The “skeptical” materialist, Michael Shermer recently offered the following as a description of his atheism: “There’s no, like, central set of tenets that we adhere to or believe in, or anything like … a Christian or a Jew or whatever. We don’t have anything like that, because there is nothing. It’s just simply we just don’t believe.”1
Shermer’s denial of any adherence to religious belief is instructive in light of the widely heralded claims he and others make about the legitimacy of Christian input to the marketplace of ideas. A “religion,” let us remember, is nothing more than a template by which one understands and responds to the world. Everybody has one. Shermer’s religion is simply informed by a belief that God does not exist. But that assertion does not allow him to escape the fact that he holds to a systematic view of the world. He has simply tried to construct his understanding of ethics, truth and ultimate reality on the non-existence of God. The question is not about who holds religious views. The question is which of those views correspond best with reality. (MP3 Audio | RSS | iTunes)
Acknowledging this materialist religiosity is not just a clever way to make a trivial point – not when we have been trained to believe that legitimate dialogue starts with the tacit acceptance of naturalistic assumptions in any discussion about what really matters. Any view that questions that mindset is categorically dismissed as a matter of personal opinion that need not be taken seriously. It is within such a paradigm that only scientists may offer us “proof.” Our scientific culture ordains scientists as the source of all wisdom and authority.
If Naturalism is true, this all makes sense. If the physical world is all that is real; if every phenomenon must be understood as a consequence of molecules in motion; if material causes are the only kind we are allowed to invoke, it stands to reason that science – the study of the natural world – is the only explanatory game in town. If science holds all truth, our belief in science – scientism – is our greatest hope.
But if science is the only appropriate defender of the Naturalistic worldview, it seems fair to ask how science can analyze things that, under the presuppositions of Naturalism, are not possible even in principle? How do the priests of scientism propose to explain away non-natural realities?
Take for instance the often-repeated declaration that “science has disproved God.” This is an odd claim to say the least. For one thing, it must simultaneously address the mutually exclusive truths that: 1) science is the study of the physical universe and, 2) no credible theist has ever claimed that God is part of the physical universe. This detail seems to be lost on the priests of scientism – especially on those who espouse their disbelief in the deity with a smug wave of the hand and a demand for “evidence.” They insist that the Christian theist offer acceptable physical evidence for a non-physical entity that the scientific clergy has already dismissed by mere presupposition. Do they not see the circularity in their reasoning? Without it, the entire scaffolding of scientism collapses under the weight of its own criteria for identifying truth.
It is wildly ironic that the priests of scientism seem ignorant of the language of their faith. Science depends on mathematics to make its case. Moreover, this mathematical structure has been described by naturalistic scientists themselves as “an abstract, immutable entity existing outside space and time” that allows for the orderliness and invariant properties we observe in nature. It is “something bordering on the mysterious” that has “an eerily real feel” to it and satisfies “a central criterion of objective existence.”2 Stephen Hawking wonders where such characteristics as mathematics, and the laws of physics and chemistry could have originated.3 Even atheist Bertrand Russell once remarked that mathematics holds both “truth and supreme beauty.”
Mathematics is the language of science – the vocabulary of those who deny non-physical reality – yet mathematics itself is the combination of numbers and concepts, neither of which are physical but both of which are undeniably real.
It is through mathematics that scientists engage in the quantum metaphysics by which they try to evade the clear causal inference of Big Bang cosmology. They profess that our universe really required no cause at all and that they know this because the otherwise inexplicable degree of fine-tuning in this universe implies that we must just be living among an infinite number of other ones. As cosmologist Max Tegmark has put it, this “idea … seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations.”4 Of course, the fact that these alternate universes are, by definition, unobservable is never addressed by those who demand “evidence” from the theist whose “blind faith” is considered a target for their derision.
Agent causation. Life from non-life. Mind from matter. Non-material objective reality. Each of these actualities is part of our common human experience, yet each is foundationally inconsistent with a naturalistic view of the world.
This is not to say that the scientific enterprise is misguided. Far from it. The point is that, on Christian theism, science is understood in context as the rational method whereby we discover and understand the order and majesty of God’s creative work. Seen that way, each of these conundrums vanishes inside the more comprehensive view that nature is not a full description of reality. It turns out that Christianity’s explanatory power far exceeds the naturalistic alternative.
