Polaterality

 

Logoslaleo

 

Occulta Magica

 

The Hydrothermal Origin of Life

 

Scientific vs. Biblical Testimony: Two Pretensious Posers Pontificate

Luke Westman, Opening Statement: The Testimonies of the Bible and Science

The legions of fatuous "new atheists" proudly proclaim themselves to be "free thinkers" while declaring the mantle of science as the arbiter of ultimate truth. This most often takes place with snide accusations of religious believers blindly following "authorities" steeped in superstition.

What is so fascinating about these assertions is that many of these individuals are themselves blindly following their own authorities steeped in the superstition of naturalistic materialism and epistemic scientism. This position of intellectual elitism, if examined closely, is easily demonstrated to be a fraudulent philosophical endeavor. For example, the claim that all knowledge comes through the hard sciences by way of sensory experience is not how actual scientific knowledge is advanced in the first place. It requires trust - read faith - in the scientific community and the supposed honesty in reporting of the discoveries being made while perpetuating fallacious unexamined philosophical presuppositions. Reading a scientific journal is not the same thing as examining the evidence or gaining knowledge through the collection of sensory inputs because said person doing the reading hasn't actually "examined the evidence" or received such inputs. They are simply reading about the evidence that was collected, trusting that what was reported actually happened. Reading about evidence and trusting the report of a community of people is, well, what these empiricists mockingly accuse religious people of doing concerning their own views.

Consider the testimony of the New Testament. In these documents the Apostles speak explicitly about their experience with the risen Christ. These same men go on to preach the the sacred teachings given to them by Christ while sacramentally re-presenting their experience in the Eucharist. Those who are moved by the Holy Spirit and believe this testimony handed down through the trials of history are actually in a better position than the new atheist reading pop science literature because the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is experienced in the sacramental life of the Church, the mystical body of Christ.

So that which is mocked by the incredulously naive new atheist movement is actually practiced by them at a lower and less reliable level than the Catholic peasant with a faith that can move mountains.

Michael Rodriguez Opening Statement: Against Westman's Argument from Testimony

Let's have some fun.

I don't think your argument from testimony is a very good one. Contained in your presentation is a series of convolution about what, exactly, a person who accepts scientific findings is actually committed to. A person who says that they accept something on the grounds of scientific results is not depending upon the scientific community, because science is not based on consensus. A consensus may be reached by the scientific community but that consensus can just as well be overturned, and what *actually* determines the science is the consistent application of a very particular kind of *method*, a careful examination of repeatable experiments that anyone with the means is free to test for themselves. Science when legitimately practiced involves a scientific community *competing* with one another, as they very well do, and quite fiercely, to best explain a range of phenomena *demonstrated* by repeatable experiment. The *whole premise* of science is that *you don't just have to take their word for it*, because they are *offering repeatably supportable evidence for a hypothesis*.

It is entirely true that a person who just seeks out authorities and reads some pop-lit on the internet *without* doing a scrupulous search of the underlying experiments, their methods, their results, and the question of whether or not others have repeated it with the same results, and the question of whether or not even some more others have come up with contrary results, and how they did so -- such a person is just artificially smug and does not really know anything at all. But that does not mean that there is really no such thing as a legitimate *intellectual elitism* whereby scrupulously following certain meticulous methods leaves you somehow no better off than the person who just accepts anything that a random stranger on the street will tell them.

You then turn in your argument to compare the testimony of science with the testimony of Scripture. To be honest your point does not come across to me as much more than "but, but ... following the testimony of the Church makes me feel good!", where you appeal to the "experience in the sacramental life of the Church" as the reason for superior warrant. If some New Atheist wanted to make Dawkins their Pope and follow the consensus of scientists as legitimate authorities, I imagine that would make him feel a sense of the communal fuzzies, too, but fuzzies do not demonstrate any superiority of reason, no logical compulsion to the effect that your testimony should be preferred over their's, and without a general account of testimony that establishes an understanding of what counts as a good kind and what sort counts as a bad kind, and exactly what kinds of issues we can use testimony to rely on in order to firmly establish a conclusion -- without those things it becomes wholly arbitrary.

