The
god of atheism
While atheists count themselves as rational because,
as they claim, they don’t believe anything that might be labeled superstitious
or the product of wishful thinking, nevertheless they still offer their
sacrifices upon the alter of their own omniscient and omnipotent god: science. Though I obviously mean the
preceding comment to be taken hyperbolically, it is not all that far from
reality. While science is not literally
omniscient or omnipresent, many atheists hail it as if it were. For them
science is the north star that leads us to a complete comprehension of reality.
In fact, most atheists, who are naturalists, will go so far as to say that
science is our only epistemological
window into the nature of reality. That is to say, only things scientifically
detectable and falsifiable can count as knowledge—though most who make this
statement seem to be oblivious to the fact that it’s self-refuting, but let’s
not bog them down with logic.
Yet, when asked to defend such a statement—which
again, in principle, cannot be
defended by science, on pain of contradiction—atheists tend to resort to a
blatant non-sequitur: the scientific
method is valid because it works.
In a well-known discussion between Stephen Law and
Richard Dawkins at Oxford in 2013, Dawkins was asked a specific question. The
questioner basically asked Dawkins how the scientific method can be our only
epistemological method for gaining knowledge. Dawkins responded with the
following (emphasis mine): It [the scientific method] works. Planes fly, cars drive, computers compute. If you base medicine on science, you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works, bitches.
And laughter ensued from the audience, who was none the wiser regarding the fact that Dawkins had simply parroted a non-sequitur.
This answer given to validate the scientific method
is the same answer that is given by a majority of the skeptic community. I have
read such a statement numerous times at Debunking Christianity (which is hardly
surprising coming from the source) and other such blogs. In a post in 2012 over
at the A-Unicornist , author Mike D, while attempting to demonstrate the
superiority of science as opposed to metaphysics, stated that, “Science wins
because it works”—and it seems he merely copied this platitude from Stephen
Hawking who, also, claimed that, “Science will win because it works.”
Pragmatism
revived
Unfortunately, most who parrot this claim seem to be
completely oblivious to fact that they’re taking a position regarding the
metaphysical nature of truth[1]; and this position, which has been well-known
and refuted for decades, is known as pragmatism.
Pragmatism is, essentially, the view that a proposition, method, ideology etc.
is valid if has practical benefits, or if it works satisfactorily. The mantra
of pragmatism is almost identical to the skeptic’s mantra regarding science: it’s
true because it works.
But is this correct? Is it true that something is
valid simply because it results in practical and satisfactory benefits? Surely
this is absurd.
In order to
demonstrate the backwards thinking of pragmatists we must delve into the nature
of truth. What is truth, or, rather,
what does it mean for something (e.g., a statement or ideology) to be
true? Well, truth is simply a relation
between a thing and reality. Something is true if it conforms to the nature of
reality. For example, the statement “the cat is on the mat” is a true statement
if and only if there is in fact, in
reality, a cat on the mat. The statement would be rendered false if there was
no such cat on the mat.
Now notice that the above definition of truth is not contingent on whether or not the
specific something works.
Pragmatism
is not pragmatic
More than that, I maintain that pragmatism can be
shown to be definitively invalid.
Take a simple case of lying. Say that my calculus
students—yes, I’m a math teacher—ask me whether or not the AP Calculus test
that they take in April will be difficult. Let us say that the test is indeed very difficult, yet in order
to endow my students with optimism I lie, and I say that the test is a piece of
cake. Now let’s imagine that due to the optimism I have sparked in my students,
they all gain motivation and pass the test with flying colors. Are we to now
say that my lie to them—namely, that the test would be easy—is now true, simply
because the lie worked? Of course
not. The test was difficult, and their success has not changed that one bit.
Yet we can go further than this. Take Christian religion. Christian religion has (and continues to) brought about so much good: It brings peace, joy, comfort, love, hope, charity etc. In fact some would claim that it satisfies our deepest innate longings [2]. Yet, Christianity has also brought about horrendous evils: division, persecution, fear, hate etc. But this provides an insurmountable dilemma for pragmatism. For it seems that, on pragmatism, Christianity has (and does) brought about both practical and impractical consequences. And this means that Christianity is both true and false, or true to some and false to others, or true at some moments and false at others. Hopefully I need not point out how ridiculous this is.
The point is that the ones who profess that X is
true because X works simply have their reasoning backwards. What they should be saying is that X works because
X is true. That is, science works—planes fly, rockets reach their destination,
computers compute etc.—because science is true (i.e. accurately reflects
reality). If something accurately reflects reality then it makes perfect sense
that it would yield practical benefits.
Now, this might seem like a preferred alternative
for the skeptic; they might say, “Fine! Science works because it is true.” The
problem is that this doesn’t answer the question that was originally posed in
the first place: how is the scientific method justified? To say it works
because it’s true doesn’t answer why
it’s true in the first place! To answer this question one needs to yield to
philosophy and metaphysics, which is the territory many atheists refuse to go.
[1] I find it quite amusing that many “skeptics” who
take this position seem to be completely ignorant regarding the nature of their
conquest. They’re taking a stance regarding ontology, which is philosophy,
while, usually, trying to argue for the supremacy of science. So, to uphold
their messiah of science, they must yield the floor to philosophy, the very
thing they hate to do and claim is useless.
[2] This point demonstrates that if one does intend to adhere to pragmatism, then they better be prepared to embrace the “truth” of Christianity (and all religions simultaneously), since, on pragmatism, truth is whatever brings about practical benefits, and surely Christianity has done so in the past and continues to.
No comments:
Post a Comment