This does not diminish science. It simply acknowledges that materialism’s idolization of science is a futile ritual meant to account for realities the worldview itself denies. “Be patient,” we are told, “science may not have explained these things yet, but it will. Just give it time.” Though meant to persuade, this pious exhortation serves only to confirm the materialist’s religious zeal.
The priests, it seems, also fancy themselves as prophets.
1 Excerpt from the transcript of the December 31, 2009 Hugh Hewitt radio program available at: http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=53dc1daa-c9b6-429f-9732-923b01ba19b3
2 Max Tegmark, “Parallel Universes.” (Scientific American. May, 2003), 49.
3 Dean Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization
(New York, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1997), 159.4 Tegmark, 41.
17 comments :
Bob,
Thanks for the essay. I agree that everyone has a worldview (whether they realize it or not), but I disagree that everyone has a religion, at least in the sense that the word commonly has in our language. Religion involves rituals, worship, holy books, objects, and/or places, and a host of other things that atheists don't have. I am sure you could imagine some things to place in the above categories but the atheist would not hold those in the same sense that a devout religious person would. Regardless, lets agree that every person has a worldview.
I would agree also that science has limits and there are many questions that are beyond its scope. Those guilty of scientism often don't understand this point. You say: Our scientific culture ordains scientists as the source of all wisdom and authority . I would not agree. Science is constantly evolving as new theories are tested and old ones are discarded or modified. I do hold, though, that the scientific method is the best method that we have to discover truth in the natural world (again the supernatural, if it exists, is outside the realm of science). Its interesting that Christians will accept and trust science in virtually every area unless they believe it to contradict their holy book. For example, if a person gets sick, they go to the doctor and they take her advice. If they need to fly somewhere, they trust what science has discovered about the laws of physics, and so forth. When science says that a universal flood is not possible, or that evolution from a common descent is true, many Christians will say that science is wrong and their holy book is correct. I am not saying you do this, Bob, but I know many who do. For example, one of the premier OT evangelical scholars, Bruce Waltke, was forced out at Reformed Theological Seminary because he made some positive statements about evolution. John MacArthur has been blogging about this and saying that Christians have to draw a line in the sand and defend biblical inerrancy. He sees evolution as one of the biggest enemies of evangelical Christianity.
I agree with you that anyone who says Science has disproved God , does not understand what science does. It is true that science has shown that many phenomena that used to be explained by an appeal to the supernatural, can now be explained on purely naturalistic grounds. As a result, someone may improperly draw the conclusion that science has disproved God.
Regarding mathematics, the laws of logic and other natural laws, I tend to think they are just the characteristics of the universe that we live in. The insatiable curiosity of man wants to know "where" they came from. Perhaps, they are just a necessary consequence of the universe that we find ourselves in. I don't think they argue for the existence of the supernatural.
You are right that numbers are not material but they refer to material objects. It is the way our brain organizes the data it receives. Now you could argue that a deity must have created us that way but I could argue that its the way our brains evolved and adapted to the environment around us.
I don't think the Big Bang demands a deity either because we don't know what preceded the big bang. As for life from non-life, mind from matter, etc. I think there are some possible explanations already on these but they are tentative. Much more research has to be done. I think its too soon to throw up our hands and say, well it must have a supernatural origin..
Ken~
There is a lot in that comment that I will try dial down a little bit.
1) I agree that the commonly used description of religion in our culture is not what you might describe as a complete "worldview." I just disagree. I think the way we understand the world is our "religion" but let's not quibble about that.
My point, using Shermer's quote as a springboard, was that he (and many other materialists) seem to believe that their atheism allows them to deny that there is a "central set of tenets that they adhere to ..." The fact is that they do hold to a set of tenets that, on a naturalistic view of the world, only allows science to lead them to facts/truth.
Those who believe and promote this philosophy, do so with the same kind of zeal and with the same kind of blinders that they then accuse the "religious" folks of having. They ignore evidence; they belittle legitimately held inferences; they demand the same kind of unquestionable orthodoxy to their view.
2) While I agree with the strength and validity of what we commonly call the "scientific method," there are also a couple of faults with that view. First, there is no agreement whatsoever about what constitutes that method. Read David Berlinski for an excellent discussion of that issue. But second, and more importantly, the problem is not with the method but with the scientific philosophy. This is where the scientism comes in.
