PD>Derek has raised some truly thought provoking questions and responses on
>this issue.
I'm flattered! :-)
PD>Generally speaking, an atheist will rely only on
>naturalistic causative factors and explanations, rather than the
>addition of religious faith and revelation, when holding to theories.
>
>I have read that Albert Einstein distinguished between two criteria for
>confirming the correctness of a theory...
>
>The first, the "external confirmation", which speaks to us through
>experimental checks of a theory.
>The second, the "inner perfection" judges its logical simplicity or
>"naturalness".
>
>It seems to me that one's presuppositions regarding the work of a
>supernatural being affects to what extent these criteria are emphasized.
>Einstein was reluctant to further define his definitions with respect to
>"inner perfection". For many people of faith it would appear that
>emphasis on the inner perfection of a theory includes whether or not it
>corresponds to or conflicts with deeply held religious beliefs, or
>"naturalness".
>
>Atheists may emphasize the "external confirmation" criteria so as to
>avoid any non-empirical perspective. Any thoughts on this Derek?
Since an atheist/agnostic, almost by definition, has neither religious faith
nor confidence in divine revelation, then religious faith and divine
revelation will not be used by atheists/agnostics to support theories.
However, there are faiths other than religious faiths and there are
revelations other than divine revelations. There is, for example, the
unproven *faith* that the universe originated and/or operates within
constraints or "laws" that can be discovered or *revealed* by the
application of scientific methodology.
I, along with many atheists/agnostics, subscribe to this particular faith.
Indeed, as many others have pointed out, it would be difficult for a person
to conduct scientific investigation (or understand/appreciate the scientific
investigations of others) without this faith, regardless of any other
faiths, religious or otherwise, that the person may also have.
However, this does not mean that I limit myself to "naturalistic causative
factors and explanations" when evaluating theories, even though I insist on
naturalistic causative factors and explanations as a *minimum* requirement
of any theory worth further evaluation. More on this later.
I also look for other qualities in a theory, subjective qualities such as
simplicity, symmetry and, for want of a better word, elegance. What I am
really trying to describe is the feeling of "rightness" that one sometimes
finds in a particular theory. This feeling would be an impediment to anyone
undertaking a professional evaluation of a theory, but, since I don't
professionally evaluate theories, I can indulge myself, though with caution.
I should emphasise that I do not reject theories because they are
insufficiently simple, symmetrical or elegant for my taste; I simply find
them slightly less intellectually satisfying.
It should also be understood that I have no professional responsibility for
evaluating scientific theories; as a technologist (a user of the results of
scientific research) rather than a scientist, the theories I use
professionally are all well established.
It is also interesting that the qualities I look for in scientific theory,
simplicity, symmetry and elegance, are also qualities I appreciate in
telecommunications network design, even though I do not see the existence of
these attributes as proof of design.
I suppose that the subjective qualities I look for in science (and don't
often find in biology) corresponds to Einstein's concept of "inner perfection".
And why do I insist on naturalistic causative factors and explanations as a
minimum requirement of any theory worth further evaluation?
A universe-creating and universe-sustaining God is the most complex,
unexplained and unpredictable entity imaginable.
The inclusion of the direct actions of such a God in a theory would make
that theory enormously complex, non-explanatory and non-predictive.
The prime functions of a theory are to simplify, explain and predict.
Therefore, a theory that includes the direct actions of an infinitely
complex God is unable to fulfil its prime functions.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------