who prove that false.
My analogy about forensics is valid. If a forensics team uses DNA and fiber analysis to bring an indictment against someone, and during the investigation, a detective finds video footage of the person committing the crime, you’d be flat-out wrong to say that forensics had nothing to do with the conviction, since the tape by itself would have been enough to convict.
…it is mere historical circumstance that it happened that way.
That’s a bit dismissive, in my opinion. I could apply that to any scientific discovery in history. But, whether Christians like it or not, Francis Crick is an atheist. Whether skeptics like it or not, Newton, Kepler, Pastuer, et. al. were Christians. And, like it or not, it was theistic assumptions that founded modern science. Calling that “mere historical circumstance” is like saying it was “mere circumstance” that America’s founding fathers were those particular men, and so we can be dismissive of the importance of someone like Jefferson or Madison. This is particularly when other systems didn’t come close to producing modern science, despite centuries longer to develop it.
Because religion adds extra items compared to the non-religious.
Again, be careful not to word-curl. And yes, theism adds “extra items” compared to other systems - hence, we have modern science instead of mysticism. That’s more or less the point of the history of modern science, that theism added the necessary components. As I’ve said, it’s glib and shallow to say that those assumptions are “unnecessary”, since you can’t get them otherwise. Yes, the non-theist can assume them - but only ad hoc, not a priori.
I wouldn’t call religion necessary in a logical or intellectual sense
“Religion” as in some particular denomination (watch the word curling) isn’t necessary. Theistic assumptions are.
Tony Hoffman responded on 10 May 2008 at 6:03 pm #
Medicine Man,
This just in. The sun climbs in the east in the morning. It sets in the West in the evening.
If you think man needed to consult a deity on that and thousands of other regularities then you might want to step outside.
Your tenet — that a belief in theism is a necessary precursor to realizing that there is a sense of order in the world, is bizarre. If that is truly your tested contention then you cannot be argued with.
I’ve been installing insulation and paneling in my garage today. In a way I wish I had time to look up the sources on this, and in another way it’s been refreshing to do something different.
Anyway, this belief is not so bizarre as you suppose. It was put forth by Robert Oppenheimer and Alfred North Whitehead a long time ago. More recent scholarly proponents of the view include Stanley Jaki and Rodney Stark.
I hope that gets you past the “bizarre” thought for a while. I’ll try to find more on this later.
Theism provides an a priori belief nature will be orderly and rational.
When we test something we assume we’re dealing with reality. It doesn’t disappear when we turn away. At the root of reality is not a set of contradictions. The Universe is orderly and that extends to anything we can know about it. This is the basis for physical laws.
Atheism can’t justify that assumption a priori. Theism can. Theism has a guardrail against solipsism and irrationality that atheism lacks.
This isn’t to say atheism is inferior to theism. It is just to say that the belief the Universe is intentional carries with it a belief in an orderly, consistent, Universe where physical laws make sense.
Tony Hoffman responded on 10 May 2008 at 8:26 pm #
Econ Grad,
It reads to me that you are declaring that atheism cannot justify (?) physical laws. I don’t know what you mean by justify. What does belief in a god have to do with physical laws as defined by science? (They are not defined by theism, I think you’ll agree.) How does belief in a God protect one from solipsism? If one can rationalize that the only existence one can be sure of is one’s own, how does belief in a deity change this presumption? If I can only be sure of my own existence, why does a deity get a free pass from a solipsistic perspective?
What version of Theism are you talking about? Couldn’t belief in an arbitrary deity make me think that the universe is arbitrary? If one believes in the version where God controls the world and can sometimes perform miracles, which by their definition defy physical laws, shouldn’t this undermine my “belief in an orderly, consistent, Universe where physical laws make sense.”
Tom,
Just because someone else, even a very smart person, comes up with an idea doesn’t make it persuasive.
There’s an assumption of regularity, intelligibility, and order in science.
No, those are conclusions derived from evidence, not assumptions. Science doesn’t start with regularity, it finds it where it exists (and doesn’t where it doesn’t exist, such as readioactive decay). And those conclusions are not more absolute than the evidence allows. I assume you’re talking about regularity, etc., in the (observable) universe.
Just because you observe it doesn’t men it will always be that way, or that it’s going to be that way anywhere else.
Science does not require this.
All science proceeds with those same assumptions, but only theism gives you a rational basis to start with them.
.
You don’t need a rationale for them. Just assume them, try it, and if it produces useful results, then use them. Science doesn’t have to be metaphysically grounded, it just has to work.
In the topic we’re discussing, you’re trying to erase the difference between methodology and assumptions.
Good distinction, our disagreement is about assumptions.
That’s a bit dismissive, in my opinion.
Yeah, sorry for the tone.
I could apply that to any scientific discovery in history.
My point exactly.
But, whether Christians like it or not, Francis Crick is an atheist. Whether skeptics like it or not, Newton, Kepler, Pastuer, et. al. were Christians.
Which is why you don’t need religion for the methodology of science, scientists practice it with or without religion.
And, like it or not, it was theistic assumptions that founded modern science. Calling that “mere historical circumstance” is like saying it was “mere circumstance” that America’s founding fathers were those particular men, and so we can be dismissive of the importance of someone like Jefferson or Madison.
What I mean is that while theist assumptions may have been at the founding of science (I’m taking your word for it), that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are crucial to it now. That’s what I meant by historical circumstance. Give credit to Newton and Jefferson, respectively, but science and democracy don’t currently depend on them. Something can grow bigger than its origins.
Samuel Skinner responded on 10 May 2008 at 9:34 pm #
Hey, my comment didn’t appear up. Did you delete it or did it not get through?
What I mean is that while theist assumptions may have been at the founding of science (I’m taking your word for it), that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are crucial to it now.
Rodney Stark made just this point if Victory Of Reason:
On the one hand, a strong case can be made that although Christianity was necessary for the rise of science, by now science has become so well-institutionalized that it no longer requires a Christian warrant. The same may be true for belief in progress. The conviction that we can deeply penetrate nature’s secrets and achieve advanced technology may no longer need to be based on faith, since all one really needs to do now is look around.
On the other hand, if Christianity is now irrelevant to modernization, why is it still spreading so rapidly? The fact is that Christianity is becoming globalized far more rapidly than is democracy, capitalism, or modernity.
…
There are many reasons people embrace Christianity, including its capacity to sustain a deeply emotional and existentially satisfying faith. But another significant factor is its appeal to reason and the fact that it is so inseparably linked to the rise of Western Civilization.
…
Consider this recent statement by one of China’s leading scholars:
But in the past twenty years , we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.
234-235
John Lennox, God’s Undertaker:
So, is naturalism actually demanded by science? Or is it just conceivable that naturalism is a philosophy that is brought to science, more than something that is entailed by science?
9
As I have argued elsewhere (having stolen the argument from someone - Lennox, most likely (that’s why I’m back in his book right now)), it is more accurate to say that science is methodological theism rather than methodological naturalism. One must presume cause and effect, regularity and order, rationality and logic, in order to do science. He is then relying upon the metaphysics of theism (Christianity, most accurately) when doing science whether he so justifies it or not.
Here’s an allusion to it:
We need to consider that being a theist is not only not a hindrance to good science, but it may be a necessary condition for certain discoveries being possible at all.
John Lennox, a mathematician from Cardiff at the conference, made a very paradoxical, but I think prescient, remark. He suggested that, just as it is possible to be an ontological theist but a methodological naturalist, so is it possible to be an ontological naturalist and a methodological theist. John and I agree that much of current biology (in so far as functional and teleological claims are still current) is in fact methodologically theistic. As the theistic paradigm develops, there is every reason to hope that it will be joined by scientists who are personally agnostic but who recognize good and successful science when they see it.
Indeed, historians of science like Duhem and Whitehead have argued that the development of modern physical theory in the 14th through 18th centuries would have been impossible without the Christ-engendered conviction that the physical universe might prove to be intelligible to us.
…science done on atheistic presuppositions will lead to the same results as science done on theistic presuppositions. For example, when trying to find out how an organism functions, it matters little whether one assumes that it is actually designed, or only apparently designed. Here the assumption of either ‘methodological naturalism’ (sometimes called ‘methodological atheism’) or what we might term ‘methodological theism’ will lead to essentially the same results. This is so for the very simple reason that the organism in question is being treated methodologically as if it had been designed in both cases.
Your comment got caught in the spam filter because of profanity. If not for the personal insult it was attached to, I would have just edited it out, and released the comment.
I have your comment saved and I could email it back to you if you wish. Let me know. But first please read the discussion policies, and let me know if you want to continue your part in the discussion under those guidelines.
I’ll be at the computer only intermittently today, so I can’t promise how quickly I’ll return an email, but I’ll do it when I can if you request.
A couple of sources I was able to find quickly on the web. I would really rather refer you to Rodney Stark’s books, but I want to make this easier than that. (If you have time to get to the library and look him up, though, begin with “Victory of Reason,” then “For the Glory of God.”)
One must presume cause and effect, regularity and order, rationality and logic, in order to do science.
I don’t think science *presumes* cause/effect and regularity and order. These things sometimes *result* from doing science, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes science finds no effect from a supposed cause, and sometimes science can’t find a cause when an effect happens. Science allows for the possibility of finding cause and effect, and regularity and order, but it doesn’t presume them.
If theism adopts rationality and logic, it doesn’t mean that any use of rationality and logic must be theistic or owes theism any debt.
An atheist can certainly accept the presence of physical laws. They cannot justify them as anything more than patterns that repeat faithfully. Not as actual intentional laws that constrain reality.
Belief in God (and thank you for capitalizing that proper noun) in our modern world is specifically linked to several monotheistic faiths. Each of these faiths hold that God created an orderly, consistent Universe. So I’ll deal with the situation we face as opposed to hypotheticals.
Atheist assumptions of reason, consistency and existence in reality are based off a class of experiences. Theists share the same experiences. In addition theists tend to have spiritual experiences that under gird their belief in God. These spiritual experiences form a guardrail as the predominant monotheistic faiths all attest to the orderly, logical, and true existence of the physical world.
An atheist has his experiences about the physical world to justify his presuppositions about the physical world. This is a weak form of logical support. The theist (in his mind anyway) has something distinct from physical reality which attests to the orderly, consistent, real existence of it.
None of this is to say theism is superior to atheism. It’s simply that the theist has much more to lose by an escape from reason into solipsism or irrationality.
MedicineMan responded on 11 May 2008 at 12:10 pm #
Paul,
This is absolutely false:
Science doesn’t start with regularity…
The entire concept of modern science is that of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. Unless you assume that things will behave the same under the same conditions, then scientific experimentation is worthless. The very act of conducting an experiment to confirm (or refute) a hypothesis assumes that there is a regularity of effects when the causes are identical.
Science does not require [consistency of order]…
One of the attributes of “real” science I hear touted so often is predictive ability. Unless you assume that physical laws will act tomorrow as they do today, and/or that physical laws will behave the same in Italy as they do in America as they do in Saturn’s rings, then the word “predictive” becomes nonsensical. Science cannot be separated from the presumption of order and consistency in the underlying laws. Those presumptions are totally random, completely arbitrary in any view other than theism.
Again, in regards to “Religion”, don’t word curl (Tom, sorry for the out-link, but that term is defined here.
I am not saying that some particular denominational approach has to be taken. I am saying that the fundamental, basic concepts of theism (an involved, intelligent, orderly Creator) are inseparable from science. This is why theism, of various stripes, birthed and nurtured science. It is also why Theists can continue to pursue their fields without running into fundamental contradictions; also, in fact, why so many have been led to theism as a result of their work.
Don’t take my word for it that science was born out of theism. Take the word of historians. Even Richard Dawkins, so far as I recall, has grudgingly said that the origin of science from Christian theism can’t be denied.
Something can grow bigger than its origins.
Yes, but if it strays away from the fundamentals, then it’s not the same thing any more. If you start including glass and concrete in your stew, then you’ve rejected some of the basics of cooking (ingredients must be edible). If you start rejecting theistic principles (the universe is orderly, intelligible, and regular according to some kind of organized system) then you’re not participating in “science” anymore.
Science cannot “outgrow” it’s foundations any more than a house can.
MedicineMan responded on 11 May 2008 at 12:30 pm #
Tony,
Thanks for the update! Now that we’ve established your grasp of “observation”, answer me this: why should you or I assume that the sun will do the same tomorrow? I presume that you have observed objects falling towards earth - why would you assume that they will continue to do so tomorrow? Or that objects would fall on a planet like Pluto?
The whole idea of “regularity” can be dismissed (lacking theism) as purely incidental. A “mere historical circumstance”, as Paul put it. So what if it happened twenty trillion times the same way? Who says that’s not just a cosmic coincidence?
Unless you assume that natural laws are laws, and that the universe has properties consistently applied, then you’re left with nothing remotely “scientific”.
The only system that allows you to make those necessary assumptions or repeatability - “regularities”, as you called them - with any sort of certainty is theism. Anything else is ad hoc, and subject to logical denial.
I’m arguing that everyone has assumptions - everyone. No one is immune from preconceptions. Modern science is not possible unless we presume order, intelligibility, and repeatability. You cannot prove that universe is orderly without assuming it in the first place. Anyone can assume this - but only a theistic worldview guarantees it. If you reject theism, then you reject the basis for believing those fundamentals. You’re free, from a logical and rational standpoint, to tumble off into solipsism.
But thanks for the tip - I’ll head outside, confident that I can use reason to make sense of an orderly physical world. You can stay in and wonder why you should even believe that there’s any such thing as natural laws in the first place.
Unless you assume that things will behave the same under the same conditions, then scientific experimentation is worthless.
You don’t assume that they will, you predict that they will based on past experience.
Science cannot be separated from the presumption of order and consistency in the underlying laws.
It’s not necessary for science to presume order. Science only has to *conclude* empricially that order exists (temporarily, because the future can change) when everytime we run experiment A we get result B. That’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion based on emprical evidence.
