Origins, Science, and the Bible (part 2)



ALMA radio telescope, Chile

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

Origins, Science, Bible
(part 2)

Today, I want to think about some philosophical matters that are relevant to the overall conversation about origins, science, and the Bible. More specifically, I will argue that God’s revelation via nature and God’s revelation via Scripture have domains which overlap.

To make my case, I will do two things. First, I will question the limitation placed on questions typically handed to science (how?) and to theology (why? who?). Second, I will point to some areas of overlap.

1. Questions

Typically, science is understood as answering questions having to do with how. How does the world work? How do material forces operate? Science has been extremely successful in answering these questions, allowing us to understand the laws of nature and thereby improve life via technology.

In my studies in philosophy of science, however, I have noticed that how questions don’t exhaust the sorts of questions/ issues addressed by the sciences. Some sciences also address that issues.

For example, astrophysics deals with, among other things, whether or not it is the case that the universe (i.e., all physical matter/energy, space, time) began.

Also, astrophysics deals with, among other things, the question of whether or not it is the case that the universe’s initial conditions are “fine-tuned” to be conducive to subsequent life (whether subsequent life wholly evolved via chemical and biological evolution, was wholly specially created, or was specially created with some degree of subsequent evolution).

Also, the science of SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) deals with whether or not it is the case that a signal from space is due to an intelligent cause, without knowing how an intelligent cause works, without knowing what its nature is, and even without knowing whether it has a designer or not.

In my studies of the Bible I have noticed that the questions of who—e.g., Who is God? Who are we?—and the questions of why—e.g., Why did God create? Why are we here? Why do we do evil?—don't exhaust the sorts of questions/ issues addressed by the Bible. The Bible also addresses that issues.

For example, Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Whatever else Genesis tells us about who God is and why God created, Genesis 1:1 lets us know that God caused the beginning of the universe and that the universe began.

Hebrews 11:3 clarifies Genesis by letting us know that “the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.”

(Yes, Hebrews says “by faith we understand that…,” but the revealed truth that X is the case is of interest here. Also, a prior verse in Hebrews says “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” It seems, then, that this view of faith needn’t rule out observation and good reasoning to help us have assurance and conviction, especially when Psalm 19:1-2 tells us that “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.”)

Also, John 1:1-3 tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made through him….”

Also, a couple of other passages of Scripture tell us that time had a beginning. For example, 2 Timothy 1:9: “This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (italics added). Also, Titus 1:2: “[We have] eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time” (italics added).

Clearly, then, science deals with more than how questions, and the Bible deals with more than who or why questions: both science and the Bible also deal with issues of that—i.e., that something is the case.

2. Overlap

But this means that sometimes there’s an overlap between that which nature reveals to be the case and that which Scripture reveals to be the case. So, if the Bible is true, then sometimes our reason and observation of the world should allow us to discern at least some of God’s activities in nature which have also been revealed in Scripture.

Interestingly, the evidence of the big bang beginning of space, time, and matter/ energy seems to allow us to discern via reason and observation what has also been revealed in Scripture: i.e., that the universe—all matter/energy, space, and time—began.

(I’m here thinking of William Lane Craig’s many works, including his book, co-authored with atheist Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology [Oxford University Press, 1993], and more recently Craig's books Reasonable Faith [Crossway, 2008) and On Guard [Cook, 2010].)

Interestingly, the evidence of the universe’s fine-tuning for life seems to allow us to discern via reason and observation what has also been revealed in Scripture: i.e., that the universe displays effects of an intelligence.

(I’m here thinking of Robin Collins’ work that will be presented in his upcoming book The Well-designed Universe: God, Fine-tuning, and the Laws of Nature. See too the readable summary of the evidence for fine-tuning over at the BioLogos website.)

Interestingly, the evidence of the living cell (e.g., DNA) seems to allow us to discern via reason and observation what has been revealed in Scripture: i.e., that the making of life requires some sort of information input ("word") that smacks of intelligence and non-physicality.

(I’m here thinking of Stephen C. Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design [Harper, 2009].)

