The Dangers of Scientism to the Truth-Seeker

What Scientism Is Not- The Strawman

In discussions of the existence of God and the truth of Christianity, atheists are often understood and represented to hold to the idea of scientism. Scientism being the philosophical view that the study of nature (science) is the only valid source of truth about reality. In my conversations with atheists, though, if they start out affirming such a view, they usually concede it within a few minutes of my pointing out that everyone relies on knowledge outside the sciences all the time. There are a few hold-outs, but generally this is my experience. 

I recently reviewed J.P. Moreland's book "Scientism and Secularism" on this subject. One of the critiques that I have seen from many people (including both atheists and Christians) is that Moreland wasted time arguing against atheism using a misunderstanding of scientism. The charge is that he argued against a view that few atheists actually defend- a strawman. Of course, most atheists recognize that other sources of truth exist outside nature. They know, understand, and accept the defeaters presented by Moreland. 

Is "Scientism" A Strawman of Atheists' and Scientists' Beliefs?

What Is Scientism?

Scientism is an epistemic philosophy that values science as the exclusive source of knowledge and truth about the whole of reality. Scientism is usually presented in two forms: strong and weak (though not always associated with those terms). The concept of strong scientism holds that knowledge cannot be obtained outside the sciences, so it holds all other disciplines as irrelevant to the pursuit of truth. Such disregarded disciplines are (but not limited to) history and philosophy (ironically). The main idea behind strong scientism is that if a claim cannot be tested by some form of the five senses, then it cannot yield truth. Strong scientism lends its adherent to an attitude of disdain and disregard for those in non-scientific fields who attempt to speak about reality based on their discoveries.

The concept of weak scientism holds that non-scientific disciplines are merely inferior to the sciences. If discoveries of reality from the other disciplines come into conflict with current thinking in the sciences, those discoveries are not allowed to judge or influence the interpretations of reality that come from the sciences. The other disciplines are always placed under the judgement of the sciences but never the other way around. The interpretations of reality that come from the sciences are valued over the other disciplines' discoveries and either denial of the data or reinterpretation of the other disciplines' discoveries is required. Discoveries from other disciplines are thus limited to what ever is implied by the interpretations already held in the sciences or what ever necessarily grounds those ideas. Everything else is judged false. 

While weak scientism articulates tolerance of other knowledge disciplines as opposed to the intolerance of other knowledge disciplines of strong scientism, the two versions ultimately result in the same thing. Weak scientism is just a detour to the same destination of strong scientism. 

Maintaining Scientism

I do not know anyone who actually defends strong scientism. Very few people who articulate a philosophy of strong scientism will maintain it after a few pointed questions are asked or observations are made. When the realization of the failure of strong scientism comes (whenever that is or was), the pivot is usually towards weak scientism. The person's goal in holding strong scientism was to place the sciences as the arbiter of truth, and weak scientism allows them to maintain that without the ludicrous claim that science is the only source of truth. 

Philosopher J.P. Moreland addresses this subject in his book "Scientism and Secularism." I reviewed it earlier this year and have seen many atheists and science-minded folks (on social media) toss it aside as simply rejecting a strawman of scientism. They limit Moreland's concept of scientism to the strong version and do not consider his focus on the weak version. The value of Moreland's work is not in its defeat of strong scientism (what no atheist or scientist defends- the strawman) but in its demonstration that weak scientism is a clever detour to the same destination as strong scientism. Moreland demonstrates that if those who claim to reject strong scientism reject it because of the epistemic limits it has to investigate large portions of reality, they are logically obligated to reject weak scientism as well. 

Moreland's point is that the obvious failure of strong scientism comes in its insistence that the whole of reality is testable via the five senses. What is not so obvious is that forcing discoveries made without the five senses to be judged by disciplines that are limited by the five senses results in the same thing- insisting that the whole of reality is testable via the five senses. 

Ironically, those who have rejected Moreland's work on the subject are guilty of their own accusation: rejecting a strawman. That strawman comes by the atheist's or scientist's limiting of Moreland's point to the already agreed-upon failure of strong scientism. They do not accept that Moreland accepts that they accept the failure of strong scientism. But it is that agreement that serves as the foundation for Moreland's focus: the defeat of weak scientism as well. 

Skip the Detour? 

Once the atheist or scientist can get past their own strawman, they can find great value in Moreland's work. What is interesting is that for those who wish to maintain the sciences as the arbiters of truth, Moreland actually makes the case for the extreme inefficiency of weak scientism. If the goal and the results are the same, why waste the resources required by the detour when they could be spent on scientific discovery? Many atheists and scientists have already made it through this line of reasoning as well (another agreement they may discover with Moreland). 