As an example, you brought up the Big Bang again. You didn't respond to this point in our earlier discussion (in the comments on Jim Wallace's essay) so I want to be clear. I never said that the Big Bang "demands" a deity. Saying that would be an error of category (science cannot prove or disprove God). What I said was that the cumulative case (Big Bang, 2nd Law, Philosophical) of these give a strong inference to a supernatural cause.
This inference and the cause it suggests are perfectly consistent with what the Bible says about the origins of the universe. The Christian worldview allows that inference. The priests of scientism do not.
That said, even if you accept that inference, you have a long way to go to "prove" the God of the Bible. (Though I believe the cumulative case can be persuasively made). But saying that does not diminish the fact that the inference is clearly consistent with the Bible.
My challenge to you would be to provide a more persuasive argument for naturalist/materialist case ... based on the evidence we have before us. It is at that point that the priests of scientism become prophets and promise -- no demand -- that their answers will be forthcoming.
I'm just saying the Christian worldview allows for a wider range of explanations that fit the evidence we actually have. The Christian worldview does not rule out any kind of explanation while the naturalistic worldview does. Contrary to the commonly accepted labels, it is actually the theist who is more open-minded in this regard.
Ken~
Also ... I agree with your assessment of some Christians and their inconsistent view of the interaction of science and faith. I hope you can tell that I do not share that kind of a view. In fact, it was that inconsistency that led me to the study of apologetics in the first place so I sympathize.
What you cannot do however, is disregard a consistent, coherent view of the relationship between religion and science. When properly understood, I think that interaction is the most powerful and trustworthy way we can pursue the truth.
God's revelation comes in two books -- nature and Scripture. When they conflict (on matters they mutually address, of course) the problem is not with the revelation, it is with the one interpreting the revelation. In a case like that, we need to go back and find out which book we are misreading.
Bob,
I agree that atheists hold to a naturalistic worldview but that is demanded by the definition of the word atheist . I still don't think its a religion because it doesn't have all the trappings of religion.
I agree that one could infer a supernatural cause for the big bang. One could infer a supernatural cause for anything that science has not explained. However, I don't think one has to infer a supernatural agent. We don't have all the information yet to make a definitive conclusion. My viewpoint is that since in the past, things that were attributed to a supernatural agent are now explained by purely naturalistic means, there is a reason to believe that the big bang will as well. It may not but I don't know that yet.
I don't agree that the Christian theist is more openminded because as you say in your last paragraph, you have presupposed the truth of a book and if anything we observe in the real world disagrees with that book, then you assume either your interpretation of the book or what is observed is wrong. You are not open to the possibility that the book may just be a human composition. Whereas, I am open to the possibility of the supernatural but I don't find sufficient reason to believe.
Ken,
As for those who practice scientism -- who demand that science is the only way to know truth -- I disagree with you. Those who insist on such a thing engage in exactly the same kind of behavior as any other devout religious believer when their faith in science is challenged.
Ironically, one example of this comes directly from the origins topic we've been discussing and from Einstein himself. Einstein added the "cosmological constant" to his GR equations precisely because he could not accept the theological implications of his own theory. He had no data to support this constant. He had no observation to confirm it. What he had was a prior commitment to a static, eternal universe that GR and the observations of Hubble were turning on its head.
My point is that Einstein altered his own theory, not for scientific reasons, but for philosophical reasons. He, and others who didn't like the Big Bang model, placed their philosophical commitments ahead of their scientific analysis because they could not accept the clear theological implications of an expanding universe.
Today, we have a similar reaction. While they seem to accept the Big Bang itself, those committed to a naturalistic worldview cannot accept either the theological implications of the model nor the blatantly obvious fine-tuning of the factors required for life. It's all just too "theologically" charged. So, to again avoid those implications, we have the Multiple Universe theory.
The irony is that this new appeal is to something that is, by definition, unobservable. As I quoted Tegmark in my essay, the slant they take now is to say that the incredible fine-tuning of our universe somehow forces them to assume an infinity of other universes. But the reason they do this is still the same.
They don't like the theological implications of a cause outside this universe.
I appreciate Multiple Universes for this reason: It is a tacit admission that the degree of fine-tuning we find in this universe requires some kind of infinite explanation.
I couldn't agree more.
I just think it is more reasonable to conclude that the incredible consistency the Big Bang model shares with the Biblical model makes the theological case strong and that it is unreasonable to continue to create more and more extravagant theories meant solely to avoid the clear implications of the rigorously verified Big Bang model.
