When I was in logic class, I remember learning something fundamental about truth finding, notably that logic could not do it. Logic is a tool for argument building, and an argument could be valid or invalid, not true or false. Every argument starts with assumptions. If the assumptions are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion must be true. But a bad argument could still have a true conclusion and a good argument could still result in falsehood. The assumptions are the key.
How do you prove an assumption is true? You need another argument with other assumptions to back it up. Even if you use the negative argument and conclude to an absurdity, you have to be sure the absurdity is itself false and not just unusual.
The science-religion discussion is full of logic, and therefore full of assumptions. Those who are most deeply committed to their beliefs have made assumptions not shared by the rest of us, certainly not shared by their opponents. Their logic is perfect, of course, leading to conclusions which are obvious to them, false to others.
Example of an assumption: "The Bible is the Word of God in the literal sense."
It's easy to imagine the conclusions reached from this assumption. They are not difficult to find in spoken form. When the base assumption is challenged, a number of circular arguments are readily available to back them up. But that is just what they are - circular arguments. Those who don't share the assumption find the conclusions puzzling.
Another set of assumptions was popular about fifty years ago. A short time later, they were thoroughly discredited, and a short time after that, universally adopted. That assumption set is called logical positivism. (I am simplifying here, but it seems that the simplified version is the one in popular use.)
The assumptions of LP are that truth can only be found by what we learn from our five senses, from logic, mathematics and memory. (Thus statements of religion can never be true in any meaningful way.)
Think about that for a short time, and you will reach the same conclusion that Karl Popper did - LP is self-defeating.
We all start with assumptions. Can any of them be validated in a meaningful way, or is this where we must live and let live?
1 comment:
Jouneyman - I am sure that you now think that I am e-stalking you by following you from one blog to another, but being an engineer and Christian, I have been trained in science and indoctrinated in religion.
Every few years some controversy comes up that supposedly will disprove some core religious belief. The discussion usually revolves around “what will all the believers do if it is true?” This past year it was supposedly finding the bones of Jesus. My response is that religion should never be afraid of the truth, because that is what religion is suppose to be about.
I have found that there are many mysteries in both science and religion. One interesting thing that I have noticed is that the deeper the mystery, the more the theory is presented as fact. Not to pick on one side over the other, but this is very clear when watching any program on dinosaurs. You will be told the size, shape, speed, color, diet, mating habits, mortality rate, typical diseases, etc.. as if they had been observing them for years, when in reality they may only have a thigh bone and three teeth that they think belong to the same animal. But if you watch a program on animal planet about animals that still exist, it all becomes more like "we THINK it primarily eats this." On the other side of the coin, many religious groups seem to ignore science completely when it doesn't fit neatly into their belief system. Any avenue that would appear to conflict should not even be researched.
It seems to be that both sides are so transfixed on how stupid the other side is, that they simply ignore the truth when it doesn't match up with their simple view of things. It is like telling a child that if they want something bad enough and wish hard enough and believe that their wish will come true, it will. In fact that is not limited to kids. I think Oprah had a similar book on her book list with the same premise aimed at adults. We tend to think that everything revolves around us, so what we don't understand doesn't really matter. (If this were a sermon, I could make some analogy about sun rotating around the earth and the Son revolving around us... but I won't go there.)
If you believe that God created all things, doesn’t that require you to believe that science and God must be in perfect agreement? I am inclined to believe that it is our own lack of understanding about both science and God that prevents us from being able to reconcile the two.
As far as choosing a religion... at the risk of sounding too Lutheran here, I don't know that we really have any choice in what we believe. I didn't choose be believe that the sun rotates around the earth. The evidence before me, no matter how accurate it is, indicates to me that this is the case. I think I could argue that everything I know is really just a belief based on either on what someone I trust told me, something I experienced, or a combination of the two. So I tend to think that everyone believes what they believe because it appears to be the truth to them. Ultimately, it is based on faith in someone or something, whether that is the Bible or a Scientist. Having said all of that, I would concede that it is a fine point and that often apparent facts are dismissed because we are blinded by previous knowledge that may be flawed.
Post a Comment