They recognize that the appearance of tolerance is inefficient and have doubled down on their strong scientism. But then they are jerked back to the reality of its failures. They are stuck between what they want reality to allow and what reality actually does allow or what they want people to believe that they believe and what they actually do believe.

Inefficiency Vs. Intolerance

As I said earlier, I do not know anyone who defends strong scientism (this includes atheists and scientists). However, I did not say that I do not know anyone who does not believe it. How is that combination possible? Because strong scientism cannot be defended. Those who believe it often change rhetoric from moment-to-moment, from tolerance (weak scientism) to ridicule (strong scientism). This lends proponents of strong scientism to accuse proponents of weak scientism of inefficiency, and it lends proponents of weak scientism to accuse proponents of strong scientism of intolerance. Some favor one or the other and spend more time in that rhetorical space, and you may hear them defend efficiency over tolerance or tolerance over efficiency, but you will never hear them include a solid defense of science as the sole arbiter of truth. Because of that, those who wish to maintain that science is the sole arbiter of truth are forced to pick their poison: inefficiency or intolerance. 

Moreland Has A Better Idea

Instead of choosing between either intolerance or inefficiency, why not reject the essential premise of both weak and strong scientism? If the atheist or scientist truly rejects the idea that the sciences are the sole source of truth, they never need to maintain (much less defend) the idea. Further, any accusation of inefficiency or intolerance regarding discovery of reality or non-scientific disciplines, respectively, will be false and indefensible. Ultimately, if the atheist or scientist rejects scientism they are freed from the rhetorical distractions and investigative limits, but they are faced with more uncomfortable challenge: a Divine foot is now in the door. Are atheists and scientists who currently insist upon scientism willing to allow this, or will they continue on their indefensible rejection of other sources of truth? 

To Investigate Further, I recommend these books:

• Scientism and Secularism- J.P. Moreland
• Stealing From God- Frank Turek
• Where The Conflict Really Lies- Alvin Plantinga
• Origin Science- Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson
• Magna Carta of Humanity- Os Guinness

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

Book Review: Stealing From God

Book Review- Stealing From God by Frank Turek

It is quite common for atheists to claim that science and reason are completely on their side and rule out the possibility of God's existence. While it is to be expected that atheists would recognize that certain philosophical foundations exist in the world they (and we) live in, it is not necessarily expected that they would understand that their explanation of reality (without God) is incompatible with such realities. Laying out that explanation is the goal of Frank Turek's book "Stealing From God." In order to be a logically consistent atheist, many of reality's foundations must be denied. And if they do not wish to deny them, then they must steal those foundations from God to argue against His existence. 

Turek describes seven CRIMES that atheists commit against reality and their everyday life in order make their case against God (or even to attempt to explain reality without God). As he shows that reality demonstrates atheism to be false, he shows not only how each one provides a negative argument against atheism but a positive argument for God. In the final chapters Turek argues for the existence of not just any theistic God, but the God of Christianity- the true worldview. 

In this review I'll go over some of the key points Turek makes throughout the book, provide several of my favorite quotes, and give my specific recommendations. 

The Moral Freedom of Atheism🎉

Introduction- The Moral Freedom of Atheism

Many atheists today are embracing the fact that their worldview cannot support the existence of objective morality, purpose, or meaning. When objective morality, purpose, and meaning do not exist, that frees the individual to create their own morality, purpose, and meaning without the threat of judgment or damnation based upon their choices. 

For the atheist, in a sense, this is quite freeing. It allows anyone and everyone to do whatever they want without any guilt or social discomfort. The freedom to do what one wants without limits opens up a world of possibilities that many have never even dreamed.

4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

Introduction- 4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

Have you ever wondered if atheism is compatible with science? Not many have. In today's culture it is commonly assumed that they are best of buddies. Many people even believe that science has done away with God and provides powerful evidence for the truth of atheism. A couple years ago I posted an article that describes six ways that atheism defeats science as a knowledge discipline, thus anyone who accepts that science can give us knowledge about reality must reject atheism as true. Today I want to discuss the more practical side of science and provide four more ways that science and atheism are incompatible. 

Before I start though, I want to make a couple things clear: First, I am referring to atheism as a claim about reality not merely a belief: the affirmative claim "God does not exist in reality." Second, since I am not merely talking about a belief but a reality (one's beliefs can be false), I affirm that one can certainly believe that God does not exist in reality and still be quite successful as a scientist and do great work. My claim here is very narrow, and it involves the dually claimed realities that God does not exist and that science is not as chaotic as it is about to be described. 