It seems, then, that if we widen our awareness of the sorts of questions/ issues addressed by the sciences (not just how, but also that), and if we widen our awareness of the sorts of questions/ issues addressed by the Bible (not just who and why, but also that), we can thereby notice that the Bible’s special revelation concerning the nature is confirmed when we examine nature.

3. Conclusion

In closing, a comment from mathematician and philosopher of science John Lennox is appropriate. (Lennox, who has debated the popular atheist Richard Dawkins, is someone whose philosophical work I greatly respect and whose work pretty much makes the same points I’ve set out above.)

Lennox writes: “I am not, of course, claiming that the Bible can inform every branch of science, but I am claiming that there are certain fundamental points of convergence of such immense significance for our understanding of the universe and ourselves that it is worth pointing them out. Such convergences between the Bible and contemporary science add to the Bible’s credibility in a skeptical world—as Scripture itself would warrant us in thinking (Rom. 1:19-20).” (John Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science [Zondervan, 2011], 142.)

This is not to say that we should use the Bible as a science textbook, but it is to say that we should let the convergence points inform theology (by suggesting some interpretations of Scripture to be better than others) and that we should let the convergence points inform science (by suggesting possible lines of further scientific inquiry).

It is also to say that the project of connecting the dots between science (when done properly) and Scripture (when interpreted properly) belongs to philosophy and theology, and that these connections (when clear) can serve the church's tasks of apologetics and evangelism—to help point people to the God who became flesh in Jesus.

Reason and observation have an important role in discerning God’s revelations in the world. As a Christian who is a philosopher with an interest in apologetics, I find this exciting.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College.

Origins, Science, and the Bible (part 1)

Origins, Science, and the Bible (part 1)

"The Ancient of Days" (1794) by William Blake

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, February 27, 2014

Origins, Science, and the Bible (part 1)

I didn’t see the recent debate between atheistic evolutionist Bill Nye ("the science guy") and six-day-young-earth creationist Ken Ham, but based on what I’ve read about the debate (e.g., see my colleague Patrick Franklin's blog), and based on my background knowledge concerning Nye and Ham, it's clear that the Nye-versus-Ham debate was much too narrow in its approaches to the origins issues. Atheistic evolution and six-day-young-earth creationism are located at the extreme ends of a continuum that has several more models in between. Still, I think that debates are good to spur on careful thinking.

As for me, I favour those models that at least allow the intelligent design hypothesis into the scientific explanatory toolkit to compete as an account for any features in the universe which smack of intelligent causes, if the features can be properly discerned as such on the basis of public evidence and careful use of reason—i.e., on the basis of careful science—whether the universe is old, young, or somewhere in between (I believe it’s old). 

Though I think that the various (non-atheist) evolutionary theories are logically compatible with God (as a means whereby God creates), I have doubts about whether they actually do a good job of accounting for (a) life's origin and (b) the whole of life’s subsequent diversity—but I'm no expert on this, so I'll let the scientists slug it out. 

I also favour an understanding of the Genesis account of the Bible that doesn't take a young-earth, literal six 24-hour day interpretation as the only reasonable interpretation. It seems to me that the text is open to other interpretations, which are at least as reasonable, if not more reasonable. 

Today, I don’t want to take issue with any (other) of the goings-on at the Nye-Ham debate. Rather, I simply want to recommend some resources for students, teachers, parents, and pastors who find the origins-science-Bible questions interesting—and who might wish to pursue further investigation. 

To help understand Genesis vis-à-vis contemporary science, I recommend John Lennox's little book Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning according to Genesis and Science (Zondervan 2011). Lennox is a philosopher of science at Oxford University. In recent years, Lennox has engaged in public debate with his Oxford colleague, the popular atheist Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion). 

To help understand scientists and their disagreements about the origins of life and the role of evolution, I recommend the website for Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. (See  too their website faith + evolution, which is a resource aimed especially to assist pastors, lay leaders, Sunday school teachers, and high school students.) The Center for Science and Culture is a respectable intelligent design think tank that questions the extent of evolution’s creative powers and argues that science can detect intelligent causes in nature (sometimes, when evidence warrants). 