If you disagree, that is your option. I would just ask what kind of more convincing evidence you want to see, especially in light of the moral and other arguments that serve to produce a "cumulative case" argument for the God of the Bible?
Your last paragraph takes us onto a completely different tangent that I don't have time to address right now. Let me just say that Scriptural inspiration does not in any way preclude "human composition." I'm not sure of anyone who insists that God literally and physically wrote the words of the Bible. There are many different authors, styles, genres etc. in the Bible that were inspired by God to convey the meaning He meant to convey. That we may have misinterpreted that meaning is my point.
One last point, Ken ...
You said that I "presupposed the truth of [the Bible]." I have done no such thing. Again, part of the impetus for my apologetic search was that I questioned some of the things I read in the Bible. I don't think anyone who has actually read it would not wonder about some of what it says.
But I soon learned that many of my questions about the Bible were overcome when I took the time to dig in and understand the genre, context, setting, culture, etc. in which it was written. When I do that I found that, even though I still wonder about certain passages sometimes, the overall message of the Bible is perfectly consistent with how I see the real world working; with the nature of man; with the solution to the human condition.
It is far more reliable and believable than any other holy book I've read. So when the scientific data, the moral data, the human data -- when they all seem to "line up" it seems reasonable to me to accept what the Bible says about other things and to believe that it really was a divinely inspired text -- especially when I have good evidence and reason to believe that the "Inspirer" raised himself from the dead.
Bob,
Thanks for the dialogue. I don't know that the mutiverses theory is a good one or not but I throw it out as a possibility. My biggest problem with the cosmological argument is that it assumes that since in our existing universe effects demand a cause, prior to our universe existing, i.e, prior to the big bang, this cause and effect relationship was also required. IOW, we can't assume that the laws that currently exist were in play before the start of our current universe because our current universe is all that we know. In addition, we just don't know what preceded the big bang.
As far as people being prejudiced in favor of their current paridigm and being reluctant to shift paradigms, this is not unique to either Christians or atheists. Its a human problem. Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? A good summary can be found here.
As for human compositon of the Bible, I realize that the evangelical view is that God used human writers but at the end of the day, it's the Word of God, isn't it? What I meant was a purely human composition.
Sorry for saying you presupposed the truth of the Bible. I should have realized that you are an evidentialist not a presuppositionalist . So, are you saying that everything really comes down to whether the resurrection happened or not? If it did, as you believe, then the Bible must be true, Christianity must be true, etc?
And thanks to you too, Ken. It's not often that an internet dialogue like this is so thoughtful and respectful. I appreciate your comments and responses.
I have read sections of Kuhn's book but never finished it. I think that is exactly what is going on with the Darwinian model with respect to ID right now. It fits the model perfectly.
As for the resurrection ... I think it is another part of the cumulative case I was talking about. It is obviously central to Christianity. That's not my opinion. Paul tells us that if the resurrection didn't happen we are all fools who are worshiping in vain and that we should be "pitied" for it.
There is strong evidence for the resurrection ... strong enough that I find it completely reasonable to believe it actually happened. If it did, it verifies Jesus' deity and everything else he said, thereby making Christianity true.
That said, I don't believe it in a vacuum. All this other stuff we are talking about gets us to theism first(in my opinion), while the resurrection narrows it down to Christian theism.
Bob,
Once again thanks. You could be right about a paradigm shift but as I pointed out in a comment on Peter's essay. It is crucial to make a distinction between methodological naturalism, which science must practice, and metaphysical naturalism, which should be strictly the domain of philosophy. I think that is why ID will never be accepted by the scientific community as a part of science--its the realm of philosophy.
As for the resurrection, yes I know its an essential doctrine of Christianity. What I meant, though, was if you follow the apologetic methodology of Habermas and basically attempt to prove the resurrection in order to prove Christianity? I think that is a risky maneuver because it is, in my opinion, hard to establish certainty from history, especially ancient historty.
Ken ~
I agree and understand the difference between methodological naturalism (which I think equates to the scientific method) and metaphysical naturalism. But when you say ...
I think that is why ID will never be accepted by the scientific community as a part of science--its the realm of philosophy.
... I think you are getting it exactly backwards. The "scientific community" refuses to acknowledge ID precisely for philosophical reasons -- while simultaneously claiming that their objections are "scientific."
To say ID is "not science" is a philosophical statement. It is interesting to me that naturalists make that claim ONLY toward ID. They don't seem to think SETI or forensics are "not science" even though they use the exact same methods to reach their conclusions.