Science cannot “outgrow” it’s foundations any more than a house can.
There’s plenty of analogies to go around, though (but an analogy isn’t proof, for you nor for me). A fetus is dependent on the mother for its survival, but after birth does not (eventually) need a mother to survive. So what may have been crucial at a birth can fade away later on (in this case, in terms of physical survival).
So what if it happened twenty trillion times the same way? Who says that’s not just a cosmic coincidence?
Exactly. So depending on a scientific law is merely prudent. I’ll take that twenty trillion to one bet every time.
You cannot prove that universe is orderly without assuming it in the first place.
I think you mean “without hypothesizing it.”
Samuel Skinner responded on 11 May 2008 at 1:53 pm #
Hmm- I don’t think what I used was a swear word. Anyway, I’ll just point out the gist of my responce. You have declared that science requires theism. However that isn’t true- lets look at the examples.
Stonehedge.
The first computer (ancient Greece)
The Incans road network, city building, “writing”, etc.
China. They made a ton of discoveries.
India.
New Guinea.
Now, you can say what they did wasn’t science, but that is nonsense. Stonehedge is tied to the seasons and astronomical phenomena- it encompasses engineering, astronomy and the like. AND its builders were animists.
China wasn’t theist and made many profound discoveries- gunpowder, printing press, swords, steel, stirrup, etc.
New Guinea came up with agriculture independantly.
You get the idea. None of these groups were monotheists with a creator that guarenteed order. The idea evolved from the realization the universe has order and people’s inability to come up with a better answer.
As for Europe getting ahead first, read Guns, Germs and Steel.
Tony Hoffman responded on 11 May 2008 at 3:41 pm #
MedicineMan,
You wrote:
answer me this: why should you or I assume that the sun will do the same [ rise / set] tomorrow? I presume that you have observed objects falling towards earth - why would you assume that they will continue to do so tomorrow?
I think you are confusing metaphysical questions with scientific ones. It sounds to me that you are declaring that objects fall on earth because a creator has mandated that they do so. I say objects fall on earth because that’s what objects do. You are failing to convince me that this is a “preconception” on my part. My understanding of physical laws is an understanding. Some physical laws run contrary to my preconceptions — it would appear to me that the sun is revolving around the earth, for instance. I have learned otherwise. In other words, my understanding of many of the laws of science is exactly the opposite of what you say — the reality runs counter to my preconceptions, or modifies my preconceptions.
MedicineMan, I mostly don’t have time to debate with you right now — I’ll try and pick up on it later. Also, I want to apologize for phrasing my questions to you in a way that leads to jousting and escalation.
Tom, Just because someone else, even a very smart person, comes up with an idea doesn’t make it persuasive.
True. But you had called it “bizarre.” I think that if a very smart person puts forth a theory, we ought to at least be cautious about labeling it bizarre. That’s all.
Paul and Tony
No, those are conclusions derived from evidence, not assumptions. Science doesn’t start with regularity, it finds it where it exists (and doesn’t where it doesn’t exist, such as readioactive decay).
I think you are confusing metaphysical questions with scientific ones. It sounds to me that you are declaring that objects fall on earth because a creator has mandated that they do so. I say objects fall on earth because that’s what objects do. You are failing to convince me that this is a “preconception” on my part.
Those are two passages of several here that I think are good jumping-off points for a crucial distinction to be made. I’m not the first to say it in this thread, but I’ll say it again anyway and hope it becomes more clear.
We are the products of centuries of intellectual tradition that includes the Greeks, the Christians, the scientists. And much, much more, obviously. For us, there is regularity in nature, there is comprehensibility, there is purpose, there is good reason to believe in the value of studying nature, even in trying to harness nature to improve things. It is as water to a fish; we cannot imagine any other way of viewing reality. And so we do not see that this came from somewhere.
The best way to see that it did is by comparing our intellectual tradition to that of other cultures. The Buddhists and Hindus historically saw no value in nature; it was Maya, illusion, and endless inmperturbable cycle, or it was something to be accepted as it is without attempts to master it. The Greeks came out all over the place, but recall that Aristotle was no friend to the experimental method; and that Heraclitus said you never step in the same river twice, which is an approach not conducive to studying regularities in nature.
I could go on. The point is this: we may think it is bizarre to have any other basic conception of the world at all; and within our cultural framework, it is. But again: our cultural framework came from somewhere. The fact that other cultures have had other viewpoints shows that is a contingent thing.
What was the contingency that led to our seeing the world as we do? Looking backward, we see that the one culture that developed science is also the one culture that accepted the seven points of belief Rob Koons outlined in his paper that I linked to above. I hope he won’t mind if I quote him here. (He’s a college friend of mine, by the way, married to a friend of mine from high school. But he’s a good thinker in spite of my assocation with him–Oxford Ph.D, or D.Phil, or whatever it is, and tenured at University of Texas.)
(I’m not going to take time to clean the footnotes out of the text here.
.1. The belief in the intelligibility and mathematical exactitude of the universe, as the artifact of a perfect Mind, working with suitable material that it has created ex nihilo, and the closely connected Hebraic conception of God as a law-giver. The idea of a law of nature was first explicitly formulated in the fourth century by Basil of Caesarea in his Hexaemeron (Six Days), applying the Biblical model of God as lawgiver to the Greek picture of an ordered cosmos.
2. A belief in the fitness of the human mind, created in the image of God, to the task of scientific investigation, conceived of as a vocation given byGod.29 29 Kepler: I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy i creation, and I rejoice in the work of your hands. See I now have completed the work to 22
3. The need for observation and experiment to discover how in fact God has exercised his sovereign freedom and absolute omnipotence in crafting and legislating for the creation, a freedom incompatible with the complete determination of the divine will by a priori constraints. Recall Duhems view o the significance of Tempiers condemnation of Aristotelian physics for neglectin this very thing. In addition, Duhem argues that the omnipotence of God led to medieval speculation about the possible existence of many worlds like the earth, leading the way for the Copernican and Galilean revolutions.
4. The conception of nature as a divine Book, parallel to the Bible. The two-book model was a favorite theme of Galileo, Kepler, Bacon and others. Historians have discovered fruitful interaction between scientific theorizing and the development of biblical hermeneutics in the late Middle Ages, Renaissance, Reformation and Counter-Reformation.30
5. The disenchantment of the world by theism, clearing away the potentially discordant divinities and semi-divinities of polytheism and animism. This abolished the ontological gap between the heavens and the earth (Aristotles sub lunar and super-lunar realms), making possible Newtons unification of th explanation of motion.
6. The linear view of time, beginning with creation and passing through the unique, unrepeatable events of the divine comedy, in place of the otherwise ubiquito which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit. Quoted i Kaiser, Creation and the History of Science, 127. 30 See Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1998), and Kenneth J. Howell, God’s conception of a cyclical Great Year. This enabled Christian theists to conceive of the possibility of unprecedented progress in scientific knowledge and technical efficacy, in contrast to the endemic resignation and pessimism of antiquity.
7. The elevation of the dignity of matter and of manual work, a consequence of the theological doctrine of the Incarnation, especially given Jesus occupation as carpenter. Modern science was possible only when investigators became willing to dirty their hands in workshops and laboratories, and only when they began to see all material things, which have been created by God, as good in themselves.
You don’t assume that they will, you predict that they will based on past experience.
Unless you assume that things are repeatable, then past experiences are meaningless. That’s part of the point of the arguments Tom just posted. Theism gives a reason to believe that things are orderly and uniform. Spiritism, animism, atheism, etc. don’t give you that - the spirits or demigods (or the purposeless, random universe) could do things differently tomorrow than they(it) did yesterday.
It’s not necessary for science to presume order.
Then what, in heaven’s name, does science presume? No, really, read that blockquote out loud and think about it. What else could science presume - chaos? Science HAS to assume order, but only theism gives a reason to assume it in the first place. Empirical observations are only useful if you assume that each observation has some kind of rational connection to other observations. The whole idea that experiment A would result in B every time isn’t supportable without theism - see Tom’s citations above.
I suppose to answer your fetus example, I’d say it works. However, the mother’s womb imparted things into the fetus, like a heart and lungs, without which the child can’t survive - no matter how old they get. Theism imparted things “into” science, like presumption of order, that can’t be jettisoned without “killing” science. Also, I’d say that each scientific investigation has to start with the same presumptions, just like each new child has to begin with the same essential organs. If you want those essentials (rational presumptions), you need that womb (theism).
Exactly. So depending on a scientific law is merely prudent. I’ll take that twenty trillion to one bet every time.
Again, “probability” itself implies order. “Prudent” implies rationality. If you choose to adopt a scientific mindset, you’re adopting assumptions that are only supportable through the foundations of theism, not any other worldview.
You cannot prove that [the] universe is orderly without assuming it in the first place. | I think you mean “without hypothesizing it.”
No, I mean without assuming it. How do you test a hypothesis without assuming an orderly system in which that hypothesis is testable? How do you test the idea that the universe is orderly without utilizing that order to do so?
I think you are confusing metaphysical questions with scientific ones.
No, not at all. I’m talking about the assumptions that must precede science - those will always be ‘metaphysical’ questions. If anything, you’re confusing the two by acting as though those assumptions don’t need to be made at all.
I say that gravity functions (hence objects fall) precisely because a Creator has created gravity, and all the other forces it interacts with, to function in an orderly way. I would have no basis to assume that it does (function orderly) outside of that.
You are failing to convince me that this is a “preconception” on my part.
Describe how you would demonstrate “order” without assuming it in the first place. You won’t be able to, and that’s why non-theistic cultures went thousands of years without developing modern science.
Some physical laws run contrary to my preconceptions — it would appear to me that the sun is revolving around the earth, for instance. I have learned otherwise.
Now you’re confusing “preconceptions” with “perspective”. Reality may differ from your perspective-biased opinion, of course. It may also run counter to your pre-conceptions, but there is a difference between the two. A “rising sun” is a perspective. An orderly universe is a preconception.
Science doesn’t have a pre-conception that gravity does what it does - it has tested laws that indicate what it will or will not do. Those were formed only AFTER mankind made the assumption that the motion of objects was not arbitrary, and could be understood in some regular, orderly, consistent fashion.
I would have no basis to assume that it does (function orderly) outside of that.
Point of clarification: One might assume the orderly function of gravity without being a theist. That’s an obvious fact, because millions of people fit that description.
What theism supplies is:
1. A basis for that assumption: that the universe is orderly.
2. A reason for deep confidence that human minds are equipped to study the order of the universe.
3. By virtue of 1 and 2, motivation and grounds for studying gravity in depth; not just taking it as a given of daily life but exploring it fully.
I don’t want people to get locked in “you don’t have to be a theist to assume gravity is orderly.” You don’t. But in order to get to deep explanations for why that assumption makes sense, theism provides better answers than other worldviews. In fact, the only other strongly competing candidates for an explanation would be:
a) It just happened that way, or
b) It just happened that way in the one universe (out of infinite numbers of universes) that we live in.
So you have theism, or luck, or faith in the unobservable multiverse.
Yes, I agree, that needs clarification. My statement was meant to imply that there’s no rational basis (lacking that assumption of order that only theism really provides) to assume that gravity acts the same on planet XYZ in galaxy ABC as it does here. I also was including the idea of experience only being rationally predictive after you assume that underlying order. Obviously, anyone can note the apparent regularity of gravity, but only theism gives a suitable basis to believe that those observations are meaningful. Your phrasing is less subject to being misunderstood!
Thanks for linking to the posts, by the way. It’s always good to get a response!
Hi Steve,
When we last discussed it we were talking about the coincidence of how a non-euclidean geometry invented merely as an abstract exercise happened to end up describing reality.
The same is true of Max Plancks’s quantum math.
Planck viewed his quanta as mere mathematical devices, something he invoked in “an act of desperation” to explain why heated, glowing objects emit the frequencies of energy that they do (an exasperating puzzle known as the black body radiation problem). He did not seriously entertain the possibility that they corresponded to physical entities. It was just that if you treated light and other electromagnetic energy as traveling quanta, the equations all came out right.
The Mind And The Brain,/i>, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D.
Once again, abstract mathematical ideas which work out on paper also happen to work out in the physical realm. Mind-products equal reality because reality equals a mind product.
Samuel Skinner responded on 12 May 2008 at 12:33 am #
What happened to the second comment? That WASN”T obsence!
Anyway it was an example of people who weren’t theists and did use science. I hope this gets through.
Coolest example was the Greek computer, although Stonehedge also fits in well.
You seem to still be on the topic of “universality”- physical laws are the same through out the universe, as well as the idea of order. As those examples show, Christianity isn’t necesary for science to exist because these people were practicing science. Now, you might claim theism… except the Greek Gods were NOT the sort that lend themselves to the idea of stability. In fact Roman philosophers started schetching out deism overlying the pantheon because the Gods were so unsatisfactory in that regard.
Samuel, I’ve just been through all the comment moderation lists and the spam filter–I can’t find another comment you wrote. I don’t know what would have happened to it. I’m sorry about that.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 10:19 am #
MedicineMan and Tom,
I don’t see a distinction in your attribution of Theism as the preconception necessary for science to a more abstract notion like that of Einstein — the perception of order exists whether or not one attributes it to a creator or the simple fact of the existence of our universe. Order obviously exists on our world (gravity), and one can reasonably hypothesize that gravity exists elsewhere. Scientists hypothesize and go from there.
I have trouble with granting the West’s religious underpinnings as the reason that West was the first to develop the scientific method. Not only are there numerous examples in the past, and today, of Christian theists opposing the findings of religion, but the relationship is much more complex than I believe you gentlemen are limning. (Charlie attributes this comment to an unnamed Chinese scholar: “But in the past twenty years , we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.” I don’t have time to go into why this is not a good piece of evidence for the necessity of theism before developing science, but suffice to say that’s a pretty broad brush.)
