“The theorist who maintains that science is the be-all and end-all – that what is not in science textbooks is not worth knowing – is an ideologist with a peculiar and distorted doctrine of his own. For him, science is no longer a sector of the cognitive enterprise but an all-inclusive world-view. This is the doctrine not of science but of scientism. To take this stance is not to celebrate science but to distort it.”
(Nicholas Rescher, The Limits of Science)
Many who commit themselves to the naturalist position feel it is warranted to discount the existence of God. After all, it is often reasoned, evolutionary biological theory can account for the genesis of the universe, the origin of mankind and presents a supposedly realistic account of what humans are really like. Similarly, modern science can explain the mechanisms underlying phenomena that perplexed previous generations. What need have we of God? There is no longer any need to posit the existence of some mysterious all-knowing Being. The idea of God was the refuge of our less-enlightened ancestors when they needed an explanation for things they didn’t understand. There is no place for God in the present scheme of things; science will eventually explain everything. Science therefore commits us to naturalism.
A contemporary and vibrant expression of the above mind-set is known as scientism. It contains all the assumptions built into (what Alvin Plantinga calls) Perennial Naturalism but is more virulent in its assertion that only scientific knowledge offers a valid account of reality. All other forms of knowledge are therefore deficient. As such, only science can give us the answers to the questions that perplex the human mind. In fact, science is seen as the panacea for all the world’s ills. It is currently a very popular ideology and the New Atheism is broadly based on it.
Although we will engage with the atheistic worldview broadly based on this type of mindset in two weeks time, it is worth pointing out the contradictions that underpin this form of thinking. In fact, as we’ll discover, scientism is basically self-refuting:
First of all, scientism is a philosophical commitment. It is not inherently scientific at all. In fact, it is anti-scientific. Its inherent philosophical assumptions actually serve to undermine the possibility of real science. Indeed, its claims go far beyond the bounds of what science in itself can tell us. This is because science is a form of knowledge based only on what our five senses can tell us. It is a method of research which involves the devising of hypotheses that are rigorously tested in controlled conditions. The perimeter of its scope is limited to a particular method of testing and verification. As such, for example, it cannot judge or arbitrate ethical issues. Not only pressing ethical issues, but all sorts of other considerations are completely outside the ken of scientific method; beauty, truth, the existence of numbers, the reality of human consciousness – none of these things can be accounted for on the basis of a purely scientific account of reality. To provide other examples, the following propositions are completely outside the reach of science to either verify or deny: “Scientism is true”, “Two is an even number”, “Torturing babies for fun is wrong”, “I am now thinking about science” – in each case, these statements are philosophical propositions that can only be understood and discussed on a philosophical basis. Such propositions simply cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of scientific method.
The first statement (“Scientism is true”) is an evaluative statement about what is true. It concerns a belief that something is true. This is outside the bounds of what scientific methodology can determine. Science cannot adjudicate questions of truth and what is true; this is an epistemological question (“What can I know and how can I know it is true?”) outside the bounds of strict scientific methodology.
The second statement (”Two is an even number”) is based on our knowledge of the nature and existence of numbers (a presupposition science rests on but cannot prove). Again, to defend the existence of numbers is a philosophical task. Numbers are abstract entities; they are not concrete “in-the-world” objects. Our assumption that numbers exist cannot be scientifically verified. Their existence must be merely assumed. We cannot prove that numbers exist by relying on what sense-data can tell us.
The third statement (“Torturing babies for fun is wrong”) is an ethical one; it involves moral judgement and assessment. Again, the language and concepts of science cannot assist in the resolution of ethical dilemmas. Furthermore, a purely scientific account of what makes up a person cannot properly underline the significance and value of individual human beings. The language and conceptual framework of science is unsuited to such a task. To affirm the value of human life we must step outside the bounds of purely scientific discourse.
The fourth assertion (“I am now thinking about science”) is a statement about personal consciousness. Science tells us a lot about the neural mechanics of the brain. It can speak in the technical language of physics, chemistry, neuroscience etc. but that is all. The mystery of human consciousness is not reducible to the mechanics of neuro-physics; the language of science cannot properly account for the complexity and meaning of unique, individual human consciousness. When we explain the mechanics of neurophysiology, the mystery of human consciousness is not exhausted. In order to understand it further, we must move beyond the bounds of scientific methodology and language into philosophical discussion about the nature of the human mind.
Science itself is based on prior philosophical presuppositions that cannot actually be proved by science (for example, that numbers exist, that there are objective ethical standards and that we are thinking beings with internal consciousness.) Rather, they are assumed from the outset. Assumptions about the existence of numbers, ethical standards and the reality of human consciousness are merely three of many that underpin the scientific enterprise. There are a load of others: for example, scientific inquiry also rests on the assumption that there is an objective world external to the minds of scientists; that this world is governed by causal regularities and the laws of logic; that human language is adequate to describe these regularities…and so on. Since science presupposes these things, it cannot attempt to justify them without arguing in a circle.
Furthermore, the above assumptions are not empirically verifiable (they cannot be proved on the basis of our five senses alone – we cannot “see” logic and therefore “prove” it. We cannot test and prove it in a laboratory; it is assumed without any sensate knowledge of it.) As such, by insisting that only those things which are scientifically verifiable are real, scientism actually denies the reality of the very things the very discipline of science rests on.