I think a decently common-sensical account of testimony can be readily forthcoming. But I think it would imply more problems for the testimony that you rely on -- where you accept historical documents to establish a trust in a great many things that you would have a hard time believing with even your own eyes -- than even the artificially smug New Atheist who woos over the next edition of Scientific American.

Luke Westman Rejoinder: Nah, Brah!

Your first paragraph exemplifies the cartoon narrative popular among the very people I am critiquing in my original post, which is the idea that somehow the scientific community rises above their very flawed humanity and are waiting readily to accept evidence wherever it may point, even if it refutes established paradigms and personal life work. This is description of the scientific community, of course, is total nonsense.

Science is based on consensus, allegedly informed by purely objective appeals to method and repeated observation. The key component, however, is the "allegedly" part. We can never forget that the paradigm being protected by established consensus is philosophical, not evidential. Any decent and remotely honest scientist will allow the fact to be clearly stated that evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways, which is discovered by the consensus of the community. Indeed, this consensus can be overturned, but let's be serious and recognize that the established scientific community decides what is allowed in the network of acceptable science in the first place. It is a circle that prevents the overturning of entrenched theories. The Intelligent Design movement is exhibit A for this statement. If you want another exhibit consider the ferocious criticisms of the string theory project offered by Lee Smolin.

Indeed, epistemic justification exists in degrees of certitude, but even those who think the evidence is incontestable must admit that they could be wrong in their certainty or the supposed virtue of scientific humility and overturning of consensus becomes slogans rather than reality.

The mention of Scripture isn't an appeal to the testimony of Scripture itself, but the arguments being made by the Apostles recorded in Scripture. I am appealing to the the testimony of people that knew and experienced the risen Christ. They made these recorded claims before they wrote them down. The Apostles wrote these letters to communities where they had established Churches, and therefore these communities were familiar with their claims prior to receiving the epistles.

Some juvenile new atheist may like to declare Dawkins their pope, but that is a bit different than claiming to have experienced the bodily resurrection of the Messiah, who not only predicted his own death at the hands of unjust men as well his subsequent resurrection. The arbitrary category of valid testimony lies squarely on the shoulders of the atheist fanboy.

Now to the more important part of the post, which you entirely miss, is that such appeals to the testimony of a specific community as an authority of a very specific topic refutes the new atheist claim of being "free thinking" and that knowledge is only established through the empiricism of methodological scientism. If a person wants to appeal to communal scientific structures of authority for an avenue of knowledge, be my guest. Just don't follow that by speaking out of the other side of their mouth by claiming that knowledge only comes from sensory experience. Reliable testimony and the accumulation of sensory data are not even close to the same thing, which is what is being proclaimed by most contemporary atheists.

Michael Rodriguez Rejoinder: Believe it or not!

Perhaps you think that my depiction of science is nonsensical because you see how consensus operates amongst peoples. But you have to draw a distinction between the method and the tally of the votes. There are a great number of scientists who have had to abandon their pet theories because they did not agree with experimental findings. The move toward consensus - and I certainly agree with you that those moves are just as often political or philosophical as they are motivated purely by the data -- ultimately ends up overturned - by what? The data. Intelligent Design theorists are trying to gain traction by offering - what? Data. And legitimate scientists, *qua* legitimate scientist, will *not ignore that data*, because to do so is a disavowal of the use of the method. It is the *method* that defines science, not the tallies of the votes of prejudiced scientists who can be counted on to stomp their feet in favour of their own ideas, and seek to entrench themselves into the academy. What vindicates science from this shortcoming *is* its method, and it is *only* by the use of the method that science has made any progress at all. No tally of votes has ever been able to produce treatments for cancer, or MRI scans for brain tumours, or a discovery of a fundamental particle. It was the use of the *method* that did so and you must not let the fact that science as an *institution*, as a *community*, is now entrenched by a toxic progressive modernism to blind you from the fact that the method that defines and underlies science is a method that works -- that you yourself use it, and you've even used it here to respond to me, in the manner of rationally assessing different points that I've made, and considering the empirical facts about how you've seen evolution die-hards or climate scientists act so as to exclude others and entrench themselves. The use of that rational faculty, and the results of repeatable empirical confirmation, is what science is, and no more than that -- not the politics, not the entrenching of particular communities, but only the consistent application of that method to progressively more refined results.