The Big Bang and Friends of the World

Introduction- Big Bang Cosmology And The Christian

"Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."- James 4:4 NIV

James 4:4 warns Christians to not become a "friend of the world" because the world is God's enemy. What does that mean, though? The other day someone told me that I was in violation of that verse because I believed the "atheistic theory" of the big bang and used it as evidence that God exists. Did James mean to communicate that Christians cannot recognize when an unbeliever or group of unbelievers have a correct view of some aspect of reality? Or did he intend to communicate something else? Before I get to the specific accusation, let's examine what actually concerns James in his letter. 

Being The World's Friends and Enemies of God

When we read all of James' letter, we see the answer. Consider James 1:14-15:

"...each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."- (NIV)

James is talking about having the same evil desires as the world- not necessarily believing the same way about some feature of reality. James is emphasizing that we must be committed to truth not feelings or desires. If an unbeliever believes something that is true about reality that we also believe is true about reality, James does not condemn our agreement. In fact, agreement about reality may be used as a springboard for evangelism (1 Peter 3:15) and bringing the unbeliever to Christ. Enemies of God do not intentionally point others to Christ. Enemies of God do not condemn evil desires. Condemning evil desires and pointing others to Christ are necessary steps in presenting the Gospel. Enemies of God have no such interest. 

It is not that having agreement with unbelievers regarding true beliefs about reality that makes us "friends of the world" in the sense that James is speaking. It is having agreement with them regarding sinful desires that makes us "friends of the world" and thus enemies of God. We certainly could allow our sinful desires to manipulate the truth into justifying sin (which will always be logically fallacious, by the way), but is that what has happened with Christians who have accepted big bang cosmology? 

How Naturalism Defeats Science As A Knowledge Discipline

Introduction

One of the core necessities of science is the constancy of the laws that govern this universe. The fact that the laws of physics have the same since the beginning of the universe and will continue until the universe is destroyed allows scientists to not only observe and know what is happening in the moment of their observation, but it allows them to discover what has happened in the past and even make accurate predictions of the behavior of objects and conditions in the future. Some scientists even use the understanding that the laws of physics are constant to make predictions of what we will observe in the past (by observing distant celestial objects), then conduct multiple observations to test their theory. But where do they come up with the idea that the laws of physics are constant in the first place?

Is Religion the Practice of Avoiding Truth?

Introduction

A month or so ago, I came across an interesting challenge to Christianity. A skeptic told me that religion was an exercise in avoiding truth- a willful delusion. He observed that many Christians (and religious people, in general) tend to believe the claims of their "holy" books over what has been discovered about nature, history, or the very nature of reality. He noticed that many religious people have a precommitment to a particular understanding of the world and no amount of evidence provided will persuade them otherwise. He, as an intellectual, does not want to make this same mistake. In this post, I want to explore the possibility that he is making the same mistake based upon the philosophical foundations of the claim he makes for rejecting religion, and Christianity specifically. 

Book Review: Where the Conflict Really Lies

Introduction

This review has been a long time coming. I first heard of Alvin Plantinga and his "evolutionary argument against naturalism" several years ago. I was impressed by the original paper, and when I heard that he wrote a whole book on it, I was quite excited. As a defender of the Christian worldview, I constantly come across skeptics who believe that there is a glaring conflict between science and faith. I have defended the complete compatibility of modern science with the claims of Christianity using the sciences and some philosophy. My reading "Where the Conflict Really Lies" by Alvin Plantinga is an attempt to expand my philosophical defense. Is it successful? This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book that will conclude with my thoughts.

Part 1: Alleged Conflict

Chapter 1: Evolution and Christian Belief (1)

Plantinga begins by explaining that over the centuries many people have claimed there is conflict between science and Christianity. The only thing that has changed is the source of the claimed conflict- biology not astronomy. He explains it is important to define our terms in order to properly identify any conflict. He uses common affirmations of the historic Christian creeds regarding creation as a source for the minimum necessary claims of Christianity: God is the creator. As for science, he takes the current scientific theory and breaks it into its mere components: an ancient earth, rise in complexity of life over time, descent with modification, common ancestry, naturalistic mechanisms, and naturalistic origin of life. He explains that conflict has been alleged between the first scientific thesis (an ancient earth) and the interpretation of the Bible by some Christians, but since age is not part of the Christian creeds, he concludes that the conflict is merely superficial and not actual.