I am a historian by schooling, and there is a consensus among historians that the West’s de facto separation of Church and State as a result of the Holy Roman Empire was crucial in the West’s development of its other institutions; by separating religious affairs from political ones (Rome held spiritual control, political control moved over Germany and France and back again for centuries) Western culture was more likely to develop institutions that were not tied in and restricted by religious considerations. This would certainly apply to science. Compare the strength of our non-religious institutions to those in the Islamic World and virtually every other culture where the spiritual and political remain married and there is good reason to find this argument persuasive.
Order obviously exists on our world (gravity), and one can reasonably hypothesize that gravity exists elsewhere. Scientists hypothesize and go from there.
Back up a few steps and you’ll see what MM is getting at. We can hypothesize because we can reason. So, rationality explains the orderly nature of the hypothesis. What does the orderly nature of rationality require? Logic. In my opinion this is the key to what MM is saying. What does the non-theist have in his “toolkit” to explain knowledge of an orderly universe? They only have logic. Not experience, not statistics, not hypothesis, not empiricism, not randomness - but logic of the mind. Knowledge of the consistent order of nature flows from logic of The Mind. But this is theism.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 11:50 am #
SteveK,
You appear to making a extension of a solipsistic argument — that nature is ordered because of the logic of the mind. How can you prove which precedes the other?
I would contend that the human mind is ordered (as are all living things) because there is order in the universe. The fact of my existence proves that the universe is ordered — whence come I if that were not the case?
Atheists must hold to a preconception that the universe is ordered. To hold otherwise would be contrary to the fact of their existence. But assuming order in the universe is not the same thing as having a preconception of a divine creator. Thus I believe that a theistic preconception is superfluous to science.
You appear to making a extension of a solipsistic argument — that nature is ordered because of the logic of the mind.
Not saying that. I’m saying knowledge of order is contingent on logic. Is logic (and knowledge) contingent on the physical alone, be it orderly or not? I don’t think so.
Searle’s Chinese Room argument says that knowledge (understanding) of physical order can’t come from physical order alone. Order can’t understand on it’s own without a “rule book” that transcends the physical order. If the physical order created the rule book then the physical order can alter it just as easily. The rule book created by the physical order in the Chinese Room may be different than the rule book created by the physical order somewhere else. This means logic - and from that, knowledge gained from science - can change like the tides, so to speak. In some distant place the Earth is objectively known (not assumed) to be flat because the physical order altered the rule book.
If logic is contingent then multiple objective realities are…well…a reality. This destroys the logic you assumed to conclude that. It’s a self-defeating argument.
I haven’t proven anything here, but I have shown you the end result of your thinking.
Unless you assume that things are repeatable, then past experiences are meaningless.
They may not provide proof, but they aren’t meaningless. They provide a basis for predicting, not proving, that cause A will produce effect B as it has in the past. We can move forward and use the results of science on a predictive basis (DL, where are you?), not as absolute proofs or absolute laws.
More later.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 2:09 pm #
SteveK,
First off thanks for the reference to the Chinese Room argument — I didn’t know about that one and I’m finding it fascinating.
I am not uncomfortable with logic deriving from the order or our world as it presently exists. This may not seem adequately foundational to some but it does not disconcert me. And that’s ultimately my point. It may not be the preconception that we wish for, but it is the only preconception we can prove that we have. And I still believe it is entirely adequate as a basis for science.
Hi Tony,
Said order would have existed in all times on the earth and in all places, accessible to all cultures, correct?
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 3:28 pm #
Charlie,
Not sure what you’re asking me. Do you mean am I making assumptions that the physical laws of our universe have been constant since the dawn of time? Or that have physical laws in ancient Egypt were they same as they are in the U.S. today?
I guess that in both cases I would say that yes, I am making those assumptions. I realize that these are assumptions, but I believe that these assumptions also present some degree of testability.
Your question does feel a little like a trap to me, though. So, um, I await your second question with some trepidation…
I am not uncomfortable with logic deriving from the order or our world as it presently exists.
Then you are comfortable with multiple objective realities, which is relativistic (non-objective) reality.
It may not be the preconception that we wish for, but it is the only preconception we can prove that we have. And I still believe it is entirely adequate as a basis for science.
You disprove the adequacy by proving it is adequate, as per my above statement. In this part of the universe, science finds the Earth is a solid sphere yet somewhere else, science finds that same Earth is a donut-shaped, flat disc. Your system doesn’t give you any tools to argue against either one because logic is contingent on physical reality, and so both are true. Gone is the consistency of nature that science demands. I can imagine that somewhere science has proven that E=cm^2.
Again, “probability” itself implies order. “Prudent” implies rationality. If you choose to adopt a scientific mindset, you’re adopting assumptions that are only supportable through the foundations of theism, not any other worldview.
The order you speak of within probability is not assumed, it is an empirical observation. At any time, the odds may surprise me, water may not boil when I turn the heat on underneath it on the stove (in fact, quantum physics predicts a very, very small chance of this happening, as I recall), but I’ve found that it’s worked very well in the past, and while there’s no guarantees, it’s a highly functional system until it’s not. Which is why science is always ready to overturn its conclusions given sufficient evidence.
Rationality must be assumed, but are you claiming that theism is the only basis for assuming rationality? If so, can you lay out that case in summary for me?
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 4:38 pm #
Steve,
You wrote:
Then you are comfortable with multiple objective realities, which is relativistic (non-objective) reality.
This does not necessarily follow from what I said. I said that I am comfortable with logic deriving from the order of our world as it presently exists. I don’t know if another world exists, and if it did it doesn’t matter to me.
Then you go on to say:
You disprove the adequacy by proving it is adequate, as per my above statement.
I actually have no idea what you mean by this statement. If you want to persuade me that my position is untenable could you please rephrase your assertion above for me?
Me: You disprove the adequacy by proving it is adequate, as per my above statement.
You: I actually have no idea what you mean by this statement.
It’s a bit like saying “Objective truth is in the eye of the beholder”. If assumed (or proven) to be true, then it follows that it can also be false at the same time.
I don’t know if another world exists, and if it did it doesn’t matter to me.
It matters to the extent that you think observations prove that the universe is orderly. Just like with my statement above, if you assume (or prove) logic is contingent on physical order then simultaneous observations can prove the universe is disordered at the same time.
To paraphrase what Tom said on this subject before: I’ll be willing to grant that I’m wrong, if you’ll grant that somewhere it means I’m right.
Still learning new things about this system–I’ve just found Samuel Skinner’s missing second comment, now reintroduced into the discussion. Better late than never, I hope.
am a historian by schooling, and there is a consensus among historians that the West’s de facto separation of Church and State as a result of the Holy Roman Empire was crucial in the West’s development of its other institutions; by separating religious affairs from political ones (Rome held spiritual control, political control moved over Germany and France and back again for centuries) Western culture was more likely to develop institutions that were not tied in and restricted by religious considerations. This would certainly apply to science.
True enough. This also explains, according to Rodney Stark, why religion itself has thrived so much more in the U.S. than in Europe. Religion has never thrived when tied to power structures, and the same vice-versa. They do not belong together in that way.
But that’s about power structures, not about cultural mindsets, which is the topic here. It was not Christianity’s governmental ties but its intellectual effects that had the result of which we have been speaking.
You appear to making a extension of a solipsistic argument — that nature is ordered because of the logic of the mind. How can you prove which precedes the other?
Did you mean to say solipsistic or something else? Solipsism is the idea or theory that nothing exists except for me, and that everything I experience is the product of my own imagination. Maybe you meant something else.
Oh, goodness. So much to respond to, and my one-year-old isn’t in the mood for discussions of solipsism and epistemic cognitive existential…a propo…umm…stuff. I kid, of course, but I’ll just let most of the above stand as stated.
The distinction between denomination and generality has to be emphasized, as well as the difference between “rational” presumptions and “irrational” presumptions. No one (so far as I’ve seen) is suggesting that only one particular sect is capable of science - that would be somewhat antithetical to the whole point I made in the original two articles. My point in posting that list was to put an absolute dagger in the absurd claim that persons with religious beliefs cannot be “scientific”, or that religion is inherently opposed to science.
What I’ve tried to do is expand this by reminding everyone that the assumptions of order and so forth are absolutely required. Those assumptions can be made by anyone, certainly. However, there is a fixed, foundational basis for those assumptions in theism that is not present in other worldviews. This is why theism birthed modern science, and other systems did not.
I’m seeing some awfully fluid definitions of “science” here, so we need to note an important difference between “discovery” and “modern science”. The structured methodologies of “modern science” flow naturally from that orderly theistic perspective. They come only haltingly, and inconsistently, from anything else.
I’m a degreed mechanical engineer who quit grad school 6 credits short of an MSME to get married. I know full well the difference between “engineering” and “theory”. Ancient accomplishments are notable, but the ones I saw above aren’t examples of ‘modern science’. We’re not talking about rudimentary or isolated successes, nor are we talking about the ability to stack rocks so that they line up with stars. We’re talking about forming a methodological basis by which the fundamental laws of the universe can be understood.
That is modern science, and the reason non-theistic cultures didn’t develop it is because those very assumptions of order and repeatability do not come naturally to such worldviews.
Paul,
Quantum theory has a lot more to do with ‘uncertainty’ in the sense of measurement and observation that it does with actual ‘randomness’ in the sense that any old thing can happen. No matter how you slice it, there are rules, laws, and principles in the universe. …So far as I know.
Consider that you’d never seen dice before. If you saw a pair of dice rolled 500 times, and every roll resulted in a snake-eyes, would you consider that predictive of what would happen on roll 501? Sure! But only until someone told you that there was no particular reason that the dice had to fall that way, it was just the way it happened to happen. Starting without the presumption of order puts you exactly there - in a place where even the most “obvious” observations of regularity cannot be logically defended as anything other than “historical circumstance.” Unless we assume that “God does not play dice with the universe”, we can’t really be sure our observations are going to be meaningful.
Theism is the only stable basis for those assumptions of order and regularity. Spiritism, animism - and, logically, strict atheism - give reasons to believe that the “spirits” or “chaos” will do what they want when they want, with no purpose or order. Theism anchors a belief that there are “physical laws“, not just spirit-whims. Of course, you can choose to assume order, but you’re doing so ad hoc unless you’re approaching it theistically (sp?).
Gotta run. cxnbsb vvkl,jjjujsxxsxz (that’s my son’s two cents, and if that doesn’t convince you, nothing will… )
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 9:14 pm #
Tom,
You wrote:
Me: You appear to making a extension of a solipsistic argument — that nature is ordered because of the logic of the mind. How can you prove which precedes the other?
You:Did you mean to say solipsistic or something else? Solipsism is the idea or theory that nothing exists except for me, and that everything I experience is the product of my own imagination. Maybe you meant something else.
Thanks for not giving me the Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not thing it means what you think it means.” reference. I actually do know what solipsistic means — I was saying that SteveK’s argument was similar to a solipsistic one in that he contended that the only order one one could experience was the product of one’s imagination. I just thought that while the argument might be interesting it was, like a solipsism, impossible to disprove but not necessarily true.
I may still be misusing the word, of course, but I think that’s still a correct usage. One of the many benefits of coming here, by the way, is that I get to re-look up all those words I only ever half-knew, like syllogism, hermeneutic, etc.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 9:26 pm #
Tom,
You wrote:
Religion has never thrived when tied to power structures, and the same vice-versa.
I don’t believe that’s a conventional reading of history. The Christian Religion did not flourish until it was adopted by the Roman plutocrats, and suffered repression when a new despot was not a Christian. Islam expanded like wildfire precisely because it was tied to a powerful, violent, and expansionary political force — the early caliphs — and then waxed and waned depending on the energy and efficacy of various strongmen. Early Christian expansion in the new world arrived largely in the form of Spanish steel, swords, and horses. Etc.
My point in bringing up the separation of church and state is that state encompasses all of the other institutions, not just government. Law, education, science, etc. have all benefitted in the West from having been largely separated from religious control. That is why, today, we don’t stone people who commit adultery, why we teach our children things other than straight memorization of religious texts, and why we learn about things based on empirical evidence. I believe that separation from religious control, which tends to be reactionary and backward looking, is a principal reason that we have such great institutions in the West.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 9:29 pm #
Medicine Man,
You wrote:
My point in posting that list was to put an absolute dagger in the absurd claim that persons with religious beliefs cannot be “scientific”, or that religion is inherently opposed to science.
I just wanted to say how nice it is to read something that you wrote and be able to say that I completely agree. I was beginning to fear that we might never have that.
MedicineMan responded on 12 May 2008 at 10:30 pm #
Tony / Tom,
I don’t fully agree with Tom’s assessment about the “thriving” of religion, but because I think “religion” should be replaced by “Christianity”. Islam has actually never spread well through anything less than naked force, but Christianity has always grown strongest under persecution. Modern China vs. England is a relevant, and current, example. Where it’s persecuted, it’s exploding. Where it’s technically a state religion, it’s all but dead.
I don’t want to spiral off into an argument about what constitutes a “real” Christian or not, but the truths of the Gospel have historically been most faithfully and sincerely spread during times when those espousing those beliefs are under persecution. Nominal “Christendom” flourishes when the government tries to take it up as a rallying cry, mascot, or tool. Real Christian belief and practice does not fare well when it’s leashed to some other controlling entity.
Tom’s more important point is the one at the core of this discussion - that it was only in a generally theistic culture that modern science was able to develop.
I was beginning to fear that we might never have that.
Tony, you brought up “The Princess Bride”. Just when Inigo seems done for, he pulls through. Just when Wesley seems done for, he finds some strength. Reasonable people who sincerely want to untangle the truth will always find places where they can agree, no matter how apart their ideas may seem!
Quantum theory has a lot more to do with ‘uncertainty’ …So far as I know.
That’s not inconsistent with what I wrote about quantum theory. I don’t have a chapter and verse to refer you to, I’ll try to find a reference if I can.