And in many areas such refinements have in fact occurred, to a degree that is downright awe-inspiring. For example, all macro-level, local physical principles (by local I mean "the visible universe") have now become understood -- we can describe in minutest detail the entirety of the physics of our visible universe. Our understanding of physiology has become incredible, our understanding of the workings of the nervous system and the intricacies of how and when it will interact with the brain for higher level motor functions, understood to a level of breath-taking detail. This higher level understanding is what *allowed* us to be able to come up with all of our medical treatments, modern electronics and technologies -- without our understanding derived from the application of that method, no such things would exist.

When you say "I am appealing to the people who knew the risen Christ", that is still you *relying on testimony*, as you've very well agreed before that you are, and my point is that without any good reason to accept their testimony as opposed to the testimony of scientists in pop-lit magazines, the stance becomes arbitrary. You are still trusting their word for it, aren't you? Of course. And so is the atheist fanboy. But what makes your acceptance of testimony better than their's, especially if there is no superior method (as you say "a nonsensical view") that could vindicate either position?

P.S.: To clear up some possible confusions: I know a great many proponents of evolutionary biology argue for methodological naturalism, and so do many critical Biblical historians. But the arguments offered in favour of MN are very bad arguments, and very good arguments have been offered by others to reject MN. MN is *not* an essential feature of science. The only essential feature of a science is that it is the result of the application of the method. And this is likewise the case for consensus -- it is not at all a part of the definition of science. When Darwin first came on the scene his position was not at all the consensus view, but I would not say that just because evolutionary theory was not the consensus view at that time that it was therefore not science. And likewise Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity conflicted with the Newtonian consensus, but it was still science and the truth turned out to be that it was *even better* science, as it was the method breaking through to a more refined understanding with relativity than we had before with classical mechanics.

Luke Westmen Final Rejoinder: Smdh...

I am starting to wonder if my initial judgment of you was incorrect, that you are an atheist capable of moving outside of the fallacious reasoning, erroneous categorizations, and appeals to the materialistically ad hoc criterion of epistemic scientism.

Even if such a distinction has been made between method and tally of votes, what has been accomplished other than demonstrating my argument to be accurate? It is simply incorrect to say that consensus is merely overturned by data *alone. Data doesn’t speak for itself, it must be interpreted by a theory, and that theory will have underlying philosophical presuppositions, and those presuppositions will most likely have a greater influence on the data that is accepted for such an overturning of consensus. Why is it that the Intelligent Design theory is so harshly criticized? Is it because these men advocating on its behalf are fundamentalist half-wits? Is it because they are lying about the data that may potentially overturn the biased naturalistic consensus of evolutionary biology? Is it based on their argumentation or methodology? Or is it based on the interpretation of the data that is relevant to the discussion? To ask these questions is to answer them for any person informed about what is going on in this heated rivalry between ID and evolutionary biologists.

Your obsession with method is entirely trivial because it isn’t method that is my concern, nor is my concern the fact that applied sciences have created enormous technological advances that have made all of our lives better. My argument is against the entrenched notion that science as such, points to naturalistic materialism, therefore supporting atheism. If you think the development of MRI scans and treatments for cancer supports the metaphysical materialism of atheism, you are reasoning worse than the new atheists I am initially setting out to critique. If you think my argument is that the scientific method has not made great discovers about nature and improved life on earth, then you are not only reasoning poorly but entirely missing the point. And despite all of the impassioned remarks about the scientific method, you are only single-mindedly repeating the same cartoon narrative of the new atheists you claim to rise.

Your statement that “we can describe in minutest detail the entirety of the physics of our visible universe” is not only factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest; it fully supports my argument in the original post. Who is this “we” you are talking about? Are *you the one doing the discovering, experimenting, and verifying? Is this “we” the very community that boasts of not having exhaustive knowledge of the universe while you are claiming they do have such knowledge? Surely you jest. Surely you are not attempting to claim that the theory of everything exists, which of course would be necessary to say something as robustly confident as “we can describe in minutest detail the entirety of the physics of our visible universe”.

