The term "science" has an interesting usage in today's modern/postmodern culture. Its original usage finds it's roots in the Latin word scientia and was used to denote any sort of knowledge that is gained. One begins to see a shift in the usage of the term after the division between deductive and inductive reasoning, the modes of inquiry instituted within Rationalism and Empiricism respectively. With Rationalism, one can know something through reason alone, through the means of theoretical, abstract thought with logic as their guide. With Empiricism (at least in justificatory Empiricism), one can only know something through sensation, experimentation, empirical evidence, etc. Of these two schools of thought concerning how one can know something indubitably, i.e. without doubt, the latter, justificatory Empiricism, has won the most esteemed position in the modern era. This, at least by today's understanding, is what constitutes as "real Science" (with a capital "s"). Thus, when ever one takes a "Science" class or hears of someone who is a "Scientist," this is the underlying presupposition upon which those words are built: to know anything indubitably, one must use empirical experimentation to find out what is factual, what is the truth.
Because of the claim that if one is a "Scientist" or studies and believes in what "Science" tells them that they are professors and believers in what is True (with a capital "t"), the term "science" finds a new usage; it has become a badge of credibility. In academia, if a department wants to be viewed highly, "Science" better be in the title. That is why you do not find "Biology" departments anymore but "Biological Sciences" departments. Also, one does not merely study politics or government but "Political Science." Or what of the dominating trump card that some may pull out in argumentation: "You should agree with me. I'm a Scientist!" Other examples can be given, but the main point is this: the connotative meaning of "Science" has traveled a long way from it's humble beginnings as scientia.
Now, of course, I do not mean this in a spiteful way toward Science and it's practitioners; this is purely observational. However, I do not like the fact that Science has a monopoly on "truth" (not that it does, it merely claims this). Furthermore, I am not here to say that theology and Science are enemies against one another, like parties on both sides of the battle line have declared. What I am here to address is the foundation of method in Science from a epistemological, theological level.
As the reader may know, Science would not have it's seemingly heavy handed grasp over objective truth if it was not for it's method. As the Scientist wants to know what is true, there must be something that connects the subject to the object. This connector has been given a name in academia and even the honor of being capitalized: the Scientific Method (SM). Now, there are those who believe that this method is a valid means of finding the truth; I am of this persuasion. I believe that the SM, within the limits placed upon it by it's being a form of induction, is a means through which we can know the truth. However, there is a large difference between my position and that of what can only be properly called "Scientism." Scientism should be understood as the belief that the SM is not only a valid means of determining the truth, but is the only means of determining the truth. One can believe the results sensory experimentation alone. If one can not observe something, then that something cannot have veristic qualities because it cannot be observed and tested empirically.
Of course this understanding within Scientism is completely contrary to belief in the existence of God. God is spirit (John 4:24), i.e. He can not be observed through sense perception. As this is the case, one cannot possibly believe in His existence and hold to Scientism. This would be a blatant contradiction: "I believe that only that which is empirically observable can be deemed as true, and I believe in the existence of Him Who cannot be empirically observed to be true." Now, of course, some might say that His existence is evident from His handiwork; after all "the heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalm 19:1). Yet, as God, normally yet not always, works mediately in moving and sustaining the cosmos, i.e. through the use of means, secondary causes, and not through immediate, observable ways, Scientism is not satisfied. Even if such an immediate, spectacular act of God happens, such as a supernatural healing or the like, the believer in Scientism, having ruled out the possibility of the existence of God on the basis of SM, will work upon that ruling presupposition that there is no God and seek an empirically valid explanation for the unexplainable occurrence.
It is this understanding of the SM, the view of Scientism, that I shall address in the remainder of this post. Indeed, I hope to show that such a view of the SM is completely absurd and that the SM must lean upon firmer foundations based outside of the realm of justificatory Empiricism, namely logic and, ultimately, the existence God Himself. In conclusion, I will attempt to point out some necessary consequences of denying what can be called the epistemo-Theological foundation of truth, i.e. that God is the source of all truth.