Regarding the dice you were rolling: your example does not refute the idea that, given repeated similar effects from the same cause, one is prudent to bet on a similar result even it can be overturned on the very next occasion. The word prudent is crucial: it doesn’t speak to a proof that the expected effect will follow the same cause, it merely says that one is rational to predict that it will, even if a paticular case doesn’t follow one’s prediction.
Theism is the only stable basis for those assumptions of order and regularity.
I ask you to unpack what you mean by “stable.” My point is that a non-theistic basis still makes science *useful.* Nothing more, nothing less.
Good discussion.
Medicine Man, you’ve said everything I would have wanted to (self-flattery, of course). Except I’m not good with Princess Bride references.
Christianity has indeed flourished under persecution and was much healthier prior to being taken up as a tool of the government. The American founders knew this and the evidence is in the denominational strength of early America. But as you say, we digress..
I think your dagger in the heart of the religion vs. science canard is now well-established. That has been a recurring theme of this blog’s for some time.
Whenever it comes up the discussion goes in the same direction -
A: the founders of science were Christian
B: well, that’s a coincidence of history
A: it is actually more likely a prerequisite
B: but the Chinese had some technologies and the Greeks were pretty clever .
A: technologies and discoveries are not science
etc.
Hi Tony,
Thanks for answering my question even though you thought I might be trying to lay a trap. Very refreshing.
There was no trap intended. I thought my question highlighted nicely the irony hiding in your comments.
You’ve said that Christianity and its world view were not necessary conditions for the birth of science.
You said that we can observe the orderliness of nature and derive our logical ideas and, I presume, the grounding for scientific investigation from this observation. You said others might not find this grounding satisfying but that you thought it was sufficient.
But you admit that all cultures and all epochs have had access to this orderliness.
But it still remains that only Christendom birthed science.
Therefore, our observations of the (apparent) orderliness are not sufficient, either as logical grounds or as an historical case, to justify the development of science.
Something else other than observation was obviously needed.
Hi Paul,
Anyone can use science now. Not everyone can justify it. Using it as justified by Christianity without acknowledging it only hides the problem. As Einstein said, the greatest miracle of the universe is that we can understand it. As philosophers of science often ask, why are the laws as they are? why is there something instead of nothing? why are our brains so adapted as to be able to comprehend truths about the universe?
Christianity has the answer and had it before several centuries of scientific success allowed for claims of its bootstrapping.
Tony Hoffman responded on 13 May 2008 at 9:36 am #
Charlie,
You wrote:
Whenever it comes up the discussion goes in the same direction -
A: the founders of science were Christian
B: well, that’s a coincidence of history
A: it is actually more likely a prerequisite
B: but the Chinese had some technologies and the Greeks were pretty clever .
A: technologies and discoveries are not science
I would say that the founders of science were largely Christian because they were from the West. Your asserting that Christianity is a prerequisite is a little like saying that rabbits run quickly because they have fur; you have not demonstrated causality.
The West had many many advantages that other civilizations did not have around the time of the founding of science. How do you respond to my contention that the separation of religious affairs from politics and the other great institutions may have been a significant factor? How do you credit Christian religion when the church tried to suppress the fact of heliocentrism, teaches as fact events that violate physical laws or the laws of nature, and whose chief defining principle, faith, runs contrary to the tenets and practice of science?
Science is more than a little hard to define. (I like a paraphrase of Robert Frost, which would define science by saying that “Science is what scientists do.”) Although I’m not sure how I feel about classifying the technological achievements of earlier cultures, many of those examples do demonstrate an awareness of order in nature, experiment, repeatability and prediction. Are those of you asserting that theism is a prerequisite to science allowing that all of the cultures that achieved something akin to science were theists, or that none of these achievements were scientific?
Hi Tony,
But other furred animals don’t run necessarily run fast. Just like other smart cultures who could observe the order around them and could reason never developed science.
you have not demonstrated causality.
Historians have done a pretty good job of this. Tom and MM have as well. It seems you don’t like the demonstration.
Christianity teaches that a rational mind and a rational principle undergird the universe: “In the beginning was the Word…In the beginning God said…”
It teaches that man has in common rationality with this Creator: “Let us make man in our own image…”
It teaches that nature is valuable and would be worthy of study: “It was very good”. And that God can be known through His works and by appeal to nature. Christianity tells us to test all things and to hold that which is true. It teaches the importance of freedom and the individual and believes in progress.
Other religions and thought systems don’t teach these things and do not believe in progress. Some teach that we are just living in endless cycles and that their is no line through history and that we are just going to hit the end and start over again. Others claim that there is nothing more to learn than what is already in their books. Others think that we are completely at the whim of gods who are not bound by truthfulness and reason. Others that only the past is of any significance.
The West had many many advantages that other civilizations did not have around the time of the founding of science.
Two problems here. There is nothing magical about the time of the founding of science. Other cultures have had huge advantages at other times and have had access to the observation of the order of nature and had rational minds and yet did not birth science.
The advantages the west had were, in large part, due to Christianity. One of those advantages was the fact that Europe no longer lived under the despotic rule of Rome. There is little incentive for a man whose work is not his own and whose life is controlled by other men to advance our knowledge and to improve the lot only of those above him. There is such an advantage when you are free and you live under the first worldview that respects the man and his individual worth.
How do you respond to my contention that the separation of religious affairs from politics and the other great institutions may have been a significant factor?
With credulity. Schools, literacy and the universities were associated with the Church, were connected to the Church, were built and run by the Church, were the duty of the Church, etc.
If there was a separation of the Church from politics it is also hard to separate that fact from the fact of what Church we are talking about. There are other religions that you simply cannot separate from their politics.
How do you credit Christian religion when the church tried to suppress the fact of heliocentrism, teaches as fact events that violate physical laws or the laws of nature, and whose chief defining principle, faith, runs contrary to the tenets and practice of science?
Because these are largely myths and canards. The Church does have a nasty and deserved black eye on the Galileo affair (but you’re an historian, you know how its been mythologized and that the case has very little to do with the Church vs. heliocentrism) but it also has a history of supporting and encouraging others who pursued this line of thought. Other Churchmen who advanced the idea were not condemned. In a letter to another heliocentrist who quoted Copernicus, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote this:
“Whenever a true demonstration would be produced that the sun stands at the center of the world then at that time it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in interpreting Scriptures which seem to be contrary”.
Galileo was not willing to await such a demonstration and was criticizing the Church’s interpretation as it stood at that time.
As Berinski notes in <i.The Devil’s Delusion,
“This is so very reasonable as to place in doubt the very idea of clerical intolerance. Bellarmine is arguing, after all, only that in matters of astronomy, judgment might be suspended and not that inquiry must be stopped.
“But suppose, the cardinal continues, … in fact, that a demonstration-not a conjecture, not an assumption, not one of these … amusing suppositions … were made available that the sun is in fact</i immovable….If it came to that …-if the sun really does stand still- it would be better to say that we do not understand Holy Scripture than to say that what has been demonstrated is false.
215-17 (italics liberally applied by me where Berlinski forgot them)
Also:
Furthermore, Galileo enjoyed a great deal of support from religious intellectuals - at least at the start. The astronomers of the powerful Jesuit educational institution, the Collegio Romano, initially endorsed his astronomical work and feted him for it. However he was vigorously opposed by secular philosophers, who were enraged at his criticism of Aristotle.
…
For in his famous Letter To The Grand Dutchess Christina1615 he claims that it was the academic professors who were so opposed to him that they were trying to influence the church authorities to speak out against him. The issue at stake for the professors was clear: Galileo’s scientific arguments were threatening to the all-pervading Aristotelianism of the academy.
God’s Undertaker, John Lennox.
On the other hand, the Galileo affair is a great example of why the Church was necessary for the foundation of science. Not only does it seem to have been the funding body and the home of the scientists, but all of the players in the case used and quoted the Bible as their justification for the pursuit of the knowledge found in God’s other great book - nature. There was a great debate, of which Pascal also figured, among believers on both sides of this issue. Men of faith were on both sides arguing and, because the question mattered and the stakes were actually significant, evidence was required in order to establish a position. This is another reason Christianity was necessary to birth the scientific method - we can actually be right or wrong on these matters, and since our position actually counts for something, we’d better be able to demonstrate its validity. Observation>hypothesis>test>revise …
As for laws, the Bible does not teach anything about violating physical laws and faith does not run counter to science. It certainly doesn’t allow that natural regularities can violate natural laws.
This point about faith is flawed in so many different ways that I’m not going to attack it at the moment other than to point out that it contradicts the definition of faith and ignores the necessary component of faith in all of our knowledge and assertions. This is the exact point Tom and MM were making; if faith did run counter to science then men of faith would not have done and invented science; they did and do.
Are those of you asserting that theism is a prerequisite to science allowing that all of the cultures that achieved something akin to science were theists, or that none of these achievements were scientific?
The assertion has been two-fold.
1) Neither faith, religion nor, especially, Christianity, run counter to or impede scientific thought and progress.
2) Modern science, the systematic study of nature, arose only in one place and in one time - that is, in the milieu and providence of Christendom.
I would say that the founders of science were largely Christian because they were from the West.
None of which changes that fact that they were Christians. And, one would have to respond immediately by saying that “The West” was what it was because of its Christian roots. Everyone wants to talk about how the West was dominated by Christendom when they bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition, but not so much when it’s the birth of modern science.
There were certainly other factors, but those factors (other than theism) were found in many cultures before. Rome had law, order, sanitation, and prosperity, but they didn’t develop modern science. Greece had philosophy, democracy, and art – but not modern science. When the culture is non-theistic, there is a constant negative pressure away from those assumptions of order and consistency. Modern science can exist in such an environment, but it’s almost impossible for it to germinate. In a theistic culture, those presumptions of underlying order, intelligibility, and consistency are constantly reinforced. Someone brought up a child growing beyond the need for its mother. A child who’s been born can survive outside of the womb, just as modern science can survive in a non-theistic framework. But the child cannot be conceived outside of that womb, and history shows that modern science couldn’t be birthed without theism.
Charlie is also right to point out that, if anyone wants to mention the de-facto separation of church and state in those days, they’ll have to readily acknowledge the intimate relationship between the church and the institutions of higher learning.
My twelve-month-old son knows nothing about the inner workings of a light switch. He only knows that when he flips it, lights change, he gets the giggles, and Mommy gets a headache. He can do all sorts of useful things with that knowledge, but he’s not being scientific until he assumes that there’s some orderly reason behind why the switch does what it does, and looks for it.
Consider this also: There is a fundamental presumption in some Arabic cultures that women are inferior. Now, some women might rise above this, and some men might accept them, but this is constantly being resisted by the culture. It’s extremely difficult for that kind of thing to catch on, so long as that cultural assumption about female inferiority persists. Now, consider theism. It’s not that a pantheist, polytheist, atheist, or animist is incapable of comprehending order, consistency, and so forth in nature – but their own worldview provides a lot of gravity away from those assumptions. Theism does exactly the opposite; it draws a person towards those assumptions. This is at the heart of why theism gave birth to modern science, rather than anything else.
And please, please, please remember that we can find plenty of examples of atheists irrationally opposing intellectual progress on the basis of pseudo-doctrinal reasoning. Why did they resist the Big Bang? Atheism would prefer an eternal universe. And, we are not crediting “Christian” religion for founding science, per se. We are crediting theism. This is an
Jacob responded on 08 May 2008 at 9:03 pm #
What or whom would enforce such a requirement anyway?
Samuel Skinner responded on 09 May 2008 at 1:49 am #
Naturalism is required for science. However, naturalism leads to atheism. The only way to deal with this leads to cognitive disodence.
Why? Because you can’t just say “God did it” in science. It is a nonanswer.
Also, it is worth noting that although many of those people were religious it had nothing to do with their science research… except Farday. He thought the magnetic fields had to be circles because circles were divine- and he was right! About the fields, not the divinity.
MedicineMan responded on 09 May 2008 at 4:07 pm #
Jacob,
It’s becoming a de-facto requirement that you not espouse any significant religious beliefs, lest you be branded an “irrational” or “unscientific” person. Look at what happens to people like Behe.
Samuel,
No, naturalism is not required for science. I can make a much more persuasive case that strict atheistic naturalism makes modern science impossible. Don’t forget that theistic assumptions formed the backbone of the scientific method.
Having religious convictions, and a theistic outlook does not mean you answer every question with “God did it.” I don’t know how much more I could proven that than I did in those two posts. Those are just some of the men who say, “God did it…but how?”
For you to say that their religion had nothing to do with their research is just ignorant. Boyle, Newton, and Kepler (just to name three) wrote an extensive amount about religion; they considered their faith and their research to be a single search for truth. Some of those men were led to their faith by their studies!
I’m just sick and tired of hearing about how religion and science can’t reconcile, and how “real” science has to be atheistic. Those are opinions born out of (and supported only by) bigotry towards religion. They have no basis in reason, history, or evidence.
Tony Hoffman responded on 09 May 2008 at 6:14 pm #
Medicine Man,
What’s your argument that strict atheistic naturalism makes modern science impossible?
What theistic assumptions formed the backbone of the scientific method, and by formed do you mean “once formed, but no longer do” or formed in the past and remain intact?
What do you mean by reconciling religion and science? Do you mean that science should teach us that there is a god, or that theism should concede that it cannot provide explanatory, predictive theories on the material world that compete with science? Because these are what I see as the approximate positions of the two, and I’m not sure who you think is going to make that compromise on either side.
Your last two sentences sound a bit extreme to me. If you want I’m sure I can think of some examples of how religion and science have found themselves at irreconcilable odds.
Samuel Skinner responded on 09 May 2008 at 6:44 pm #
Yeah Behe. Since he has joined the ID movement he has.. come up with buzzwords! Come on- I expect that of marketing, not scientists. I expect them to discover the thing that will be buzzworded.