Let’s get back to the original point of the post, which is to demonstrate the fact that atheists, such as you, are speaking out of both sides of their epistemically loaded mouths. Out of one side of the contemporary atheist’s mouth is the championing of the self-refuting epistemology of scientism, and out of the other side of the atheist’s mouth is the appeal to a community of individuals as metaphysical authorities. These are incompatible philosophical claims. If the atheist is going to say that they are adjusting their epistemic claim to include the testimony of a trusted community, then they cannot mock others who do the same thing. We may argue who is more trustworthy and why, but to sneer down their noses at the Catholic community for example, is a clear and ubiquitous double standard. Additionally, and even more importantly, the scientific community cannot even by definition be metaphysical authorities because their very method says nothing about metaphysics. In fact, the community of scientists assumes a mountain of metaphysical truths to even validate the method they claim can prove naturalism and refute God, which is an absurdity.

Interestingly enough, both of your lengthy comments entirely support the criticism I am offering while simultaneously ignoring the substantive point of the very critique you are attempting to refute.

You can have the last word if you want.

---

Michael Rodriguez Final Rejoinder: He dunno how it be, but it do.

Thank you, I will take you up on giving me the last word, but I have to wait for a bit until my laptop picks up internet again. Be back shortly! ...

LW: “Even if such a distinction has been made between method and tally of votes, what has been accomplished other than demonstrating my argument to be accurate?”

MR: What's been demonstrated is that there is a justificatory basis for scientific testimony upon the basis of its procedures. The ability to fact-check, the ability to assess methods of measurement, to go look for contrary data, and so on and so forth, minimalize to the furthest possible extent the need for any baseless trust. A person who comes to a conclusion as the result of a legitimate scientific pursuit is able to say that their conviction is warranted. This is so even for a person who has not personally carried out every single experiment, because he too has a role to play in his assessment of the presentation of the theory. These presentations, after all, do not function as a sort of “Published: Conclusion X is True Because This is a Science Journal And I Said So” - these presentations by scientists involve the thorough detailing of the data so that you can come to understand their own interpretative theory of it for yourself. You get to evaluate their chosen methods of measurement because *they give them to you*, you get to see the raw data that they've collected and assess that prior to accepting their interpretive conclusions, and you get to check to see if there's data recorded somewhere else that says otherwise. If there is, you have more to do. If there isn't in spite of attempts or invitation, that's good enough for many a question. When you wrote before that there is some humility requred somewhere on the basis of not having total certainty, scientists gladly concede that to you and frequently emphasize that themselves.

LW: “Data doesn’t speak for itself, it must be interpreted by a theory, and that theory will have underlying philosophical presuppositions, and those presuppositions will most likely have a greater influence on the data that is accepted for such an overturning of consensus.”

MR: You're puzzled why I keep obsessing about method, but I'm equally puzzled why you're so concerned with popularity? From a standpoint of epistemic justification, what do you care if there is a consensus in biology in favour of evolution? Why does that matter? It shouldn't matter to you just like it doesn't matter one bit to me that there is a consensus in New Testament studies that there probably was an Empty Tomb. You could keep adding up the votes in the academy as high as you want them and I'll still laugh at every single one of them. The issue should not be what's popular, but what's right, and that is what science is really concerned with. Reliance on scientific method confers epistemic justification irrespective of how unpopular you might be.

LW: “Why is it that the Intelligent Design theory is so harshly criticized?”

MR: In this case there are two reasons. The first is because a lot of people have an emotional prejudice against it.  The second reason is that it is wrong.

LW: “Your obsession with method is entirely trivial because it isn’t method that is my concern”

MR: It should be, since our concern all along has been about epistemic justification upon the basis of testimony. If epistemic justification is our concern, shouldn't we be kinda a little worried about our methods?

LW: “My argument is against the entrenched notion that science as such, points to naturalistic materialism, therefore supporting atheism.”