Why do you think it is that, as Stephen Meyer (Signature in the Cell) points out, the "scientific community" refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of ID when the DNA program is constructed exactly like any other computer code that originates in the mind of a programmer?
As for the resurrection -- It is "risky" in some sense but the Christian theist has no choice. The riskiness of a proposition does not have any bearing on its truth content. It was "risky" for Copernicus to move the Earth out of the center of the universe but he was correct to do so -- because it was TRUE.
And yes, it is hard to establish "certainty" from history. It depends on what you mean by certainty. Your definition may require video taped evidence. Mine may require justification beyond a reasonable doubt. But the thing to remember is that certainty is a property of persons -- truth is a property of propositions.
The fact is that the historical and documentary evidence for the reliability of the New Testament is stronger than for any other ancient set of documents. Why do critics insist on holding the NT to a higher standard of reliability?
Likewise, the evidence for the resurrection is just as strong as any other historical event (stronger in many cases). If you've read Habermas, you know that. As long as the evidence is credible and reliable, I'm not sure why it is "risky" to accept it at all.
Bob,
I just think science would cease to exist if it allowed supernatural explanations into its methodology. It has to be based on a methodological naturalism in order to be science. Science is best designed to answer the "what" questions not the "why" questions.
I think history is the same way. If we allow the theory of the supernatural into historical studies, then the pandora's box is opened.
I think supernatural explanations need to stay in the domain of philosophy and religion.
First, I have NEVER understood the "science will cease to exist" assertion (because it is definitely NOT an argument) that seems to be so popularly repeated over and over again. Can you please explain how/why the allowance that there may be a supernatural explanation for anything will somehow cause everyone stop investigating the world we live in? That honestly makes no sense to me.
Second, recognizing that an intelligent cause is the most reasonable explanation for something is not a "why" question! It is a "how" question. Finding a cause for some event has no bearing on why it occurred. The why is still a question for philosophy and religion.
Honestly, it is frustrating for me when these kinds of canned, repeated assertions are made without any logical justification. The fact that intelligent and thoughtful people (like you, Ken) continue to say these kinds of things when they don't follow is further proof of the theme of my essay -- that scientism represents EXACTLY the kind of "religious blind faith" based on presuppositions that will not allow certain answers before the facts are even considered.
I appreciate the dialogue but it looks like we've just gone full circle.
Cheers,
Bob
Bob,
The scientific method has to work off the assumption of methodological naturalism. Science has no way to observe or test the supernatural.
Unless God himself comes down and submits to testing in the laboratory, it is impossible.
Lets say for example that a scientist observes Jesus turning water into wine. He tests the water first and sees that it is truly water. He tests it after it has been changed and he verifies that it is wine. That is all he can do. He can't explain how the water got transformed into wine because it defies natural law. He can only say: "I can't explain it" and then he and others can draw inferences from that study but since we cannot examine supernatural processes in the laboratory, science cannot answer the question of how the water became wine. You could say its magic or its supernatural or its an anomaly but none of these would be scientific statements.
Av8torBob,
This is one of the best pieces I've read on scientism in a long time. Thank you so much!
I don't know if you listened to the recent debate between Dinesh D'Souza and John Loftus, but Dinesh [not my favorite debater] made the point that whenever a naturalist (or atheist) wants to avoid an apparent conclusion that may be distasteful to them, they simply throw out the word "quantum." Perhaps we should start calling out the priests for their "quantum of gaps" tactic? :-)
Godspeed and thank you for a great read!
Hey Chad,
Thanks very much. That's quite a compliment.
I did hear most of the debate and I agree with you. Dinesh can be a little caustic but he did hit the nail on the head with that one.
Thanks for reading ...
Bob
This article contains several common fallacies and misconceptions:
1. "A 'religion,' let us remember, is nothing more than a template by which one understands and responds to the world"
Note that this is not an uncontroversial statement--some (e.g. Emile Durkheim, a late nineteenth century anthropologist) would say religion is also characterized by a sense of collective social identity that's reinforced by some collectively effervescent experience.
2. "Take for instance the often-repeated declaration that 'science has disproved God.' This is an odd claim to say the least."
