Today’s mounting trend to dismiss the God of the Bible is more fragile (rationally speaking) than is commonly imagined. Many skeptics urge the claim, “God can’t be proved!” as their way to imply that the God of the Bible is a myth. Yet in reality, the non-provability of God’s existence places the degree of theism’s certitude at virtually the same level in principle, as is scientific certitude (likewise being not-provable). Indeed, the posture of mockingly belittling the Bible, is indicative of a non-scientific spirit (the refusal to face evidence). My goal is indeed to highlight the absurdity of those who demand proveability as a criterion for any statement to qualify as trustworthy. By way of example, the conclusion of philosopher David Hume’s essay regarding Human Understanding, entailed a glaringly reckless directive:
“Morals and criticism are not so properly
objects of the understanding as of taste and sentiment. Beauty, whether moral
or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived … When we run over libraries,
persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand
any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does
it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it
contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No.
[Then] Commit it…to the flames: for it can contain nothing
but sophistry and illusion.”
Notice that, based on his own criteria, this lauded intellect
routed his own philoso-phical essay to the furnace since it too
fails the truth-test that he deemed is demanded in order to escape “the
flames.”
Now hear ye this! Science is not provable. Since frontier science firstly confronts interactions between
occasionally unpredictable forces and obscure entities, and also faces
the reality that observers must trust by faith that
our very perceptions are correct, science is not provable. Only abstract claims consisting of mathematics
and logic are provable. Consequently scientific
theories are instead deemed to be “justified” insofar as
they align with evidence that is superior in measure and quality to
competing hypotheses. Hume’s demand
that all claims must conform to “quantity” etc. in order to qualify
as true, is absurd since, by his own standard, defining even what
the term science means, fails to meet his requirements for truth
statements. Indeed his strictures, if
obeyed, invalidly deem it impossible to even assess the ramifications that logically
follow from scientific data. But
Hume was wrong. Rationality indicates that
non-scientific statements too are trustworthy if they are logically
framed and affirmed by relevant evidence.
If that wasn’t so, then social speech, even Hume’s, would lack any capacity
to convey truth.
Similarly, the thesis of Stephen
Jay Gould’s (SJG) book, Rocks of Ages, lays out his claim that
the disparate concepts of science and religion constitute “non-overlapping
magisteria” (NOMA) in which only the realm of science illuminates
“the factual character of the natural world and develops
theories that coordinate and explain these facts,” while the realm
of religion by contrast, “operates in the…realm of human
purposes, meanings, and values” to the complete exclusion
of physical facts and realities. By the term “non-overlapping,” SJG disallows
the notion that these realms are reconcilable.
In other words, he denies potential reciprocal relationships between
science and religion. Indeed, since he
is a practical materialist, he refuses even the possibility of intelligent
agents impacting the physical realm.
Yet it is at this very point that Gould violates the standard boundaries
of science by usurping its authority to referee his denial of that
possibility. In actual fact, the purview
of science is limited solely to particulars of physical nature, to the complete
exclusion of concepts concerning potential spiritual realities.
You may read my entire article complete with footnotes at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com/articles