God did it… but how…
…
…
…
I would cry, but I realize you are serious. Okay, here I go. If God did something, he did it by supernatural or miracle methods… in which case we can’t trace it. The only way to understand something is to follow it by nature methods. You could say “well God uses natural methods”, but that is rather stupid. I eat meat with metal utinsils- I don’t use flint tools. The idea that an all powerful creature would always choose the worst and most inefficient process is ridiculous.
Yeah- they considered both part of their search for truth. And you know what? They were right- religion falls under science. It just happens to be false. They thought otherwise, but they didn’t have all the pieces. And they were mostly deistic.
Paul responded on 09 May 2008 at 7:03 pm #
Writing about religion doesn’t mean that religion had anything to do with their research.
This also doesn’t mean that religion had anything to do with their research. AFAIK, there is no functional theology within their science. If you think you have a candidate, replace it with any other theology and see if you can conclude that their science would have been different. If any scientist could verify these religious scientists’ conclusions without reference to religion, then religion plays no part in those scientific conclusions. Religion may play a part in that scientist’s personality and how they were led to begin their science, but scientific conclusions, nearly by definition, are independent from any one person’s personal beliefs.
This also doesn’t mean that religion had anything to do with their research, it means their research had something to do with their religion.
MedicineMan responded on 09 May 2008 at 11:52 pm #
Tony,
” What’s your argument that strict atheistic naturalism makes modern science impossible? | What theistic assumptions formed the backbone of the scientific method…”
These go together, so I’ll answer them together. Every fact is subject to interpretation. Some interpretations make more sense than others, and some match the evidence better than others. Those interpretations require presuppositions – they necessitate preconceptions. In theism, you have a structure which presumes that nature is arranged in a specific and orderly way, and that it is consistent. That order is presumed because of the presumptions of an orderly Creator. Without that, the whole idea of experimentation and hypothesis testing falls apart. Briefly (criminally briefly, I know, but I’m not up for dissertations tonight), an atheist has no reason to assume that anything is consistent or orderly. Even experiments and experiences that seem to suggest repeatability only speak to the experiences that specific person has had – you have nothing other than presumption on which to assume that those rules hold for everyone else.
Theism not only includes that presumption of order, but it puts it into a context that logically expects it. In short, theism presumes that nature is orderly, on the basis of its creation. Atheism has no basis on which to pre-assume that nature is orderly. These assumptions remain intact. When scientists study far-off galaxies, they presume that the laws of physics are at least generally the same ‘out there’. They presume that physics will behave tomorrow as it does today – those are givens under theism, but uncertain guesses under ‘strict’ atheism. Also, theism provides a reason to believe that the universe is something that we can understand using reason and intellect.
What I mean is it’s entirely false to say that science and religion cannot coexist without contradictions (“be reconciled”). Scientific evidence does given powerful suggestions of design, intent, and order. Theism is not a “form” of science, so your second idea is nonsensical. Theism is a worldview, science is a process. What you said is like asking if Democracy, Hedonism, or Existentialism can provide predictive, explainable theories that “compete” with science. Religion (particularly Christian theism) and science are not fundamentally at odds, and only the ignorant proclaim otherwise.
If my last two sentences sound extreme, then so be it. History does not support the idea that religion must be rejected or set aside to make scientific progress. Logic and experience don’t support it, either. Those who say so aren’t basing that opinion on fact, they’re basing it on prejudice. There’s plenty of shallow rhetoric from New Atheism, but it cannot be plausibly supported that science cannot survive in a religious worldview, or vice versa.
I could probably come up with more examples of specific religious beliefs being solidly contradicted by science than most people can – but you can’t look at history, fact, or reason and find any support for the idea that all religions and religious ideas are scientifically wrong. Not all ideas are created equal, and seeing non-truths cut down by reason is exactly what you’d expect. Debunking falsehoods doesn’t change the truth. This list of strongly religious scientists puts the lie to any suggestion that all religion falls before science.
MedicineMan responded on 10 May 2008 at 12:01 am #
Samuel,
“I would cry, but I realize you are serious…”
Well, I’d laugh, but I realize you’re seriously putting those forward as arguments against the idea of God. For example, why assume that everything God does has to be with super-natural methods? That’s like criticizing an engineer for designing a tractor and then using it to plow a field. God designed the universe, doesn’t it make sense for Him to use what He designed? In particular, if He designed the universe to do certain things, doesn’t it make sense for Him to use it to DO those things? And what great insight gives you the perspective to say that God’s use of natural methods is the “worst and most inefficient process”? And who says we can’t “trace” it? SETI spends millions of dollars looking for coherent data from space. If they ever got a message-rich code as sophisticated as the DNA strand, they’d be ecstatic. When even the hardest of skeptics comment about the “appearance” of design, I think you have to be a bit more open to those ideas that your comment suggests. I think you’re buying anti-ID rhetoric a little too easily. (Oh, by the way – note that you may think metal utensils are “the best”, but other cultures disagree. The “best” method isn’t quite so easy to pin down. And, you’re still using a tool for its intended purpose – why can’t God do the same?)
Well, if you think religion’s “false”, because they “didn’t have all of the pieces”, then I presume you don’t support evolution, abiogenesis, global warming, or the fields of history, archaeology, paleontology , and forensics. There’s more than a little “filling in the blanks” going on there.
MedicineMan responded on 10 May 2008 at 12:07 am #
Paul,
When you’re a scientist who believes that the universe was created by an actively-involved God, then it has everything to do with your research. Worldviews aren’t something you put on and take off like a jacket. I deliberately focused that list on men for whom religion wasn’t nominal, it was essential. I’d encourage you to find out more about Kepler’s writings, for example. He didn’t just brush science and religion together, he wove them side-by-side. Theistic reasoning makes up a notable part of his scientific work. Wikipedia is…well, wikipedia…but they include a convenient summation of Kepler’s (and many other scientists’) view:
“…motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason.”
I can do a “replacement” theology for you right now: anything but theism. There’s a reason that modern science didn’t originate in places dominated by spiritism, pantheism, or animism. Note that until Darwin came up with a mechanism for evolution, it was even tough to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” as Dawkins (I think) put it. The basic concepts of science (orderly, consistent laws, repeatability, comprehensibility) are inherent to a theistic worldview. They don’t naturally flow from any other worldview. Perhaps you didn’t read some of the quotes I gave from people like Von Braun, Newton, or Pasteur. Those would begin to answer your charge that scientific conclusions have to be separate from one’s religious beliefs.
This is fallacious: If any scientist could verify these religious scientists’ conclusions without reference to religion, then religion plays no part in those scientific conclusions.
If any detective could verify these forensic investigators’ conclusions without reference to forensics (e.g. by finding a security camera tape), then forensics plays no part in those conclusions. Not true - in fact, there are a lot of things that science can now confirm without using the methods that were originally used; that doesn’t mean that the original methods weren’t part of mankind coming to those conclusions. It certainly would be silly to say that the original methods aren’t compatible with science.
And, this, of course, is the real key: If a scientist could verify these non-religious scientists’ conclusions with reference to religion, then non-religion is not a necessity for those conclusions. I don’t see how you can reject this, and accept your statement. It’s also slippery to say “without reference to religion” – don’t forget, my contention is that theistic assumptions are required, not that every scientific discovery has to be accompanied by chapter and verse.
Charlie responded on 10 May 2008 at 12:39 am #
Hi Medicine Man,
http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/scfndgod.htm
MedicineMan responded on 10 May 2008 at 12:47 am #
Hi, Charlie. Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out more when I get some shut-eye!
Tom Gilson responded on 10 May 2008 at 7:02 am #
Excellent words, MM.
Samuel,
Science does have limits, even under atheistic assumptions. There are things we can’t trace. Heisenberg showed us that. But we can know and understand things by means other than science. The limits of science are not coextensive with the limits of knowledge. In the case of God’s activity, we also have his revelation, and theological and philosophical reflection on it. We have our experiences, which include awareness of order in the universe, consciousness, conscience, free will, reason, and so on. Science can describe those things, more or less successfully, but it cannot explain all of them. In fact, some people holding to your kind of approach to knowledge think science explains them away (free will, ethics, etc.). That leads to some terrible inconsistencies, though.
So in sum, it is not true that the only way to understand something is to follow it by nature methods.
I think you’re equivocating on “natural” here. In “God uses natural methods,” “natural” means something like, “in accordance with the regular workings of nature, set up by God in the creation.” When you talk about flint tools, “natural” means “not synthetic, or not manufactured through some extensive series of human interventions.” There is nothing inefficient about the first, and the analogy becomes irrelevant in view of the equivocation.
As they say in Wikipedia, “citation needed.” Or as I would say here, I simply disagree. MedicineMan has shown us otherwise on his blog posts linked in my original post above. So if you want to convince us otherwise, please show us some supporting data.
MedicineMan responded on 10 May 2008 at 8:19 am #
Tom,
Thanks.
I think that even the anti-religious have to accept two ideas: First, that modern science was born out of theism. Second, that there are a wealth of examples of superb scientific minds, past and present, who hold strongly to religious beliefs.
I also think that everyone, skeptic and believer, has to admit that we sometimes let our dogmas interfere with our reason. We don’t like having our assumptions questioned, and we get resistant when something seems to do that. In the case of atheism, consider the Big Bang theory. An eternal, un-caused universe was a fundamental concept of historical atheism - so it was atheists who resisted it, at first.
I think a danger of the modern rhetoric is that, rather than allowing different ideas about those pre-assumptions to interact and compete, it stifles dissent. If Dawkins, Meyers, and so forth had their way, there would only be one perspective, and I think that’s antithetical to real science. Closing one’s mind to certain possibilities isn’t scientific, it’s dogmatic.
Paul responded on 10 May 2008 at 10:16 am #
MM, I think you’re talking historically, and I was talking functionally or logically, in the following sense:
For instance, Kepler’s idea,
is not necessary to do science. We don’t have to assume the reason why the universe if orderly (God created it) in order to do science, we merely have to look for whatever regularities happen to occur.
Again, you’re speaking historically, and I’m speaking about the logical requirements of science.
I’m talking about the content of their science. The content of science is (should) be the same no matter one’s religion. I’m talking about, to take an absurd example, whether magnetism produces X electricity if you’re a Christian or whether it produces X+Y electricity if you’re a Hindu.
Not clear if you think this is parallel to my idea. It isn’t, because I’m talking about religion in science, and your example is talking about forensics in forensics.
Agreed. I’m saying it means that those original methods aren’t essential, it is mere historical circumstance that it happened that way.
Because religion adds extra items compared to the non-religious. Here’s why: everything that a non-religious scientists has to assume in order to do science is also assumed by the religious scientist (empiricism, experimentation, etc.), it’s just that the religious scientist adds on the God stuff, which is unnecessary. QED. The empiricism, etc., though, is, by definition, necessary for science. Religion happened historically in science, but I wouldn’t call religion necessary in a logical or intellectual sense.
MedicineMan responded on 10 May 2008 at 5:23 pm #
Paul,
Even in that statement, you should be able to see the problem. There’s an assumption of regularity, intelligibility, and order in science. There is no rational reason for a person to assume such things, devoid of a theistic framework. Just because you observe it doesn’t men it will always be that way, or that it’s going to be that way anywhere else. Theism gives you the rationale to believe that; that’s why it was theism that birthed science.
The logical requirements of science still demand those assumptions of regularity, intelligibility, and order. There is still no rational basis to believe in them outside of theism.
Yes, of course. Experimentation and observations, controlled for the right variables, should produce the same results no matter who is involved. That does not mean that religious ideas or arguments are not, or cannot be, part of that reasoning.
In the topic we’re discussing, you’re trying to erase the difference between methodology and assumptions. All science proceeds with those same assumptions, but only theism gives you a rational basis to start with them. You’re also insinuating that if a person isn’t citing the Bible in a lab report, that their religious views are irrelevant to their research. Again, there are ample examples, past and present, of people who prove that false.
My analogy about forensics is valid. If a forensics team uses DNA and fiber analysis to bring an indictment against someone, and during the investigation, a detective finds video footage of the person committing the crime, you’d be flat-out wrong to say that forensics had nothing to do with the conviction, since the tape by itself would have been enough to convict.
That’s a bit dismissive, in my opinion. I could apply that to any scientific discovery in history. But, whether Christians like it or not, Francis Crick is an atheist. Whether skeptics like it or not, Newton, Kepler, Pastuer, et. al. were Christians. And, like it or not, it was theistic assumptions that founded modern science. Calling that “mere historical circumstance” is like saying it was “mere circumstance” that America’s founding fathers were those particular men, and so we can be dismissive of the importance of someone like Jefferson or Madison. This is particularly when other systems didn’t come close to producing modern science, despite centuries longer to develop it.
Again, be careful not to word-curl. And yes, theism adds “extra items” compared to other systems - hence, we have modern science instead of mysticism. That’s more or less the point of the history of modern science, that theism added the necessary components. As I’ve said, it’s glib and shallow to say that those assumptions are “unnecessary”, since you can’t get them otherwise. Yes, the non-theist can assume them - but only ad hoc, not a priori.
“Religion” as in some particular denomination (watch the word curling) isn’t necessary. Theistic assumptions are.
Tony Hoffman responded on 10 May 2008 at 6:03 pm #
Medicine Man,
This just in. The sun climbs in the east in the morning. It sets in the West in the evening.
If you think man needed to consult a deity on that and thousands of other regularities then you might want to step outside.
Your tenet — that a belief in theism is a necessary precursor to realizing that there is a sense of order in the world, is bizarre. If that is truly your tested contention then you cannot be argued with.
Tom Gilson responded on 10 May 2008 at 6:11 pm #
Tony,
I’ve been installing insulation and paneling in my garage today. In a way I wish I had time to look up the sources on this, and in another way it’s been refreshing to do something different.
Anyway, this belief is not so bizarre as you suppose. It was put forth by Robert Oppenheimer and Alfred North Whitehead a long time ago. More recent scholarly proponents of the view include Stanley Jaki and Rodney Stark.
