Pim: This first sentence already shows that scientism is not 'science'
since it assumes that it is the paradigm of truth. Science does not lay
such claims to the truth but merely relies on the best observations
available and
the best perceptions of its time to describe as well as possible the
perceived reality.
Keithp: I did not claim that scientism and science are identical. In fact,
throughout this thread I have sought to delineate between them.
Hmm, so why bring up scientism if it is not identical to science ?
Keith: If something does not square with currently well-established
scientific beliefs, if it is not within the domain of entities
appropriate for scientific investigation, or if it is not amenable to
scientific
methodology, then it isnot true or rational.
Pim: Again science does not lay claims to that which cannot be
observed. If it falls outside the realm of science it is inappropiate for
scientific investigation and methodology but truth or rationality of it
cannot be addressed.
Keithp: I think it would help to distinguish between science as it is
formally
defined and science as it is actually practiced. I agree with you that
science should limit itself to the realm of what is capable of
observation (although science does make inferences from what is observed
to that which is unobservable as is the case with subatomic particles,
magnetic fields, etc). Nevertheless, there are many in the scientific
Based on indirect observations.
Keithp: community who do not refrain from making philosophical assertions
as
though they are scientific pronouncements. Take Carl Sagan's infamous
declaration: "The cosmos is all there is, all that there ever was, and
all that ever will be." for example.
What individuals do in the name of 'science' is of no relevance though.
Pim: If it cannot be observed then it is a matter of belief and
subjective opinion. Science is our model of the best intellectual effort to
describe our understanding of observations of the perceived world around
us.
Keithp: Again, may I ask how you know that observation is the sole source
of
knowledge?
Because I do not believe that knowledge includes that which cannot be
observed.
Such is more commonly refered to as faith or belief. I guess it depends on
the definition of knowledge.
Pim: That depends on our definition of knowledge. To me knowledge does
not include my (possible) belief in fairies or the UFO behind Hale Bopp or
the existance of the Greek deities. Perhaps we could include faith in
knowledge but then the meaning of the word knowledge would not be the
same as it used to be for me..
Keithp: The denial of fairies, UFO's, and finite Greek deities does not
result
in the philosophical and intellectual dilemmas that we are discussing.
It is meant to indicate what I consider knowledge and what I consider
belief or faith.
Keithp: It is the Christian claim that the rejection of the revelation of
the
God revealed in the Scriptures results in philosophical foolishness and
internal contradiction. The Bible is clear that man's moral rebellion
has adverse intellectual consequences:
Of course this is based on a circular reasoning that what the bible is
telling has any relevant meaning.
Keith: It is this theory of knowledge that is self-destructive because
when held to its own standard it fails. The claim that all knowledge is
derived from sensory experience is not itself known to be true (nor can
it be) on the basis of observation or by means of science since science can
neither confirm nor falsify such a universal claim about the limits of
knowledge.
Pim: Nor is the claim that knowledge includes more than the sensory
perception necessarily true either since we cannot observe it we cannot
address
such a statement. So if you want to include in knowledge a faith in the
supernatural then science cannot oppose this or support this. THere is
just no evidence to support of falsify this assumption.
Keithp" I do not reject the claim that all knowledge is limited to
empirical
observation on the grounds that it is not capable of being scientifically
verified but rather because it is self-refuting; kind of like uttering
"I can't speak a word of English."
Is it ? How can you claim knowledge about something which cannot be
observed ? This is not knowledge in my definition of the word. But even if
we include it as knowledge it is very different from empirical knowledge.
Pim: So your are saying that there might be knowledge which does not
exist in any observable form, cannot be supported or falsifies but
should still be considered knowledge? I believe that this weakens the
word knowledge to include anything from superstition to prejudice to
irrationality.
Keithp: First of all, no "knowledge" exists in an observable form. Have
you
ever seen knowledge? What did it look like? How much did it weigh?
Oh boy.
What physical properties did it have? What I am saying is that there is
a universal knowledge of God mediated through what he has made.
Universal ? Knowledge ? Perhaps faith in such a universal belief ? Your
assertions are based on a faith or belief and should not be considered
knowledge in the more common sense of the word.
Keithp: Now, before you fire off a post dismissing me as "circular" in my
reasoning, using the Bible to prove my points, please consider the
nature of ultimate epistemological authority. Unless we are going to
have an infinite regress of prior proofs for every belief we hold as
true, our knowledge must rest upon something that we regard as being
self-verifying and of ultimate authority.
But the belief in the bible as the ultimate truth is very different from
the scientific approach which admits that it does not know the (whole)
truth. There is no room for doubt, no room for dissent in faith and
belief. And certainly no room for proof or disproof.
I do not belief that knowledge includes that which cannot be observed
other than by faith.
Keithp: The Christian worldview presupposes that God possesses exhaustive
self
knowledge. In addition, He possesses complete knowledge of the universe
because He has created it according to His plan and He sovereignly
directs its affairs according to that plan.
Quite a few assumptions which will remain unproven and unsupported. Is
this knowledge ?
Keithp: Furthermore, this God has created all things in such a way that
they clearly manifest Him. There is no fact of nature, according to the
Christian position, that is not revelatory. This God has also created the
human mind in such a way that it can perceive this self-revelation
clearly.
So it is claimed but how can one be sure that this revelation is perceived
clearly ? Reality has shown this not to be the case.
Keithp: According to Christian theology, man is not left to himself to try
to figure out God but rather God has given revelation (both in creation
and the Scriptures that He has inspired) that bears His self-verifying
authority. Therefore, every fact of human experience bears witness to
God. To say that God must prove Himself according to some other
presupposed standard of knowledge,
is but a more sophisticated way of rejecting and resisting His absolute
authority.
What absolute authority ? Why reject or accept something that cannot be
observed ? Why hold god to a standard different from others ?
keithp: In contrast to the Christian, the unbeliever begins with his own
presuppositions regarding what is absolutely authoritative as the
criterion of truth- his own autonomous reasoning.
are you sure about that ? Science surely does not consider itself
absolutely authoritative.
Pim: Historically you might be right but this is irrelevant for the
discussion about knowledge, science and faith. After all one does not need
the
belief in a specific deity to feel the need to 'think god's thoughts after
her/him'. What if one believed that mother nature was the deity ? What
would prevent such a belief from using the scientific method ? That
historically christianity was prevalent in (western) europe and that
many of our present science relies on scientists from that era and region
does not mean that scientific method is uniquely rooted in a belief in a
deity.
Keithp: My argument was never that adherents to other
religious/philosophical
beliefs cannot employ the scientific method. Rather, it was that the
Christian is being consistent with his presuppositions when he does.
Is it ? It assumes that God is truthful in his revelations. Furthermore
christian viewpoints have included both pro and anti-scientific attitudes.
Keithp: I also wanted to counter what appeared to be a suggestion that
belief in
the Christian God was somehow detrimental to scientific exploration.
Not my argument.
Keithp: Although in recent posts you have conceded that there is no
inherent
conflict between the Chrisian position and the scientific method, such
was not always the case.
Indeed. From both sides
Keithp: Previously you have suggested that belief in
God, rather than being a stimulus for scientific inquiry as I have
claimed, is a deterrent to such since the theist would do nothing more
than "cop out" and cry "god did it" to account for every as of yet
unexplained phenomenon. I join you in attacking the "God of the gaps"
mentality for the Scriptures do not support it.
Your suggestion that I made such a suggestion is erroneous. I merely
stated that claims that god did it are not scientific. Which is a far cry
from your interpretation of such a remark to suggest that christian belief
is a deterrent to scientific inquiry. History has shown it to be both.