Richard Dawkins is one scientist who also alleges great conflict between science and the Bible. Plantinga addresses Dawkins' argument that modern evolutionary theory has revealed a universe without design. He shows that while Dawkins may be able to envision a general naturalistic mechanism to get complex systems, he has not proposed a detailed map from the simple to the complex, nor has he provided any scientific evidence of the details of a mechanism that would produce the specific points on the map. Plantinga also addresses Dawkins' appeals to probability and the claim that God, Himself, would require a designer. He concludes that Dawkins has not demonstrated that evolution (even if it is correct) can take place independent of an intelligent agent guiding the process.

Hugh Ross: Naturalistic Origin of Life Strangled by Young Universe

Introduction

One of the teleological arguments for God's existence comes from the combination of the incredible complexity and large variation of life and the cosmologically minute amount of time that is permitted by this universe to accomplish such a feat. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains:

"As astronomical advances proved the universe to be some 10 to 15 billions years old a majority of both scientists and Christians mistakenly assumed that billions of years allowed ample time for a naturalistic account of life. This error has been costly. Recent scholarship increasingly reveals that time boundaries as brief as only several billions years constrict evolutionary theory so tightly, particularly concerning life's origin, as to strangle it. In other words, a 14-billion-year-old universe is too young for any conceivable natural-process scenario to yield on its own, even the simplest living organism."

Dr. Ross has spent the last few decades studying the universe and what must be in place for it to be hospitable for life's creation and thriving. It turns out that the full age of the universe is not the total amount of time available; indeed, the time is much shorter (nearer to 4 billion years). This constrains the naturalistic process even further. But even if it did have the full age of the universe, 14 billion years is several orders of magnitude too young.

Book Review: Who Was Adam?

Introduction

Ten years ago Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe released their book "Who Was Adam?" that presented a scientific model the posited that Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis were the original pair of humans. They examined the latest discoveries and put forth predictions for the scientific community to evaluate. That book was one of my first apologetics books I read that convinced me of the historical accuracy of the Genesis account of origins. A decade later the authors have released a second edition (softcover, Kindle, promo video) that updates the reader on the latest discoveries regarding the origins of humanity. This is one that I have been anticipating for at least two years; let's see if it lives up to it.

With this edition, Ross and Rana chose to keep the original edition intact in the first two parts of the book then evaluate the model in the third part. This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book's contents to give the reader an idea of what to expect, but this review in no way should take the place of reading the book itself. I will conclude the book with my thoughts and recommendation.

Book Review: Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off

Introduction

How did life begin? This question has perplexed humanity for centuries. Some people believe that it came along by natural processes. Others believe that a divine Designer is behind it all. These two options go head-to-head, tested against the latest scientific research in the book "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off" (hardcover, Kindle, Supplemental Site) by astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross and biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana. The book is divided into three sections, seventeen chapters, and 298 pages (including notes and appendices). This review provides a chapter-by-chapter summary of the contents of the book, but it must not be accepted as a replacement for reading the book, itself. The review will conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Drs. Ross and Rana take the position that the origin of life is by divine design. To scientifically test their hypothesis, they present their model, competing models, and the latest research; they then compare the predictions of the models to the research to build their case. Before examining the current state of origins research, it is a good idea to take a quick look at the events that led to the current state.

The Necessity Of God And The Death of Philosophy

I saw this image on Facebook the other day (states "God isn't an option, He's a necessity"). As a Christian I accept this because it is a part of the truth of Christianity (and consequently, reality). But the unbeliever doesn't tend to accept it or even appreciate the significance of this statement...especially if they claim to know anything (even as minimal as that they exist). Formally put, here is one way to present the argument:

1. Evolution is driven by survivability of organisms
2. Human brains and senses are the product of evolution
3. Therefore human brains' and senses' existence is driven by survivability- From 1 and 2
4. Beliefs come from the human brain reacting to sense experience
5. Therefore beliefs exist based on assistance to survivability- From 3 and 4
6. Humans believe that God exists
7. Therefore the belief that God exists exists based on its assistance to survivability- From 5 and 6

8. God does not exist
9. Therefore evolution favors false beliefs over true beliefs if the false belief helps survivability more than the true belief- From 7 and 8

10. Therefore the human brain and senses cannot be trusted to yield truth about reality (knowledge)- From 2 and 9

You Don't Know Jack, But Its Okay

I Don't Know Jack!
Something that I've learned as I learn more is just how little I really do know when compared to the vast body of knowledge available at my fingertips. Today we have access to so much knowledge that it would be impossible to consume it all. More knowledge is constantly being discovered, so I'd be fighting a losing battle if I tried to consume it all. When we look at the numerous disciplines that one may earn a degree in at the local university and all the research required to master the material, it is overwhelming. And when we realize that people in every one of these fields are gathering more, we realize that the knowledge base is growing not additionally but exponentially.