For a helpful lecture that provides an outline of the merits of intelligent design as a competing hypothesis in science, I recommend Stephen C. Meyer’s “Intelligent Design: The most credible idea?” (YouTube 2012). Meyer is a philosopher of science, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, and author of the books Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design(Harper 2009) and Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (Harper 2013). 

Of course, intelligent design is not without its detractors, even within Christian circles. So I also recommend the website for BioLogos. 

BioLogos is a respectable theistic evolution think tank, founded by Francis Collins. Collins is current director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, former director of the Human Genome Research Institute, recipient of the U.S. National Medal of Science, plus author/co-author of the popular books The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press 2006) and The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (InterVarsity Press 2011). 

BioLogos accepts evolution as God’s means of creation through natural processes (a.k.a. “evolutionary creation”), but rejects the intelligent design hypothesis (which takes some features of life’s origin or development to be better explained in terms of intelligent causation). 

To further understand the scientific merits—and alleged faults—of intelligent design (ID), I recommend the debate “Is Intelligent Design Viable?” (YouTube 2009; transcript available here). This debate is a respectful, high-level intellectual interaction between Francisco Ayala, an anti-ID biologist and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and William Lane Craig, a pro-ID philosopher of science and Christian apologist (website: Reasonable Faith).

Next time I will share my thoughts about some philosophical matters relevant to the overall conversation about science and the Bible. More specifically, I will make a case for thinking that God’s revelation via nature and God’s revelation via Scripture have domains which overlap. 

Stay tuned. 

Here is Origins, Science, and the Bible (part 2).

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.

Skepticism about Evolution

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, December 3, 2009)

Skepticism about Evolution
I am skeptical of (at least) one sense of evolution. To explain, I will do the following: First, I will clarify several senses of “evolution”; second, I will specify the sense of evolution about which I am skeptical; third, I will set out some reasons for my skepticism.

1. The word “evolution” has several meanings, which, for the sake of clarity and truth, should be kept distinct.

Evolution can mean mere physical change over time, as, say, stars “evolve”—i.e., change—after they burn for a few million years.

Or evolution can mean chemical evolution, that is, a coming together of non-living material stuff to form the first living cell.

Or evolution can mean common descent, which means that all organisms have the same ancestor somewhere in the distant past.

Or evolution can mean, as it usually does mean, neo-Darwinian evolution, which is to say that, after the first life has begun, natural selection operates on random genetic mutation to produce the various complex organs and forms of life we now observe.

Or evolution can mean a combination of all of the above.

Moreover (to add a bit more complexity to the issue), each of the above meanings of “evolution” or combinations thereof can be understood either theistically (i.e., as guided by the Creator who created matter and its properties/laws) or atheistically (as wholly unguided and undesigned).

Furthermore (to add one last wrinkle), “evolution” can also be understood in a much more limited neo-Darwinian sense, that is, as micro-evolution, which is natural selection operating on genetic mutation merely to produce small-scale changes in an organism’s development.

An example of such small-scale or micro-evolution would be the changes in the beak sizes of the finches Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands, changes which occurred as the type of available food changed. In contrast, an example of macro or large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution would be the production, via natural selection and genetic mutation, of the beaks of Darwin’s finches, and the finches themselves, in the first place.

2. I am skeptical of “evolution”—whether understood theistically or atheistically—when it means large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution, that is, when it means that after the first life began, the various complex life forms we now witness are wholly or primarily due to natural selection operating on random genetic mutation.

3. Why am I skeptical? First, I think that the arguments for large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution are not strong. Also, there are some claims from important scientists and philosophers, claims about large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution, claims that push me further in the skeptical direction:

“Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature…that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press, 1996, 2006). Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania.

“We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell (Oxford University Press, 2001). Harold is emeritus professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University. According to Oxford University Press, Harold is “one of the world’s most respected micro-biologists.”