I first want to make the claim that when arguing for the source of truth, circularity within the argument will necessarily come about. One has undoubtedly heard of the typical, strawman circular argument attributed to the divine origin of the Bible. When one asks a Christian why they believe the Bible to be the holy Word of God they answer, "Because God wrote it." When asked further as to how they know that God wrote it, they answer, "Because the Bible said that He did." Such an argument is fallacious according to the majority; any argument that makes this move is automatically invalid without checking the truth claims of the premises for the source of the truth claim is found within the premise one is trying to prove to be true.
Generally, the only way that validity can be had in proving something, especially concerning the source of truth claims, is if one appeals to something higher, i.e. more authoritative, than that for which is being argued. If one has done any sort of academic writing then one has seen this principle enacted. If I state an obscure or little known fact within, my essay my authority is not sufficient enough in order to elicit approval from my professor. However, if I appeal to a higher authority, i.e. a scholar that has dealt at length with the subject matter of my essay, through citation, then the obscure or little known fact is given validity.
However, I propose that there is a way in which one can use such a circular argument and get away with it. One can institute a self-authenticating source in order to justify the circularity of the argument. If a premise is self-justifying, then it needs no other qualification to make it valid.
For example, the modus ponens argument "if A then B. A; Therefore, B" (A⊃B/A//B) shows that the truth value of B depends upon the truth value of A. The source of B's truthfulness is A. But what about A's truth value? The answer to the question of A's truth value is one of four possibilities: 1.) A's truth value depends on something else, 2.) it's truth value is false by default (at worst) because it cannot be proven to be true, 3.) it's truth value depends upon itself making it susceptible to circular reasoning (meaning that A could be true that fact cannot be known), or 4.) it's truth value depends upon upon itself and it is a self-authenticating source of truth. 1.) Let us suppose that there is nothing higher to which A can appeal. 2.) If A is false because one needs full justification for it's truth value, then it cannot be used in the prior argument (A⊃B/A//B). Also, further arguments, such as "if B then C" would have a negative truth value because the argument ultimately depends upon the truth of A. In other words "not A" (~A). 3.) If A can only be justified by circularity, it would look like this: "if A then A. A; Therefore, A" (A⊃A/A//A). Because of that tiny, nearly insignificant word "if", A cannot be trusted as true. A paralyzing skepticism of the truth value of A, as it cannot be verified or proven false, must come. 4.) If A is intrinsically true then no justification is needed; it is a self-authenticating source of truth. It needs no justification; the argument is simply "A" with a positive truth value as the only possibility and unquestionable validity. Indeed, option four is the only way in which one can escape logical nihilism or complete, debilitating skepticism if A is the last possible source of truth, the end of the road for inquiry unless one believes that the source of truth goes ad infinitum.
Now, enough of the propositional mumbo jumbo. How does one apply this to Scientism and it's usage of the SM as the only means through which one can obtain truth? Well, the truth value of their claim that the SM is the only means to acquire truth must be challenged. Is it true that the SM is the exclusive means to gaining truth? How does one prove such a claim? Of course, if the SM is the singular method of gaining truth, then it must fall under it's own scrutiny, i.e. one must use the SM to test itself. This, of course, assumes that the SM is a valid method prior to the knowledge of it's truthfulness and thus begs the question of it's truth value. As there is nothing that can validate the SM but it's own empirical method, the SM 1 must be false because there is no higher level of truth by which one can justify it, 2 must be deemed as having an unverifiable truth value which rightfully warrants skepticism, or 3 is a self-authenticating source of truth. The logical conclusion, for the adherent of Scientism who cannot believe in the positive truth value of something unless it is confirmed by the empirical process of the SM, is 2. If they conclude that it is true that God cannot exist because they can not use experimentation in order to prove His existence, i.e. the truth of His existence lacks justification, then, if they are consistent, they must deny the truthfulness of the SM as it too cannot be verified through experimentation. Notice, too, that if the SM is the only means to gain knowledge and they deny it as valid, then no means to gain knowledge is available. Thus one is left with epistemological nihilism; we can know nothing. 3 could work; however, they must change their view of God from a definitive, atheistic position to an agnostic position in order to be consistent, saying, "We don't know if the SM can give us a knowledge of the truth, and we do not know if it is true that God exists." Their presupposition about the gaining of truth must fundamentally change their understanding about the truthfulness about God's existence. 4 seems improbable; of course, though, by doing this, they would have to conclude that there is a God, a self-authenticating source, and that God is the SM. They become theists, ultimately, for the SM is "the way, the truth, and the life."