I hope that gets you past the “bizarre” thought for a while. I’ll try to find more on this later.
econ grad responded on 10 May 2008 at 6:26 pm #
Theism does provide something atheism lacks.
Theism provides an a priori belief nature will be orderly and rational.
When we test something we assume we’re dealing with reality. It doesn’t disappear when we turn away. At the root of reality is not a set of contradictions. The Universe is orderly and that extends to anything we can know about it. This is the basis for physical laws.
Atheism can’t justify that assumption a priori. Theism can. Theism has a guardrail against solipsism and irrationality that atheism lacks.
This isn’t to say atheism is inferior to theism. It is just to say that the belief the Universe is intentional carries with it a belief in an orderly, consistent, Universe where physical laws make sense.
Tony Hoffman responded on 10 May 2008 at 8:26 pm #
Econ Grad,
It reads to me that you are declaring that atheism cannot justify (?) physical laws. I don’t know what you mean by justify. What does belief in a god have to do with physical laws as defined by science? (They are not defined by theism, I think you’ll agree.) How does belief in a God protect one from solipsism? If one can rationalize that the only existence one can be sure of is one’s own, how does belief in a deity change this presumption? If I can only be sure of my own existence, why does a deity get a free pass from a solipsistic perspective?
What version of Theism are you talking about? Couldn’t belief in an arbitrary deity make me think that the universe is arbitrary? If one believes in the version where God controls the world and can sometimes perform miracles, which by their definition defy physical laws, shouldn’t this undermine my “belief in an orderly, consistent, Universe where physical laws make sense.”
Tom,
Just because someone else, even a very smart person, comes up with an idea doesn’t make it persuasive.
Paul responded on 10 May 2008 at 8:44 pm #
No, those are conclusions derived from evidence, not assumptions. Science doesn’t start with regularity, it finds it where it exists (and doesn’t where it doesn’t exist, such as readioactive decay). And those conclusions are not more absolute than the evidence allows. I assume you’re talking about regularity, etc., in the (observable) universe.
Science does not require this.
You don’t need a rationale for them. Just assume them, try it, and if it produces useful results, then use them. Science doesn’t have to be metaphysically grounded, it just has to work.
Good distinction, our disagreement is about assumptions.
Yeah, sorry for the tone.
My point exactly.
Which is why you don’t need religion for the methodology of science, scientists practice it with or without religion.
What I mean is that while theist assumptions may have been at the founding of science (I’m taking your word for it), that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are crucial to it now. That’s what I meant by historical circumstance. Give credit to Newton and Jefferson, respectively, but science and democracy don’t currently depend on them. Something can grow bigger than its origins.
Samuel Skinner responded on 10 May 2008 at 9:34 pm #
Hey, my comment didn’t appear up. Did you delete it or did it not get through?
Charlie responded on 11 May 2008 at 2:49 am #
Hi Paul,
Rodney Stark made just this point if Victory Of Reason:
234-235
John Lennox, God’s Undertaker:
As I have argued elsewhere (having stolen the argument from someone - Lennox, most likely (that’s why I’m back in his book right now)), it is more accurate to say that science is methodological theism rather than methodological naturalism. One must presume cause and effect, regularity and order, rationality and logic, in order to do science. He is then relying upon the metaphysics of theism (Christianity, most accurately) when doing science whether he so justifies it or not.
Here’s an allusion to it:
http://www.origins.org/articles/koons_progressdebate.html
Oh, here’s my comment on this from before:
http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2008/01/the-nas-on-science-evolution-and-creationism/#comment-739
36
Tom Gilson responded on 11 May 2008 at 6:12 am #
Samuel,
Your comment got caught in the spam filter because of profanity. If not for the personal insult it was attached to, I would have just edited it out, and released the comment.
I have your comment saved and I could email it back to you if you wish. Let me know. But first please read the discussion policies, and let me know if you want to continue your part in the discussion under those guidelines.
I’ll be at the computer only intermittently today, so I can’t promise how quickly I’ll return an email, but I’ll do it when I can if you request.
Tom Gilson responded on 11 May 2008 at 6:41 am #
A couple of sources I was able to find quickly on the web. I would really rather refer you to Rodney Stark’s books, but I want to make this easier than that. (If you have time to get to the library and look him up, though, begin with “Victory of Reason,” then “For the Glory of God.”)
PDF (see part IV): http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/science.pdf
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1994/PSCF6-94Davis.html
That’s a start, anyway.
Paul responded on 11 May 2008 at 10:47 am #
I don’t think science *presumes* cause/effect and regularity and order. These things sometimes *result* from doing science, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes science finds no effect from a supposed cause, and sometimes science can’t find a cause when an effect happens. Science allows for the possibility of finding cause and effect, and regularity and order, but it doesn’t presume them.
If theism adopts rationality and logic, it doesn’t mean that any use of rationality and logic must be theistic or owes theism any debt.
econ grad responded on 11 May 2008 at 12:03 pm #
Mr. Hoffman, I see I was a bit unclear.
An atheist can certainly accept the presence of physical laws. They cannot justify them as anything more than patterns that repeat faithfully. Not as actual intentional laws that constrain reality.
Belief in God (and thank you for capitalizing that proper noun) in our modern world is specifically linked to several monotheistic faiths. Each of these faiths hold that God created an orderly, consistent Universe. So I’ll deal with the situation we face as opposed to hypotheticals.
Atheist assumptions of reason, consistency and existence in reality are based off a class of experiences. Theists share the same experiences. In addition theists tend to have spiritual experiences that under gird their belief in God. These spiritual experiences form a guardrail as the predominant monotheistic faiths all attest to the orderly, logical, and true existence of the physical world.
An atheist has his experiences about the physical world to justify his presuppositions about the physical world. This is a weak form of logical support. The theist (in his mind anyway) has something distinct from physical reality which attests to the orderly, consistent, real existence of it.
None of this is to say theism is superior to atheism. It’s simply that the theist has much more to lose by an escape from reason into solipsism or irrationality.
MedicineMan responded on 11 May 2008 at 12:10 pm #
Paul,
This is absolutely false:
The entire concept of modern science is that of observation, hypothesis, and experimentation. Unless you assume that things will behave the same under the same conditions, then scientific experimentation is worthless. The very act of conducting an experiment to confirm (or refute) a hypothesis assumes that there is a regularity of effects when the causes are identical.
One of the attributes of “real” science I hear touted so often is predictive ability. Unless you assume that physical laws will act tomorrow as they do today, and/or that physical laws will behave the same in Italy as they do in America as they do in Saturn’s rings, then the word “predictive” becomes nonsensical. Science cannot be separated from the presumption of order and consistency in the underlying laws. Those presumptions are totally random, completely arbitrary in any view other than theism.
Again, in regards to “Religion”, don’t word curl (Tom, sorry for the out-link, but that term is defined here.
I am not saying that some particular denominational approach has to be taken. I am saying that the fundamental, basic concepts of theism (an involved, intelligent, orderly Creator) are inseparable from science. This is why theism, of various stripes, birthed and nurtured science. It is also why Theists can continue to pursue their fields without running into fundamental contradictions; also, in fact, why so many have been led to theism as a result of their work.
Don’t take my word for it that science was born out of theism. Take the word of historians. Even Richard Dawkins, so far as I recall, has grudgingly said that the origin of science from Christian theism can’t be denied.
Yes, but if it strays away from the fundamentals, then it’s not the same thing any more. If you start including glass and concrete in your stew, then you’ve rejected some of the basics of cooking (ingredients must be edible). If you start rejecting theistic principles (the universe is orderly, intelligible, and regular according to some kind of organized system) then you’re not participating in “science” anymore.
Science cannot “outgrow” it’s foundations any more than a house can.
MedicineMan responded on 11 May 2008 at 12:30 pm #
Tony,
Thanks for the update! Now that we’ve established your grasp of “observation”, answer me this: why should you or I assume that the sun will do the same tomorrow? I presume that you have observed objects falling towards earth - why would you assume that they will continue to do so tomorrow? Or that objects would fall on a planet like Pluto?
The whole idea of “regularity” can be dismissed (lacking theism) as purely incidental. A “mere historical circumstance”, as Paul put it. So what if it happened twenty trillion times the same way? Who says that’s not just a cosmic coincidence?
Unless you assume that natural laws are laws, and that the universe has properties consistently applied, then you’re left with nothing remotely “scientific”.
The only system that allows you to make those necessary assumptions or repeatability - “regularities”, as you called them - with any sort of certainty is theism. Anything else is ad hoc, and subject to logical denial.
I’m arguing that everyone has assumptions - everyone. No one is immune from preconceptions. Modern science is not possible unless we presume order, intelligibility, and repeatability. You cannot prove that universe is orderly without assuming it in the first place. Anyone can assume this - but only a theistic worldview guarantees it. If you reject theism, then you reject the basis for believing those fundamentals. You’re free, from a logical and rational standpoint, to tumble off into solipsism.
But thanks for the tip - I’ll head outside, confident that I can use reason to make sense of an orderly physical world. You can stay in and wonder why you should even believe that there’s any such thing as natural laws in the first place.
Paul responded on 11 May 2008 at 1:36 pm #
You don’t assume that they will, you predict that they will based on past experience.
It’s not necessary for science to presume order. Science only has to *conclude* empricially that order exists (temporarily, because the future can change) when everytime we run experiment A we get result B. That’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion based on emprical evidence.
There’s plenty of analogies to go around, though (but an analogy isn’t proof, for you nor for me). A fetus is dependent on the mother for its survival, but after birth does not (eventually) need a mother to survive. So what may have been crucial at a birth can fade away later on (in this case, in terms of physical survival).
Paul responded on 11 May 2008 at 1:43 pm #
Exactly. So depending on a scientific law is merely prudent. I’ll take that twenty trillion to one bet every time.
I think you mean “without hypothesizing it.”
Samuel Skinner responded on 11 May 2008 at 1:53 pm #
Hmm- I don’t think what I used was a swear word. Anyway, I’ll just point out the gist of my responce. You have declared that science requires theism. However that isn’t true- lets look at the examples.
Stonehedge.
The first computer (ancient Greece)
The Incans road network, city building, “writing”, etc.
China. They made a ton of discoveries.
India.
New Guinea.
Now, you can say what they did wasn’t science, but that is nonsense. Stonehedge is tied to the seasons and astronomical phenomena- it encompasses engineering, astronomy and the like. AND its builders were animists.
China wasn’t theist and made many profound discoveries- gunpowder, printing press, swords, steel, stirrup, etc.
New Guinea came up with agriculture independantly.
The Greeks are the Ur example- aside from all the neat stuff they made, they also were responsible for the world’s FIRST COMPUTER!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061129-ancient-greece.html
You get the idea. None of these groups were monotheists with a creator that guarenteed order. The idea evolved from the realization the universe has order and people’s inability to come up with a better answer.
As for Europe getting ahead first, read Guns, Germs and Steel.
Tony Hoffman responded on 11 May 2008 at 3:41 pm #
MedicineMan,
You wrote:
I think you are confusing metaphysical questions with scientific ones. It sounds to me that you are declaring that objects fall on earth because a creator has mandated that they do so. I say objects fall on earth because that’s what objects do. You are failing to convince me that this is a “preconception” on my part. My understanding of physical laws is an understanding. Some physical laws run contrary to my preconceptions — it would appear to me that the sun is revolving around the earth, for instance. I have learned otherwise. In other words, my understanding of many of the laws of science is exactly the opposite of what you say — the reality runs counter to my preconceptions, or modifies my preconceptions.
MedicineMan, I mostly don’t have time to debate with you right now — I’ll try and pick up on it later. Also, I want to apologize for phrasing my questions to you in a way that leads to jousting and escalation.
Tom Gilson responded on 11 May 2008 at 5:46 pm #
Tony,
True. But you had called it “bizarre.” I think that if a very smart person puts forth a theory, we ought to at least be cautious about labeling it bizarre. That’s all.
Paul and Tony
Those are two passages of several here that I think are good jumping-off points for a crucial distinction to be made. I’m not the first to say it in this thread, but I’ll say it again anyway and hope it becomes more clear.
We are the products of centuries of intellectual tradition that includes the Greeks, the Christians, the scientists. And much, much more, obviously. For us, there is regularity in nature, there is comprehensibility, there is purpose, there is good reason to believe in the value of studying nature, even in trying to harness nature to improve things. It is as water to a fish; we cannot imagine any other way of viewing reality. And so we do not see that this came from somewhere.
The best way to see that it did is by comparing our intellectual tradition to that of other cultures. The Buddhists and Hindus historically saw no value in nature; it was Maya, illusion, and endless inmperturbable cycle, or it was something to be accepted as it is without attempts to master it. The Greeks came out all over the place, but recall that Aristotle was no friend to the experimental method; and that Heraclitus said you never step in the same river twice, which is an approach not conducive to studying regularities in nature.
I could go on. The point is this: we may think it is bizarre to have any other basic conception of the world at all; and within our cultural framework, it is. But again: our cultural framework came from somewhere. The fact that other cultures have had other viewpoints shows that is a contingent thing.
What was the contingency that led to our seeing the world as we do? Looking backward, we see that the one culture that developed science is also the one culture that accepted the seven points of belief Rob Koons outlined in his paper that I linked to above. I hope he won’t mind if I quote him here. (He’s a college friend of mine, by the way, married to a friend of mine from high school. But he’s a good thinker in spite of my assocation with him–Oxford Ph.D, or D.Phil, or whatever it is, and tenured at University of Texas.)
(I’m not going to take time to clean the footnotes out of the text here.
MedicineMan responded on 11 May 2008 at 6:35 pm #
Paul,
Unless you assume that things are repeatable, then past experiences are meaningless. That’s part of the point of the arguments Tom just posted. Theism gives a reason to believe that things are orderly and uniform. Spiritism, animism, atheism, etc. don’t give you that - the spirits or demigods (or the purposeless, random universe) could do things differently tomorrow than they(it) did yesterday.