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This is from a 2008 document titled “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism,” signed by 700 highly credentialed scientists. The list of scientists who signed this document can be found at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (click on "Dissent from Darwinism").

The Center for Science and Culture adds: “The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.”

So, is it reasonable to be skeptical about large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution? I am inclined to think so.

P.S. I am inclined to think that it’s also reasonable to be skeptical about unguided chemical evolution, i.e., the purely accidental coming together of non-living material stuff to form the first living cell. But this is a topic for another column. See for starters my column “DNA & Intelligent Design” (March 26, 2009). See too Stephen C. Meyer’s recently published book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009).

P.P.S. For a fine debate between a highly-respected scientist and defender of large-scale neo-Darwinian evolution (Francisco Ayala) and a highly-respected philosopher and proponent of intelligent design (William Lane Craig), I encourage readers to check Apologetics315.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College. Van der Breggen’s views do not always reflect the views of his colleagues at the college at which he teaches. Some colleagues are young-earth literal six-day creationists, some are theistic evolutionists, and some are intelligent design proponents. Nevertheless, all are disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.)

Universe's Fine-Tuning vs. Multiple Universe Theory

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, November 5, 2009)

Universe’s Fine-tuning vs. Multiple Universe Theory

Contemporary science tells us that the initial conditions of the universe’s coming into being are exquisitely fine-tuned for life, so much so that many thoughtful people conclude that this fine-tuning is evidence of a supernatural intelligent designer.

The idea is this: Because there are an astronomical number of conditions that have to be “just right” for life to exist, and because life has intrinsic moral worth, it very much seems that there is a delicate orchestration of factors (instead of just a huge number of mere coincidences) aimed to bring about an end or value—and this smacks of intelligent design.

Thus, the universe’s fine-tuning for life provides one more sub-argument for a cumulative case argument for God’s existence.

Some critics, however, dismiss the above argument by making an appeal to what is called Multiverse or Multiple Universe Theory (MUT).

The idea is that our universe is but one of trillions or an infinite number of universes and so it is reasonable to think that the occurrence of the fine-tuning of our universe happened by undirected chance. Because trillions or an infinite number of arrows were shot, it is reasonable to think that no archery skill—that is, no direction by an intelligent agent—is required for an arrow to hit the bull’s-eye.

MUTs, however, are seriously problematic explanations, for (at least) five reasons, which have a cumulative force.

First, MUTs lack strong positive evidence. Scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne writes: "Science speaks only of one universe of our own experience. People try to trick out a 'many universe' account in sort of pseudo-scientific terms, but that is pseudo-science. It is a metaphysical guess that there might be many universes with different laws and circumstances."

In fact, as philosopher John Leslie points out, "all multiple universe theories are highly speculative and some may verge on the fantastic."

Moreover, even theoretical physicist Lee Smolin describes his own multiverse model as “frank speculation” and “fantasy.”

Second, MUTs require a "generator" to bring about the various different universes (to shoot the various arrows), but such a mechanism would have to be randomizing to ensure the eventual actualization of the very remote possibility of our universe (the bull's-eye), which seems unlikely to be the case. Indeed, as philosopher Robin Collins points out, for such a generator to ensure randomness would require fine-tuning—i.e., a "conspiracy of factors"—and, hence, would suggest a designer of the generator.

Third, MUTs seem less simple than design theory. An appeal to one very powerful and transcendent designing mind (or even a few thousand of such minds) seems more elegant than an appeal to gazillions of different universes (which probably would contain all sorts and multitudes of minds).

According to philosopher Richard Swinburne, "To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality." In other words, MUTs seem very much to violate Ockham's Razor (the principle that in explaining X, entities are not to be multiplied beyond what is needed to explain X).

Fourth, the appeal to an MUT is not a natural extrapolation from our common experience.

As Collins observes, “In the case of fine-tuning, we already know that minds often produce fine-tuned devices, such as Swiss watches. Postulating God—a supermind—as the explanation of the [universe's] fine-tuning, therefore, is a natural extrapolation from what we already observe minds to do. In contrast, it is difficult to see how the atheistic many-universes hypothesis could be considered a natural extrapolation from what we observe.”