MR: But that is not the argument that we've been talking about. Our argument has been about the epistemic status of testimony, comparing the testimony relied upon by atheist fanboys to the testimony relied upon by a person who has faith in the Scriptures. My argument was that there is a substantive difference between trust in the sciences and trust in the Scriptures. Trust in the sciences is checked by procedure – the ability to fact-check, analyze, consider competing views, etc. to your heart's desire, to any conclusion brought to you by rationality, irrespective of how many scientists want you to believe in this or that popular fad. This opportunity in not present in our trust in the Scriptures. We are given no invitation to fact-check the claims of the Apostles, it is both impossible and discouraged when attempted. Trust in scientific results is established by the meticulous nature of the procedure, your trust in the Scriptures is instead based in the “sacramental experience of the Church”, translation: muh feelz, which is no good.

LW: “If you think the development of MRI scans and treatments for cancer supports the metaphysical materialism of atheism, you are reasoning worse than the new atheists I am initially setting out to critique.”

MR: No, I wouldn't say that the development of MRI scans supports metaphysical naturalism, I would just say that the same use of rational faculty that brought us cool things like MRI scans is the same rational faculty telling me that there is no such thing as God.

LW: “If you think my argument is that the scientific method has not made great discovers about nature and improved life on earth, then you are not only reasoning poorly but entirely missing the point”

MR: I mentioned it because you denied that it was method that drove science. But these technologies are themselves the proof that it is method that drives science – because these inventions could not have come about without the understanding that is derived from the use of the method. The demonstration here is that you have an institutional view of what science is, and that is most certainly entirely missing the point!

LW: “And despite all of the impassioned remarks about the scientific method, you are only single-mindedly repeating the same cartoon narrative of the new atheists you claim to rise.”

MR: If the New Atheists look at science as a matter of applying the right procedures, they sure don't act that way. All I ever see them do is look to their celebrities in order to find out what they are supposed to believe about science, as opposed to actually critically evaluating the data as these celebrities present it, which is to say – as opposed to actually going about some science.

LW: Your statement that “we can describe in minutest detail the entirety of the physics of our visible universe” is not only factually incorrect and intellectually dishonest; it fully supports my argument in the original post.”

MR: There is nothing factually incorrect or intellectually dishonest about that. I did not say that the theory of everything exists. I said that on the macro level, that is on the level above the atom, we have a complete understanding of our observable physical system. You can express the whole workings of the visible universe in this way right down to a single equation.

LW: “Who is this “we” you are talking about?”

MR: Anyone who studies physics.

LW: “Out of one side of the contemporary atheist’s mouth is the championing of the self-refuting epistemology of scientism, and out of the other side of the atheist’s mouth is the appeal to a community of individuals as metaphysical authorities. These are incompatible philosophical claims. If the atheist is going to say that they are adjusting their epistemic claim to include the testimony of a trusted community, then they cannot mock others who do the same thing.”

MR: And my point to you is that an atheist is not at all committed to the existence of a trusted community of advisors. His obligation, if his decision is to trust in science, is to seek out all the data he can, to secure the reliability of that data, to analyze it, and to come to his own conclusion. His analysis of the data may turn out to be completely opposite to what all scientific authorities are telling him to believe at that point, but he would still be doing science – and perhaps better science, if his analysis turns out to be a superior application of rational procedure that breaks through previous barriers to our understanding.

LW: We may argue who is more trustworthy and why, but to sneer down their noses at the Catholic community for example, is a clear and ubiquitous double standard.”

MR: My aim is not to defend the actions of the New Atheists. They speak clearly enough of their caliber by their own presentation.

LW: “Additionally, and even more importantly, the scientific community cannot even by definition be metaphysical authorities because their very method says nothing about metaphysics.”

MR: We've discussed this a bit before. Depending upon what your metaphysics says, science can have a lot to say about it. Intelligent Design is predicated on the idea that science can have something to say about metaphysics. Many likewise rely upon the Big Bang model in order to bolster their case for a metaphysical conclusion (God exists) in cosmologiical arguments. When a metaphysical claim makes a prediction about how we should find the natural world to be, science is perfectly capable of testing whether or not the world really is that way.

LW: “Interestingly enough, both of your lengthy comments entirely support the criticism I am offering while simultaneously ignoring the substantive point of the very critique you are attempting to refute.”

MR: Funny how similarly I feel to you right now.

Thanks for the convo.