I have mixed feelings when I reflect on all the knowledge that I don't possess when compared to what I do have. There is a certain level of humility that is experienced that is so great that even that word doesn't do the feeling justice. If I were to ever claim that I understand a subject, its indistinguishably guaranteed that someone else understands it better. And since there are so many disciplines of knowledge, it is important for me to understand that even though I may think I'm a master of my field, I am an ignoramus when it comes to practically every other field of knowledge. Due to this reality of my lack of knowledge, my pride must stay in check, lest I be made the fool in discussion or debate.

Martin Luther King Jr. vs. Evolution

On Monday (Jan 21st, 2013), America will celebrate the life of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.- a man dedicated to the fact that all men are created equal and should be treated that way. Americans owe humble respect to Reverend King for his dedication (that led to his assassination) to this noble ideal.

I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote King's idea of human equality. But is that promotion compatible with naturalism? Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:

Survival of the Fittest
One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.


Notice the superlative language of the pillar- "fittest". In order for a superlative to exist, there must exist another that it is superlative when compared to. If humans are the result of "survival of the fittest" and we are not the end of evolution (mutations are still taking place today, so I guess we're not), then some members of our species are superlative to others. The genes of the superlative humans will survive into the future.

🦃Thanksgiving, Evolution, and Design

Thanksgiving In America

Thanksgiving is a holiday that I see has lost a lot of its meaning in American society. I remember being taught that Thanksgiving was a time to stop and thank God for everything that he has bestowed upon us (be it material goods, health, understanding or anything- even suffering).

It seems quite difficult to do such a thing when America has abandoned belief in a personal God who affects our lives or has abandoned belief in God completely. I would hope that I would be able to see people at least showing gratitude to each other for something, but I don't even see that anymore. Instead, I see people calling it "Turkey Day", almost in an effort to remove the idea of being thankful to anyone for anything- which is a direct logical conclusion of America's narcissistic materialism ("its all about me").

Evolution, Morality, and Transformers

Introduction
Recently I saw the movie "Transformers: The Dark of the Moon". I almost made it through the whole thing without a single thought about worldviews, philosophy, or apologetics. But, alas, near the end, something happened that my mind couldn't ignore (I pulled out my phone and immediately started taking notes).

For those who are unfamiliar with the Transformers' basic premise: there exists three species in the universe that are essentially battling for survival and a "leg up" on the others: humans, Autobots, and Decepticons. Typically, the Decepticons are trying to achieve something that would have the implication of destroying the humans and/or Autobots. The Autobots are the more "noble" of the two robotic species that join forces with the humans against the Decepticons. This particular installment had two characters that I will be focusing on here: Optimus Prime and Sential Prime (Primes are the leaders of the Autobots; they tend to be the wiser and more powerful individuals). SPOILER ALERT: the rest of this post contains storyline details that take place in the last minutes of the movie, so if you haven't seen it and plan to (and don't want it ruined), stop reading now.

Atheistic Evangelism

Today I want to talk a bit about atheistic evangelism. Specifically, the naturalistic atheism. With the presence of the "New Atheists" and many others who follow in their footsteps, it seems that there is a lot more proselytizing of atheism than in previous years. I am quite confused at this phenomenon for three reasons: according to naturalism, first, there is nothing after a person dies; second, everything that happens is determined; third, everything is meaningless and purposeless.

Filling in the Gaps

Many skeptics of theism accuse theists of "god-of-the-gaps" argumentation when it comes to providing evidence for God's existence. Many theists claim that naturalists are guilty of using a "naturalism-of-the-gaps" argumentation to explain away evidence for God's existence. Others prefer to remain agnostic and simply, "I don't know, one way or the other." Yet, still others will say, "No one can know."

I've noticed a pattern here (I'm sure I'm not the first, though). We all know that we are not omniscient- none of us knows everything. Which means that everyone has gaps in their knowledge, and we fill those gaps with something (there are no exceptions, as I am about to show). As mentioned in my previous posts "What is Faith?" and "Do You Rely on Authorities?" we tend to look to past experiences to determine what to put our trust in to fill those gaps.

Can Evolution Repeat?

Most people do not really think to ask this question about Evolution. However, it has become quite the important question in determining the validity of the paradigm. In this post when I refer to "evolution" I am referring to macroevolution (see my post "Useful or Useless Evolutionary Terms"). If I am talking about microevolution, I will make the distinction.

As I discussed in the previously cited post, random mutation does happen, and natural selection does operate on those mutations. This observation has been extrapolated over time into the theory of Evolution. According to the paradigm, life began as a single-cell organism, and through the process noted, we arrive at the state of life today (complex, mega-multicellular organisms).