Fifth, the appeal to MUTs commits what philosopher William Dembski calls the inflationary fallacy, the mistake of "bolster[ing] an otherwise failing chance hypothesis by artificially inflating its probabilistic resources (i.e., the number of opportunities for the event)."

This fallacy is well illustrated by the following hypothetical example from philosopher William Lane Craig: “[A] card player who gets four aces every time he deals could explain this away by saying, ‘there are an infinite number of universes with poker games going on in them, and therefore, in some of them someone always by chance gets four aces every time he deals, and—lucky me!—I just happen to be in one of those universes.’"

In other words, making an appeal to the existence of a multitude of other universes to avoid the design inference seems very much to be a move that is philosophically dubious.

Thus, the universe’s initial conditions, which are exquisitely fine-tuned for life, continue to point to an intelligent designer.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

DNA and Intelligent Design

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, March 26, 2009)

DNA and Intelligent Design

Here is an argument for an intelligent designer.

Premise 1: According to Bill Gates (of Microsoft fame), “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.”

Premise 2: We know (from experience) that the human mind—an intelligent cause—is the source of the highly-sophisticated computer software thus far created.

Premise 3: We know (also from experience) that explanations which appeal to non-intelligent causes have much trouble explaining the origin of life/DNA.

Conclusion: Therefore, as culture commentator Charles Colson points out (via rhetorical question): "If Windows XP points to Bill Gates, how much more do the marvellous complexities of DNA point directly to God, the great Intelligent Designer?"

The truth of the third premise is a surprise for many non-scientists, so consider the following credible sources as a sub-argument for it.

Francis Crick (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA): "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going." (1981)

Klause Dose (Mainz Institute for Biochemistry): "More than 30 years of experimentations on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussion on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." (1988)

Leslie Orgel (Salk Institute for Biological Studies, comparing the question of life’s origin to a mystery novel): "We are very far from knowing whodunit." (1998)

Paul Davies (theoretical physicist turned origin-of-life investigator): "[S]cientists are currently stumped...The problem of how and when life began is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science." (1999)

Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (reporting on the International Conference on the Origin of Life): "Some 45 years of well-funded investigation have led to one dead end after another. The same intractable problems still remain, with no glimmering of resolution in sight." (1999)

Nicholas Wade (New York Times science-writer): "Everything about the [naturalistic] origin of life on Earth is a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more acute the puzzles get....The [naturalistic] genesis of life on earth…remains an unyielding problem.” (2000)

Antonio Lazcano (president of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life): “Life could not have evolved without a genetic mechanism….Precisely how the first genetic machinery evolved also persists as an unresolved issue.” (2006)

Back to our main conclusion: I think Colson may be overstating the case about DNA pointing directly to God. Nevertheless, it seems to me, DNA’s code/language constitutes at least some good evidence of intelligent design which can be used, quite reasonably, as part of a larger cumulative case argument for God’s existence.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba.)

Science versus philosophy? (Part 2)

APOLOGIA By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, February 26, 2009)

Science versus philosophy? (Part 2)
Some folks subscribe to the following statement: A claim is reasonable to believe only if it is a claim of science—so philosophical (and theological) claims should be dismissed as unreasonable.

The above view is known as strong scientism (hereafter, scientism). In the previous instalment of Apologia, I argued that scientism is self-refuting. Here are two more reasons for not believing scientism.

First, if scientism is true, then science as a knowledge-seeking discipline lacks rational support, which is very odd, if not absurd.

Consider this. If, as scientism claims, philosophical claims are neither true nor reasonable to believe, then scientism disallows the task of setting out and defending the philosophical presuppositions (assumptions) required for the practice of good science.

