Sunday, October 4, 2009

Ooops - She Did It Again

“Science is the only reliable means of discovering truth.”

I gathered that it was a teenager saying this so perhaps we should cut her some slack but still, it’s a comment that is certainly not rare on atheist blogs. What this young atheist is talking about is positivism. Those who have devolved into scientism actually believe this.

PROBLEM: Why would we believe that science or the scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable means of discovering truth when that idea itself can’t be proven scientifically?

Some atheists will tell you that logic is just a higher form of thinking. Yet logic must already be in place before any “logical” thinking is even possible. In fact, it is because of the laws of logic that we can know that relativism cannot be true, that it is in fact self-contradictory. For example, relativism tells us that there is no truth, yet the relativist expects us to believe that that statement IS true.

An atheist sceptic will tell you that, “There are only two kinds of truths - those that are true by definition and those that are true by empirical confirmation.”
However, this statement is neither true by definition NOR is it provable by empirical confirmation. The sceptic’s statement is not merely false, it is also incoherent.

An atheist sceptic will tell you that,
1) Natural law is by definition a description of a regular occurrence
2) A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence
3) The evidence for the regular is ALWAYS greater than that for the rare
4) A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence
5) Therefore a wise man should never believe in miracles

With about ten seconds of thought you will see that obviously the evidence for the regular is NOT always greater than for the rare. For example, how about the origin of the universe? That’s just about as rare as an event gets. How about another rare event - life arising from non life. It happened only once but again, I think most would agree that we have a fair bit of evidence running around that it did take place. In fact, virtually every event in history has taken place only once (the first time) and yet we know that it did in fact happen.

The sceptic’s third point must be considered false. In fact the atheist sceptic’s entire argument is false. Any arguments against miracles must fail because they are based on false philosophical assumptions rather than observational evidence.

Science is most definitely NOT the only reliable means of discovering truth.


Gorth Satana said...

I am the basis of logic.
By the impossibility of the contrary.

Only by assuming this fact can any worldview make sense.

If you try to use logic to attempt to prove this fact wrong (you won't be able to), you have ALREADY assumed my worldview.

Gorth Satana said...

Science works.
Life comes from non-living things all the time. In fact, if you put on your thinking cap, you will be able to give us one example of this that happens everyday.

(by life I mean multiply, produce waste, take in nutrients, etc)
"Science is most definitely NOT the only reliable means of discovering truth."

Please say other reliable means of discovering the truth is "revelation". Please! I dare you!

JD Curtis said...

Science is just okey-dokey. Gorth...if a murder was committed and there was no DNA evidence was left behind by the perpetrator, however, several eyewitnesses saw what took place, how would this case be solved? Eyewitness testimony or science?

JD Curtis said...

From Father Dwight Longenecker's archives from last August...

Another one of the devil's tricks in the modern world is scientism. While science itself is an honest and beautiful pursuit of truth, scientism is the elevation of science and scientifically verifiable knowledge as the only and only form of truth.

Scientism rules out any form of knowledge that is not attained by scientific experimentation. Furthermore, any purported form of knowledge that is not scientific is dismissed and derided by the scientist. Any spiritual or emotional or psychic phenomenon is either explained away as a physiological hiccup or a sociological pressure a form of mental illness or some form of hypnotic suggestion either intentional or subconscious.

The most virulent forms of scientism are linked explicitly with atheism. So the 'new' atheists like Richard Dawkins can see only the evidence produced by science and openly condemn all religion as superstitious, outmoded, unscientific mythological nonsense.

More mild forms of scientism are simply assumed by the huge majority of people. They may not be openly aggressive atheists. Instead they simply assume that science and religion are in conflict and that science has pretty much won the battle. This is gathered through half knowledge they have picked up from reading about Galileo, creationists fighting with evolutionists and the underlying influence of scientism that assumes that religion is anti-rational and the enemy of all humanistic learning and enlightenment.

When scientism holds hands with utilitarianism the human person is reduced to a biological machine. The human mind is reduced to a complex series of chemical reactions, and human society is reduced to complicated, but explainable interactions. All meaning is reduced to scientific facts and humanity has no other destiny than its evolutionary destiny.

When taken to the logical extreme scientism, hand in hand with utilitarianism and progressivism contributes to the atheistic assumptions on which totalitarian states takes control....and you know the rest.

Gorth Satana said...

Observation IS a part of science.

His Lordship said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JD Curtis said...

I am of the opinion that every person is born equal in the eyes of the law, with the same rights and privileges, and that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Yet, I don't believe in the God of the Bible. How do you explain that???

Please explain where in the naturalistic world that these ideas come about.

Gorth Satana said...

Honest question: where is democracy in the Bible?

Adam said...

Again with the generalizations and strawmen. "An atheist skeptic" will tell you this. "An atheist skeptic" will tell you this.

Damn but it's easy to tear apart an opponent's argument when you make it up for them.

Are you looking for dialogue or just to misrepresent other people in an attempt to publicly slander and denigrate another part of the human population?

Makarios said...

I attempt to denigrate atheISM. Unfortunately that sometimes rubs off on those who adhere to it.

Adam said...

Your attempts are pitiful.

His Lordship said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Makarios said...

Some people just have it more than others.

So who is more evolved. Those who are kinder and who are becoming fewer in number? Or those who are more selfish, and cold hearted and who are becoming more numerous?

Gorth Satana said...

The phrase "more evolved" doesn't really make sense.

Populations evolve.

He already answered that:
"It's very hard for us humans to survive on our own in the wild. Therefore we organize in groups that offer support to their members. Selfish behavior is punished by ostracization, which excludes the individual from the benefits of the group, a detriment to survival.

Cooperative behavior, on the other hand, leads to acceptance by the group. Therefore, individual with a genetic tendency towards empathy and cooperation are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to their descendants."

His Lordship said...
This comment has been removed by the author.