Then what, in heaven’s name, does science presume? No, really, read that blockquote out loud and think about it. What else could science presume - chaos? Science HAS to assume order, but only theism gives a reason to assume it in the first place. Empirical observations are only useful if you assume that each observation has some kind of rational connection to other observations. The whole idea that experiment A would result in B every time isn’t supportable without theism - see Tom’s citations above.
I suppose to answer your fetus example, I’d say it works. However, the mother’s womb imparted things into the fetus, like a heart and lungs, without which the child can’t survive - no matter how old they get. Theism imparted things “into” science, like presumption of order, that can’t be jettisoned without “killing” science. Also, I’d say that each scientific investigation has to start with the same presumptions, just like each new child has to begin with the same essential organs. If you want those essentials (rational presumptions), you need that womb (theism).
Again, “probability” itself implies order. “Prudent” implies rationality. If you choose to adopt a scientific mindset, you’re adopting assumptions that are only supportable through the foundations of theism, not any other worldview.
No, I mean without assuming it. How do you test a hypothesis without assuming an orderly system in which that hypothesis is testable? How do you test the idea that the universe is orderly without utilizing that order to do so?
Tom Gilson responded on 11 May 2008 at 6:44 pm #
More on why that assumption is not a conclusion: See what Quine and Duhem had to say about what you can really prove without some assumptions.
MedicineMan responded on 11 May 2008 at 6:53 pm #
Tony,
No, not at all. I’m talking about the assumptions that must precede science - those will always be ‘metaphysical’ questions. If anything, you’re confusing the two by acting as though those assumptions don’t need to be made at all.
I say that gravity functions (hence objects fall) precisely because a Creator has created gravity, and all the other forces it interacts with, to function in an orderly way. I would have no basis to assume that it does (function orderly) outside of that.
Describe how you would demonstrate “order” without assuming it in the first place. You won’t be able to, and that’s why non-theistic cultures went thousands of years without developing modern science.
Now you’re confusing “preconceptions” with “perspective”. Reality may differ from your perspective-biased opinion, of course. It may also run counter to your pre-conceptions, but there is a difference between the two. A “rising sun” is a perspective. An orderly universe is a preconception.
Science doesn’t have a pre-conception that gravity does what it does - it has tested laws that indicate what it will or will not do. Those were formed only AFTER mankind made the assumption that the motion of objects was not arbitrary, and could be understood in some regular, orderly, consistent fashion.
Tom Gilson responded on 11 May 2008 at 7:09 pm #
MM,
Point of clarification: One might assume the orderly function of gravity without being a theist. That’s an obvious fact, because millions of people fit that description.
What theism supplies is:
1. A basis for that assumption: that the universe is orderly.
2. A reason for deep confidence that human minds are equipped to study the order of the universe.
3. By virtue of 1 and 2, motivation and grounds for studying gravity in depth; not just taking it as a given of daily life but exploring it fully.
I don’t want people to get locked in “you don’t have to be a theist to assume gravity is orderly.” You don’t. But in order to get to deep explanations for why that assumption makes sense, theism provides better answers than other worldviews. In fact, the only other strongly competing candidates for an explanation would be:
a) It just happened that way, or
b) It just happened that way in the one universe (out of infinite numbers of universes) that we live in.
So you have theism, or luck, or faith in the unobservable multiverse.
MedicineMan responded on 11 May 2008 at 7:46 pm #
Tom,
Yes, I agree, that needs clarification. My statement was meant to imply that there’s no rational basis (lacking that assumption of order that only theism really provides) to assume that gravity acts the same on planet XYZ in galaxy ABC as it does here. I also was including the idea of experience only being rationally predictive after you assume that underlying order. Obviously, anyone can note the apparent regularity of gravity, but only theism gives a suitable basis to believe that those observations are meaningful. Your phrasing is less subject to being misunderstood!
Thanks for linking to the posts, by the way. It’s always good to get a response!
SteveK responded on 11 May 2008 at 9:40 pm #
All of this points back to The Logos that we discussed before. Reality is not the result of randomness.
Charlie responded on 11 May 2008 at 11:10 pm #
Hi Steve,
When we last discussed it we were talking about the coincidence of how a non-euclidean geometry invented merely as an abstract exercise happened to end up describing reality.
The same is true of Max Plancks’s quantum math.
The Mind And The Brain,/i>, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D.
Once again, abstract mathematical ideas which work out on paper also happen to work out in the physical realm. Mind-products equal reality because reality equals a mind product.
Samuel Skinner responded on 12 May 2008 at 12:33 am #
What happened to the second comment? That WASN”T obsence!
Anyway it was an example of people who weren’t theists and did use science. I hope this gets through.
Coolest example was the Greek computer, although Stonehedge also fits in well.
You seem to still be on the topic of “universality”- physical laws are the same through out the universe, as well as the idea of order. As those examples show, Christianity isn’t necesary for science to exist because these people were practicing science. Now, you might claim theism… except the Greek Gods were NOT the sort that lend themselves to the idea of stability. In fact Roman philosophers started schetching out deism overlying the pantheon because the Gods were so unsatisfactory in that regard.
Tom Gilson responded on 12 May 2008 at 6:09 am #
Samuel, I’ve just been through all the comment moderation lists and the spam filter–I can’t find another comment you wrote. I don’t know what would have happened to it. I’m sorry about that.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 10:19 am #
MedicineMan and Tom,
I don’t see a distinction in your attribution of Theism as the preconception necessary for science to a more abstract notion like that of Einstein — the perception of order exists whether or not one attributes it to a creator or the simple fact of the existence of our universe. Order obviously exists on our world (gravity), and one can reasonably hypothesize that gravity exists elsewhere. Scientists hypothesize and go from there.
I have trouble with granting the West’s religious underpinnings as the reason that West was the first to develop the scientific method. Not only are there numerous examples in the past, and today, of Christian theists opposing the findings of religion, but the relationship is much more complex than I believe you gentlemen are limning. (Charlie attributes this comment to an unnamed Chinese scholar: “But in the past twenty years , we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful.” I don’t have time to go into why this is not a good piece of evidence for the necessity of theism before developing science, but suffice to say that’s a pretty broad brush.)
I am a historian by schooling, and there is a consensus among historians that the West’s de facto separation of Church and State as a result of the Holy Roman Empire was crucial in the West’s development of its other institutions; by separating religious affairs from political ones (Rome held spiritual control, political control moved over Germany and France and back again for centuries) Western culture was more likely to develop institutions that were not tied in and restricted by religious considerations. This would certainly apply to science. Compare the strength of our non-religious institutions to those in the Islamic World and virtually every other culture where the spiritual and political remain married and there is good reason to find this argument persuasive.
SteveK responded on 12 May 2008 at 11:36 am #
Tony
Back up a few steps and you’ll see what MM is getting at. We can hypothesize because we can reason. So, rationality explains the orderly nature of the hypothesis. What does the orderly nature of rationality require? Logic. In my opinion this is the key to what MM is saying. What does the non-theist have in his “toolkit” to explain knowledge of an orderly universe? They only have logic. Not experience, not statistics, not hypothesis, not empiricism, not randomness - but logic of the mind. Knowledge of the consistent order of nature flows from logic of The Mind. But this is theism.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 11:50 am #
SteveK,
You appear to making a extension of a solipsistic argument — that nature is ordered because of the logic of the mind. How can you prove which precedes the other?
I would contend that the human mind is ordered (as are all living things) because there is order in the universe. The fact of my existence proves that the universe is ordered — whence come I if that were not the case?
Atheists must hold to a preconception that the universe is ordered. To hold otherwise would be contrary to the fact of their existence. But assuming order in the universe is not the same thing as having a preconception of a divine creator. Thus I believe that a theistic preconception is superfluous to science.
SteveK responded on 12 May 2008 at 1:12 pm #
Tony
Not saying that. I’m saying knowledge of order is contingent on logic. Is logic (and knowledge) contingent on the physical alone, be it orderly or not? I don’t think so.
Searle’s Chinese Room argument says that knowledge (understanding) of physical order can’t come from physical order alone. Order can’t understand on it’s own without a “rule book” that transcends the physical order. If the physical order created the rule book then the physical order can alter it just as easily. The rule book created by the physical order in the Chinese Room may be different than the rule book created by the physical order somewhere else. This means logic - and from that, knowledge gained from science - can change like the tides, so to speak. In some distant place the Earth is objectively known (not assumed) to be flat because the physical order altered the rule book.
If logic is contingent then multiple objective realities are…well…a reality. This destroys the logic you assumed to conclude that. It’s a self-defeating argument.
I haven’t proven anything here, but I have shown you the end result of your thinking.
Paul responded on 12 May 2008 at 2:05 pm #
They may not provide proof, but they aren’t meaningless. They provide a basis for predicting, not proving, that cause A will produce effect B as it has in the past. We can move forward and use the results of science on a predictive basis (DL, where are you?), not as absolute proofs or absolute laws.
More later.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 2:09 pm #
SteveK,
First off thanks for the reference to the Chinese Room argument — I didn’t know about that one and I’m finding it fascinating.
I am not uncomfortable with logic deriving from the order or our world as it presently exists. This may not seem adequately foundational to some but it does not disconcert me. And that’s ultimately my point. It may not be the preconception that we wish for, but it is the only preconception we can prove that we have. And I still believe it is entirely adequate as a basis for science.
Charlie responded on 12 May 2008 at 2:34 pm #
Hi Tony,
Said order would have existed in all times on the earth and in all places, accessible to all cultures, correct?
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 3:28 pm #
Charlie,
Not sure what you’re asking me. Do you mean am I making assumptions that the physical laws of our universe have been constant since the dawn of time? Or that have physical laws in ancient Egypt were they same as they are in the U.S. today?
I guess that in both cases I would say that yes, I am making those assumptions. I realize that these are assumptions, but I believe that these assumptions also present some degree of testability.
Your question does feel a little like a trap to me, though. So, um, I await your second question with some trepidation…
SteveK responded on 12 May 2008 at 3:42 pm #
Tony,
Then you are comfortable with multiple objective realities, which is relativistic (non-objective) reality.
You disprove the adequacy by proving it is adequate, as per my above statement. In this part of the universe, science finds the Earth is a solid sphere yet somewhere else, science finds that same Earth is a donut-shaped, flat disc. Your system doesn’t give you any tools to argue against either one because logic is contingent on physical reality, and so both are true. Gone is the consistency of nature that science demands. I can imagine that somewhere science has proven that E=cm^2.
Paul responded on 12 May 2008 at 3:55 pm #
The order you speak of within probability is not assumed, it is an empirical observation. At any time, the odds may surprise me, water may not boil when I turn the heat on underneath it on the stove (in fact, quantum physics predicts a very, very small chance of this happening, as I recall), but I’ve found that it’s worked very well in the past, and while there’s no guarantees, it’s a highly functional system until it’s not. Which is why science is always ready to overturn its conclusions given sufficient evidence.
Rationality must be assumed, but are you claiming that theism is the only basis for assuming rationality? If so, can you lay out that case in summary for me?
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 4:38 pm #
Steve,
You wrote:
This does not necessarily follow from what I said. I said that I am comfortable with logic deriving from the order of our world as it presently exists. I don’t know if another world exists, and if it did it doesn’t matter to me.
Then you go on to say:
I actually have no idea what you mean by this statement. If you want to persuade me that my position is untenable could you please rephrase your assertion above for me?
SteveK responded on 12 May 2008 at 5:24 pm #
Tony,
It’s a bit like saying “Objective truth is in the eye of the beholder”. If assumed (or proven) to be true, then it follows that it can also be false at the same time.
It matters to the extent that you think observations prove that the universe is orderly. Just like with my statement above, if you assume (or prove) logic is contingent on physical order then simultaneous observations can prove the universe is disordered at the same time.
To paraphrase what Tom said on this subject before: I’ll be willing to grant that I’m wrong, if you’ll grant that somewhere it means I’m right.
Tom Gilson responded on 12 May 2008 at 7:42 pm #
Still learning new things about this system–I’ve just found Samuel Skinner’s missing second comment, now reintroduced into the discussion. Better late than never, I hope.
Tom Gilson responded on 12 May 2008 at 8:15 pm #
Tony,
True enough. This also explains, according to Rodney Stark, why religion itself has thrived so much more in the U.S. than in Europe. Religion has never thrived when tied to power structures, and the same vice-versa. They do not belong together in that way.
But that’s about power structures, not about cultural mindsets, which is the topic here. It was not Christianity’s governmental ties but its intellectual effects that had the result of which we have been speaking.
Did you mean to say solipsistic or something else? Solipsism is the idea or theory that nothing exists except for me, and that everything I experience is the product of my own imagination. Maybe you meant something else.
MedicineMan responded on 12 May 2008 at 9:07 pm #
Oh, goodness. So much to respond to, and my one-year-old isn’t in the mood for discussions of solipsism and epistemic cognitive existential…a propo…umm…stuff. I kid, of course, but I’ll just let most of the above stand as stated.
The distinction between denomination and generality has to be emphasized, as well as the difference between “rational” presumptions and “irrational” presumptions. No one (so far as I’ve seen) is suggesting that only one particular sect is capable of science - that would be somewhat antithetical to the whole point I made in the original two articles. My point in posting that list was to put an absolute dagger in the absurd claim that persons with religious beliefs cannot be “scientific”, or that religion is inherently opposed to science.
What I’ve tried to do is expand this by reminding everyone that the assumptions of order and so forth are absolutely required. Those assumptions can be made by anyone, certainly. However, there is a fixed, foundational basis for those assumptions in theism that is not present in other worldviews. This is why theism birthed modern science, and other systems did not.
I’m seeing some awfully fluid definitions of “science” here, so we need to note an important difference between “discovery” and “modern science”. The structured methodologies of “modern science” flow naturally from that orderly theistic perspective. They come only haltingly, and inconsistently, from anything else.