What are these presuppositions? Philosopher J. P. Moreland, in his book Christianity and the Nature of Science, sets out the following list: "[1] that the universe is intelligible and not capricious, [2] that the mind and senses inform us about reality, [3] that mathematics and language can be applied to the world, [4] that knowledge is possible, [5] that there is a uniformity in nature that justifies inductive inferences from the past to the future and from examined cases...to unexamined cases.”

Significantly, the setting out and defence of these presuppositions is a philosophical, rational undertaking. But if scientism is true, then these presuppositions cannot be set out or rationally defended. Hence, the practice of science would lose its rational foundations, which is very odd, if not absurd.

At this juncture, one might be tempted simply to ignore the above philosophical assumptions and say, “Well, science works—that’s good enough.” It should be noticed, however, that this pragmatic claim is also a philosophical claim—a claim about science, not of science—which scientism would also disallow (see last week’s column for further argument).

Second, if scientism is true, then no true or reasonable claims outside of science would exist, which is clearly false.

Scientism says a claim is true or reasonable only if it is a claim of science. But the fact of the matter is that truths and reasonable beliefs can be found in disciplines of inquiry outside of science: e.g., history, law, and ethics. Moreover, as Moreland points out in Love Your God With All Your Mind, “some propositions believed outside of science (‘red is a colour,’ ‘torturing babies is wrong,' 'I am now thinking about science') are better justified than some believed within science ('evolution takes place through a series of very small steps')."

Scientism, therefore, is neither true nor reasonable to believe.

The upshot: As truly important and wonderful as science is, the realm of good reasoning and knowledge is not exhausted by it.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba.)

Science versus philosophy? (Part 1)

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
(The Carillon, February 12, 2009)

Science versus philosophy? (Part 1)
Some folks subscribe to the following statement: A claim is reasonable to believe only if it is a claim of science—so philosophical (and theological) claims should be dismissed.

The above view is known as strong scientism (hereafter, scientism). Here is one reason (of three) for not believing scientism: it’s a classic example of a self-refuting statement.

First, some clarifications.

A statement or claim has a field of reference: it’s about something. For example, the statement, “Cats are furry creatures,” is about cats.

Some statements include themselves in their field of reference. For example, the statement, “All printed English sentences contain letters of the alphabet,” refers to itself as well as other English sentences.

A self-refuting statement includes itself in its own field of reference but fails to satisfy its own criteria of truthfulness or rational acceptability. Consider these claims as examples: "All English sentences are less than three words long" (yes, count'em); "There are no truths" (an alleged truth); “Language can never communicate ideas” (think about it).

So far, so good.

Now, here are some claims of science: Each molecule of water consists of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen; energy equals mass times the speed of light squared; gold is soluble in aqua regia; the universe began 13.7 billion years ago; after 1,620 years approximately half the radium atoms in a given quantity of radium will have transmuted into radon atoms.

Okay, now consider scientism, the claim that, of all claims, only the claims of science are reasonable to believe.

Notice that the scientism claim includes itself in its own field of reference (because it’s a claim about claims). Notice, too, that this claim isn’t a claim of science per se (such as those in the list above having to do with H2O, E=mc2, etc.); rather, it’s a claim of a different order—it’s a claim about scientific claims.

But (and this is the crucial point), because scientism isn’t a claim of science—instead, it’s a claim about the claims of science—scientism isn’t reasonable. After all, scientism asserts that claims other than the claims of science are not reasonable. Hence, scientism self-refutes.

What, then, is scientism? Scientism is a philosophical claim. It’s a claim about what constitutes knowledge (in philosophical parlance, it’s an epistemological claim).

Think of it this way. Scientism asserts that the set of reasonable claims is exhausted by non-philosophical claims of the sort in the above-listed claims of science (the scientific findings); however, because scientism is not a member of the set of claims of science—i.e., scientism describes this set philosophically/abstractly "from the outside” (it is about/above the set, not in it)—scientism is, by its own criteria, not reasonable.

The upshot: As truly important and wonderful as science is, the realm of good reasoning and knowledge is not exhausted by it.

[Stay tuned for reasons 2 and 3.]

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence College, Otterburne, Manitoba.)