Scientism is based on the so-called “genetic fallacy”. The fact that we can explain the physical properties of the universe and how it works does not discount the possibility of a Creator God. Science merely explains the content and workings of created things. Theology concerns the nature and attributes of the Creator. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can continue to seek scientific knowledge of the created world in order to explain it further. But that does not rule out the need to explain the deeper reasons for its existence. The mere explanation of how things work in no way rules out the need to ask the “why?” questions science cannot begin to answer.
The following illustration demonstrates the genetic fallacy: suppose you heard a knock at your front door. You go to open the door to see who is outside your home. However, when you do so, there is no-one waiting outside – but, there is an intricate car engine sitting on the door mat. You’ve never seen such a thing before. You look around, astounded. Then, you begin to examine the engine and (as you have some knowledge of engines) you can begin to understand how it works and fits together. However, no matter how well you can explain the workings if that engine, you haven’t the foggiest notion as to why it is there or how it got there in the first place – the kind of knowledge that enables you to understand the inner workings of the engine is useless to help you discern who left the engine on you doorstep and why. Precisely the same applies to our scientific knowledge of the universe; no matter how adept science is at explaining the mechanisms of the created world, is cannot answer the question of (for example) why on earth the universe began to exist in the first place (“Why is there something rather than nothing?”)
The same applies to the human brain. Just because we can (partially) explain the physics of mental perception does not mean that our thought and action is meaningless and purposeless. It is often said that humans are automatons without real freedom because we are determined by the seemingly random motions of particles. However, human freedom and significance is not reducible to a scientific account of the mechanics of neuro-physiology. Again, this is because science merely explains the mechanisms of brain chemistry; it cannot adjudicate or discern the deeper value, meaning or purpose of such phenomena. This kind of reflection properly belongs to the realm of philosophy and theology. To insist that human beings are essentially valueless because science suggests that we are physically determined by chemical reactions in the brain is to commit the genetic fallacy. The same applies to human love; a scientific explanation of neuro-chemical brain reactions does not exhaust the relational mystery we call love.
Finally, as soon as we try to offer purely scientific answers to the “why?” questions we end up with explanations that are logically absurd and unsatisfactory. For example, in terms of the question of origins and the beginning of the universe, most agnostic/atheist scientists will insist that the universe spontaneously emerged (uncaused) out of nothing whatsoever. Their scientism prevents them from admitting the truth they live by in everyday life; things do not simply “appear” spontaneously out of nowhere at any given moment. Things and events are always caused by factors outside of themselves. For example, it is unthinkable that a pink elephant would just materialise suddenly, out of nothing, appearing beside you as you as you sipped a coffee and watched the morning news. Because science itself has demonstrated that physical, biological and chemical laws govern reality, we know such a thing could not happen.
In fact, the key doctrines of science are built on the fact that things happen according to discernable, predictable laws that are part of nature. If such laws did not exist, or were unpredictable (changing from one moment to the next), science simply would not exist. The discipline of science could not possibly flourish in such an environment. This is because science can only develop on the basis of observable, predictable mechanisms that can be tested and verified over time, allowing us to gradually build up a unified picture of how the world works.
Furthermore, one of the basic assumptions underlying science is that out of nothing, nothing comes. Our scientific knowledge of the world demonstrates that something cannot come from nothing. As such, the origin of the universe presents most scientists with a troubling quandary; it is illogical to say that the universe simply began to exist because science says so, and leave it at that. This is an unscientific attitude that curtails further scientific discovery. Alternatively, some will simply make the illogical “leap of faith” and say that the universe did in fact spring out of nothing; it just appeared, suddenly. Out of nothing, something came. Again, as we’ve seen above, this is intrinsically unscientific. It is in fact a philosophical assumption; science does not necessarily prove such an assertion. Logically, an entity like the universe begs a cause. The alternative causal agent of the universe is often said to be “chance”. It is often said that randomly, somehow, chance caused the universe. Again, this is a logical absurdity. How could “chance” exist in nothing? Chance is an abstract mathematical principal. It cannot “cause” anything. It is not a dynamic, active causal agent.
Finally, how can chance produce a refined, ordered cosmos that obeys the laws of physics and logic? Out of chaos (random chance) only chaos can come. But, we exist in a universe that fosters the practise and flourishing of science. We exist in a universe governed by predictable, ordered, discernable physical laws. Science simply could not exist in an unpredictable universe governed by chance. As such, the scientist who insists that the universe is the product of mere chance is contradicting what he/she knows to be true of the world he/she inhabits and affirms daily as he/she goes about applying the principles of science to an ordered world that yields itself to scientific exploration and discovery – a world that simply would not be, if chance were the ground cause of everything that exists.
These are just some of the difficulties and contradictions that scientism leads to. Overall, we can see that it is untenable and cannot offer a comprehensive and satisfying account of reality. In no way does science commit us to a naturalistic worldview. As soon as someone discounts the reality of God in the name of science, they have leaped outside the proper boundaries of science and are making a philosophical claim. To insist that science discounts the reality of God and commits us to atheism is not scientific at all; rather, it distorts the nature and scope of science. Such an assertion is an expression of scientism, which distorts science into an all-inclusive worldview.
Excellent, fantastic, stupendous post!
ReplyDelete