I’m a degreed mechanical engineer who quit grad school 6 credits short of an MSME to get married. I know full well the difference between “engineering” and “theory”. Ancient accomplishments are notable, but the ones I saw above aren’t examples of ‘modern science’. We’re not talking about rudimentary or isolated successes, nor are we talking about the ability to stack rocks so that they line up with stars. We’re talking about forming a methodological basis by which the fundamental laws of the universe can be understood.
That is modern science, and the reason non-theistic cultures didn’t develop it is because those very assumptions of order and repeatability do not come naturally to such worldviews.
Paul,
Quantum theory has a lot more to do with ‘uncertainty’ in the sense of measurement and observation that it does with actual ‘randomness’ in the sense that any old thing can happen. No matter how you slice it, there are rules, laws, and principles in the universe. …So far as I know.
Consider that you’d never seen dice before. If you saw a pair of dice rolled 500 times, and every roll resulted in a snake-eyes, would you consider that predictive of what would happen on roll 501? Sure! But only until someone told you that there was no particular reason that the dice had to fall that way, it was just the way it happened to happen. Starting without the presumption of order puts you exactly there - in a place where even the most “obvious” observations of regularity cannot be logically defended as anything other than “historical circumstance.” Unless we assume that “God does not play dice with the universe”, we can’t really be sure our observations are going to be meaningful.
Theism is the only stable basis for those assumptions of order and regularity. Spiritism, animism - and, logically, strict atheism - give reasons to believe that the “spirits” or “chaos” will do what they want when they want, with no purpose or order. Theism anchors a belief that there are “physical laws“, not just spirit-whims. Of course, you can choose to assume order, but you’re doing so ad hoc unless you’re approaching it theistically (sp?).
Gotta run. cxnbsb vvkl,jjjujsxxsxz (that’s my son’s two cents, and if that doesn’t convince you, nothing will…
)
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 9:14 pm #
Tom,
You wrote:
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 9:26 pm #
Tom,
You wrote:
I don’t believe that’s a conventional reading of history. The Christian Religion did not flourish until it was adopted by the Roman plutocrats, and suffered repression when a new despot was not a Christian. Islam expanded like wildfire precisely because it was tied to a powerful, violent, and expansionary political force — the early caliphs — and then waxed and waned depending on the energy and efficacy of various strongmen. Early Christian expansion in the new world arrived largely in the form of Spanish steel, swords, and horses. Etc.
My point in bringing up the separation of church and state is that state encompasses all of the other institutions, not just government. Law, education, science, etc. have all benefitted in the West from having been largely separated from religious control. That is why, today, we don’t stone people who commit adultery, why we teach our children things other than straight memorization of religious texts, and why we learn about things based on empirical evidence. I believe that separation from religious control, which tends to be reactionary and backward looking, is a principal reason that we have such great institutions in the West.
Tony Hoffman responded on 12 May 2008 at 9:29 pm #
Medicine Man,
You wrote:
I just wanted to say how nice it is to read something that you wrote and be able to say that I completely agree. I was beginning to fear that we might never have that.
MedicineMan responded on 12 May 2008 at 10:30 pm #
Tony / Tom,
I don’t fully agree with Tom’s assessment about the “thriving” of religion, but because I think “religion” should be replaced by “Christianity”. Islam has actually never spread well through anything less than naked force, but Christianity has always grown strongest under persecution. Modern China vs. England is a relevant, and current, example. Where it’s persecuted, it’s exploding. Where it’s technically a state religion, it’s all but dead.
I don’t want to spiral off into an argument about what constitutes a “real” Christian or not, but the truths of the Gospel have historically been most faithfully and sincerely spread during times when those espousing those beliefs are under persecution. Nominal “Christendom” flourishes when the government tries to take it up as a rallying cry, mascot, or tool. Real Christian belief and practice does not fare well when it’s leashed to some other controlling entity.
Tom’s more important point is the one at the core of this discussion - that it was only in a generally theistic culture that modern science was able to develop.
Tony, you brought up “The Princess Bride”. Just when Inigo seems done for, he pulls through. Just when Wesley seems done for, he finds some strength. Reasonable people who sincerely want to untangle the truth will always find places where they can agree, no matter how apart their ideas may seem!
Paul responded on 13 May 2008 at 12:11 am #
MM,
That’s not inconsistent with what I wrote about quantum theory. I don’t have a chapter and verse to refer you to, I’ll try to find a reference if I can.
Regarding the dice you were rolling: your example does not refute the idea that, given repeated similar effects from the same cause, one is prudent to bet on a similar result even it can be overturned on the very next occasion. The word prudent is crucial: it doesn’t speak to a proof that the expected effect will follow the same cause, it merely says that one is rational to predict that it will, even if a paticular case doesn’t follow one’s prediction.
I ask you to unpack what you mean by “stable.” My point is that a non-theistic basis still makes science *useful.* Nothing more, nothing less.
Charlie responded on 13 May 2008 at 12:24 am #
Good discussion.
Medicine Man, you’ve said everything I would have wanted to (self-flattery, of course). Except I’m not good with Princess Bride references.
Christianity has indeed flourished under persecution and was much healthier prior to being taken up as a tool of the government. The American founders knew this and the evidence is in the denominational strength of early America. But as you say, we digress..
I think your dagger in the heart of the religion vs. science canard is now well-established. That has been a recurring theme of this blog’s for some time.
Whenever it comes up the discussion goes in the same direction -
A: the founders of science were Christian
B: well, that’s a coincidence of history
A: it is actually more likely a prerequisite
B: but the Chinese had some technologies and the Greeks were pretty clever .
A: technologies and discoveries are not science
etc.
Hi Tony,
Thanks for answering my question even though you thought I might be trying to lay a trap. Very refreshing.
There was no trap intended. I thought my question highlighted nicely the irony hiding in your comments.
You’ve said that Christianity and its world view were not necessary conditions for the birth of science.
You said that we can observe the orderliness of nature and derive our logical ideas and, I presume, the grounding for scientific investigation from this observation. You said others might not find this grounding satisfying but that you thought it was sufficient.
But you admit that all cultures and all epochs have had access to this orderliness.
But it still remains that only Christendom birthed science.
Therefore, our observations of the (apparent) orderliness are not sufficient, either as logical grounds or as an historical case, to justify the development of science.
Something else other than observation was obviously needed.
Charlie responded on 13 May 2008 at 12:27 am #
Hi Paul,
Anyone can use science now. Not everyone can justify it. Using it as justified by Christianity without acknowledging it only hides the problem. As Einstein said, the greatest miracle of the universe is that we can understand it. As philosophers of science often ask, why are the laws as they are? why is there something instead of nothing? why are our brains so adapted as to be able to comprehend truths about the universe?
Christianity has the answer and had it before several centuries of scientific success allowed for claims of its bootstrapping.
Tony Hoffman responded on 13 May 2008 at 9:36 am #
Charlie,
You wrote:
I would say that the founders of science were largely Christian because they were from the West. Your asserting that Christianity is a prerequisite is a little like saying that rabbits run quickly because they have fur; you have not demonstrated causality.
The West had many many advantages that other civilizations did not have around the time of the founding of science. How do you respond to my contention that the separation of religious affairs from politics and the other great institutions may have been a significant factor? How do you credit Christian religion when the church tried to suppress the fact of heliocentrism, teaches as fact events that violate physical laws or the laws of nature, and whose chief defining principle, faith, runs contrary to the tenets and practice of science?
Science is more than a little hard to define. (I like a paraphrase of Robert Frost, which would define science by saying that “Science is what scientists do.”) Although I’m not sure how I feel about classifying the technological achievements of earlier cultures, many of those examples do demonstrate an awareness of order in nature, experiment, repeatability and prediction. Are those of you asserting that theism is a prerequisite to science allowing that all of the cultures that achieved something akin to science were theists, or that none of these achievements were scientific?
Charlie responded on 13 May 2008 at 12:40 pm #
Hi Tony,
But other furred animals don’t run necessarily run fast. Just like other smart cultures who could observe the order around them and could reason never developed science.
Historians have done a pretty good job of this. Tom and MM have as well. It seems you don’t like the demonstration.
Christianity teaches that a rational mind and a rational principle undergird the universe: “In the beginning was the Word…In the beginning God said…”
It teaches that man has in common rationality with this Creator: “Let us make man in our own image…”
It teaches that nature is valuable and would be worthy of study: “It was very good”. And that God can be known through His works and by appeal to nature. Christianity tells us to test all things and to hold that which is true. It teaches the importance of freedom and the individual and believes in progress.
Other religions and thought systems don’t teach these things and do not believe in progress. Some teach that we are just living in endless cycles and that their is no line through history and that we are just going to hit the end and start over again. Others claim that there is nothing more to learn than what is already in their books. Others think that we are completely at the whim of gods who are not bound by truthfulness and reason. Others that only the past is of any significance.
Two problems here. There is nothing magical about the time of the founding of science. Other cultures have had huge advantages at other times and have had access to the observation of the order of nature and had rational minds and yet did not birth science.
The advantages the west had were, in large part, due to Christianity. One of those advantages was the fact that Europe no longer lived under the despotic rule of Rome. There is little incentive for a man whose work is not his own and whose life is controlled by other men to advance our knowledge and to improve the lot only of those above him. There is such an advantage when you are free and you live under the first worldview that respects the man and his individual worth.
With credulity. Schools, literacy and the universities were associated with the Church, were connected to the Church, were built and run by the Church, were the duty of the Church, etc.
If there was a separation of the Church from politics it is also hard to separate that fact from the fact of what Church we are talking about. There are other religions that you simply cannot separate from their politics.
Because these are largely myths and canards. The Church does have a nasty and deserved black eye on the Galileo affair (but you’re an historian, you know how its been mythologized and that the case has very little to do with the Church vs. heliocentrism) but it also has a history of supporting and encouraging others who pursued this line of thought. Other Churchmen who advanced the idea were not condemned. In a letter to another heliocentrist who quoted Copernicus, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote this:
“Whenever a true demonstration would be produced that the sun stands at the center of the world then at that time it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in interpreting Scriptures which seem to be contrary”.
Galileo was not willing to await such a demonstration and was criticizing the Church’s interpretation as it stood at that time.
As Berinski notes in <i.The Devil’s Delusion,
215-17 (italics liberally applied by me where Berlinski forgot them)
Also:
God’s Undertaker, John Lennox.
On the other hand, the Galileo affair is a great example of why the Church was necessary for the foundation of science. Not only does it seem to have been the funding body and the home of the scientists, but all of the players in the case used and quoted the Bible as their justification for the pursuit of the knowledge found in God’s other great book - nature. There was a great debate, of which Pascal also figured, among believers on both sides of this issue. Men of faith were on both sides arguing and, because the question mattered and the stakes were actually significant, evidence was required in order to establish a position. This is another reason Christianity was necessary to birth the scientific method - we can actually be right or wrong on these matters, and since our position actually counts for something, we’d better be able to demonstrate its validity. Observation>hypothesis>test>revise …
As for laws, the Bible does not teach anything about violating physical laws and faith does not run counter to science. It certainly doesn’t allow that natural regularities can violate natural laws.
This point about faith is flawed in so many different ways that I’m not going to attack it at the moment other than to point out that it contradicts the definition of faith and ignores the necessary component of faith in all of our knowledge and assertions. This is the exact point Tom and MM were making; if faith did run counter to science then men of faith would not have done and invented science; they did and do.
The assertion has been two-fold.
1) Neither faith, religion nor, especially, Christianity, run counter to or impede scientific thought and progress.
2) Modern science, the systematic study of nature, arose only in one place and in one time - that is, in the milieu and providence of Christendom.
MedicineMan responded on 13 May 2008 at 1:57 pm #
None of which changes that fact that they were Christians. And, one would have to respond immediately by saying that “The West” was what it was because of its Christian roots. Everyone wants to talk about how the West was dominated by Christendom when they bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition, but not so much when it’s the birth of modern science.
There were certainly other factors, but those factors (other than theism) were found in many cultures before. Rome had law, order, sanitation, and prosperity, but they didn’t develop modern science. Greece had philosophy, democracy, and art – but not modern science. When the culture is non-theistic, there is a constant negative pressure away from those assumptions of order and consistency. Modern science can exist in such an environment, but it’s almost impossible for it to germinate. In a theistic culture, those presumptions of underlying order, intelligibility, and consistency are constantly reinforced. Someone brought up a child growing beyond the need for its mother. A child who’s been born can survive outside of the womb, just as modern science can survive in a non-theistic framework. But the child cannot be conceived outside of that womb, and history shows that modern science couldn’t be birthed without theism.
Charlie is also right to point out that, if anyone wants to mention the de-facto separation of church and state in those days, they’ll have to readily acknowledge the intimate relationship between the church and the institutions of higher learning.
My twelve-month-old son knows nothing about the inner workings of a light switch. He only knows that when he flips it, lights change, he gets the giggles, and Mommy gets a headache. He can do all sorts of useful things with that knowledge, but he’s not being scientific until he assumes that there’s some orderly reason behind why the switch does what it does, and looks for it.
Consider this also: There is a fundamental presumption in some Arabic cultures that women are inferior. Now, some women might rise above this, and some men might accept them, but this is constantly being resisted by the culture. It’s extremely difficult for that kind of thing to catch on, so long as that cultural assumption about female inferiority persists. Now, consider theism. It’s not that a pantheist, polytheist, atheist, or animist is incapable of comprehending order, consistency, and so forth in nature – but their own worldview provides a lot of gravity away from those assumptions. Theism does exactly the opposite; it draws a person towards those assumptions. This is at the heart of why theism gave birth to modern science, rather than anything else.
And please, please, please remember that we can find plenty of examples of atheists irrationally opposing intellectual progress on the basis of pseudo-doctrinal reasoning. Why did they resist the Big Bang? Atheism would prefer an eternal universe. And, we are not crediting “Christian” religion for founding science, per se. We are crediting theism. This is an