This is a straw-man. No scientist I know would claim that science has disproved God. The claim that God exists is unfalsifiable, i.e., not disprovable. The reason scientifically minded people reject unfalsifiable claims is because there are potentially an infinite number of such claims and believing everything that can't be proven wrong would be preposterous (e.g., can you PROVE that unicorns don't exist? You can't, therefore they must exist--this would lead to trouble). For non-believers, the existence of a deity falls into the category of "un-disprovable but extremely unlikely" along with unicorns, Yetis, demons, gods, leprechauns, and zombies.
3. "Seen that way, each of these conundrums [an interesting list of scientific unknowns] vanishes inside the more comprehensive view that nature is not a full description of reality. It turns out that Christianity’s explanatory power far exceeds the naturalistic alternative."
You are right that scientific inquiry has not (yet) provided an account of the origins of the world that is satisfying to our notions of cause-and-effect. But I disagree that the Christian account offers additional explanatory power. Allow me to summarize the author's logical train of thought as follows (1) there is some mystery as to how the universe got here, and the nature of that mystery contradicts some of the assumptions of natural science; (2) therefore, we need an explanation that falls outside of natural science; (3) therefore, there must be a deity. I agree with the author on point (1) and even to some extent point (2) (we may need to refine our understanding of the physical universe and of causation in order to understand the origins or lack of origins of the universe). However, positing a God in point (3) to explain the universe doesn't solve the conundrums described in point (1).
The reason it doesn't solve the conundrums is because it simply raises the question of how this God appeared. Did He create Himself? Was he always there? How could such a complex being arise from nothing, or if He didn't arise at all, then why should He not have the need to have a beginning when everything else does? Saying that He is "supernatural" doesn't explain anything--it just provides a word for the fact that we don't know how such a God might have come to be. Solving the metaphysical mysteries of the universe by positing a God feels satisfying because it's so much easier to wrap our minds around human agency than to accept that some things in the universe are mysterious and unknown to us at this point in time. But it amounts to saying "How did the universe get here? Magic!"
A "magic" explanation may be parsimonious, but it doesn't add explanatory value.
Hi Sarah,
You said: we don't know how such a God might have come to be. Solving the metaphysical mysteries of the universe by positing a God feels satisfying because it's so much easier to wrap our minds around human agency than to accept that some things in the universe are mysterious and unknown to us at this point in time. But it amounts to saying "How did the universe get here? Magic!"
This response contains several common fallacies and misconceptions.
You may be hard pressed to convince the likes of C.S. Lewis, Antony Flew, or any other of those former hard core atheists that you think they "posit God because it feels so satisfying." Hardly. This is a straw man in itself. To claim that following the evidence and to reach a conclusion different from yours is just the sign of a weak personality or that it must be a psychological crutch sounds kind of self-serving and condescending to be honest.
Not only so, but I could just as easily turn it around and note that atheism "is characterized by a sense of collective social identity that's reinforced by some collectively effervescent experience" of those who refuse to submit themselves to objective moral standards or who have had a bad experience with an abusive, absent or oppressive father figure in their lives.
I am NOT suggesting this of you, Sarah (just to be clear). I am saying that the psychological explanation goes both ways. (Check out "Faith of the Fatherless" by Paul Vitz)
You also allude to Dawkins' vacuous "where did God come from" diversion. But there are two problems with this. First, no theist ever claimed that God came from anywhere. Part of the definition of God is that he is an eternal, self-existent being that requires nothing or nobody to make him.
Second, identifying that the cause for the beginning of all matter, energy, space and time must exist outside matter, energy, space and time is not illogical or inconsistent. It is a simple and straightforward conclusion from the evidence given ...
... which leads me to this statement: scientifically minded people reject unfalsifiable claims is because there are potentially an infinite number of such claims and believing everything that can't be proven wrong would be preposterous
Are you suggesting that the commonly accepted naturalistic explanation for the Big Bang -- the multiple universe theory(ies) -- is "falsifiable?"
Are you suggesting that "We don't know yet ... some things are just mysterious ... we'll figure it out later" adds explanatory power to the discussion?
That is my whole point. The "priests of scientism" make unfalsifiable claims, jump to illogical conclusions and vehemently deny that any supernatural explanation is possible simply because their presuppositions won't allow it. They hold to this demand dogmatically and irrationally in some cases.
In short, they act exactly like those they ridicule as being "religious" even if the theistic explanation is logical and consistent with the evidence.
Theism may be wrong but it is not irrational -- it certainly isn't any more irrational than atheism.
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.