But to avoid these problems, 1 must suffice for it is doubtful that the pride of the Scientism believer will allow 2-4 to become their doctrine concerning the SM. Yet, by doing this, they fundamentally deny their basic premise, that the SM is the only means to gain a knowledge of the truth for they have to rely on a higher authority than the SM itself. Ultimately, through merely looking at the logical outcomes of the possibilities, Scientisms must change it's beliefs in some way to be consistent.
Choosing option 1, then, requires one to find a higher source of truth by which to judge the SM. In the end, one must turn to reason, i.e. theoretical reason/logic, to give redeem the SM. As the SM cannot stand by itself, logic then must now take it's place. In other words, the six centuries of division between Rationalists and justificatory Empiricists was for nothing because justificatory Empiricists must ultimately work with borrowed equipment. The reductio ad absurdum of justificatory Empiricism leads Rationalism, epistemological nihilism, epistemological agnosticism, or a belief in a deity, a self-authenticating source of truth.
But what about logic? It, too, come under the same scrutiny as did the SM. Can logic prove that logic is a means by which one can know the truth? Can one write a syllogism in order to prove this without question? I'm afraid that it will fall on its own as well, just as the SM. Indeed, if using the same reason as above, one must come to the same conclusion as one did with SM; however, there is a slight difference. To what can logic appeal in order to gain verification? It obviously cannot appeal to the SM for that would only make the circular argument larger for the SM needs reason to be true.
2 would have to lead in the denial of objective truth leading to a world of despair, absurdity, and complete nothingness. One would have to fall into the camp of Sartre, Camus, de Beauvoir, and Kafka where subjectivity is all that there is. Indeed, not only is ethics lost but also Science itself. Nothingness. Bare nothingness.
3 would not be very satisfactory either. No definitive truth claim could be made because reason is bound by the conjunction "if." "There could be truth, but we can't know for sure." Once again, the objectivity of truth is lost, not because of the dismissal of truth itself, but because of ignorance concerning it's existence or lack thereof. Once again, such can only to an absurdity much like that found in 2.
4 would bring one into a Aristotelian mindset. Logic is God, the self-authenticating source. Yet this, too, does not seem satisfactory for the nature of Aristotle's God doesn't seem to qualify here.
But what if the truthfulness of reason did appeal to something outside itself for truth verification? What if there was a possibility for 1 to be the answer for logic as it was for SM? What if truth was transcendent above, not a free floating abstraction, but a Person (or Persons), the self-authenticating Source, the God who is there? The great "I AM" whose very name declares His own sufficiency (Exodus 3:14)? Who revealed Himself through His Son who is "the truth" (John 14:6)? Who is God, and there is no other (Isaiah 45:5-7)?
The fact of the matter is that there are only two options for all people, even those in Scientism: absurdity found within either the disbelief in or the skepticism against truth or objective truth found only in belief in the existence of God, particularly the God who declares Himself to be the fountain of truth, who fits perfectly within the schema of inquiry, the God of the Christian Scriptures. One cannot logically believe in logic without His existence, and one cannot know ultimate truth without knowing Him.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum
Soli Deo Gloria
Nice job Sir.
ReplyDelete