A Reformed Response To:
Is Science a Religion?, by Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Jan./Feb. 1997., pp 26-29
by Jonathan Barlow
Introduction
The article presently under examination is a transcript of a speech made to the American Humanist Association by Richard Dawkins on the occasion of his being named "Humanist of the Year, 1996". Filled with his customary rhetorical excess (and also his much-appreciated humor), Dawkins' speech provides a good opportunity for Christians to take note of the role of presuppositions in every intellectual endeavor and the role of self-deception in unbelief.
The Faith of Science
Dawkins begins his speech by comparing the threat of AIDS and "mad-cow" disease to the threat posed by faith. He writes that faith is "one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate" (p 26). Dawkins defines faith as "belief that isn't based on evidence" and calls it the "principle [sic] vice of any religion" (ibid). Reformed Christians realize that this definition of faith is a caricature. Instead of viewing faith as belief that is not based upon evidence, we view faith as that which is a pre-condition for gaining any other knowledge; faith itself is not irrational or unscientific, but that which must be in order to gain other knowledge through science and logic. For instance, confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith. There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else. Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories. We cannot test the truth of this principle scientifically, for we would be assuming the truth of induction to try and prove it. We cannot test the truth of the principle logically, for logic has as its subject matter static propositions. Thus, induction and the law of contradiction, two of the bedrocks upon which all the rest of Richard Dawkins' knowledge is based, are both things he must accept on faith. Dawkins does not believe this, however, and directs this entire speech at demolishing the notion that science is a religion, or at least a faith-based discipline.
Dawkins and the Apostle Thomas
Dawkins writes, "Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidences" (27). What we have seen above, however, is that science is based upon evidences which are themselves held to be true because of principles which are accepted on faith, induction and the laws of logic. No understanding of the philosophy of science seems to be evidenced by Dawkins' statements. He, in fact, appears to have the same honorific view of science as the technology-stunned hoi polloi. Dawkins compares science, which he sees as being based upon "verifiable evidence" with religion which he says shouts "independence from evidence" from the rooftops (ibid.). This is why, he says, we Christians criticize Thomas, the disciple who doubted Jesus' resurrection. He writes, "The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists" (27). Let us examine the Thomas story, so as not to let any of Dawkins' erroneous statements pass by without comment.
First of all, Dawkins says that the disciples only believed based upon faith. This is not at all accurate. In John 20:19 and following we find Jesus, after his resurrection, appearing miraculously in a locked room among the disciples. He "came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord" (Jn 20:19,20). Jesus not only appears to them, but he also shows them his wounded side and wounded hands to prove to them that he is the crucified, but resurrected Jesus. Where is the faith here?
Well, Thomas wasn't with the other disciples, so they reported to him what they had seen. Ten of his best friends all reported to him the same thing, that Jesus was resurrected. He did not believe them, however. Is this because he refused to believe on faith? No. There was the evidence of ten eyewitnesses, and yet he refused to believe, even given all the miraculous things he had already witnessed. How many journal articles must Dawkins read before he agrees with the findings of the scientific community? Has he seen all the calculations which allow us to postulate the existence of sub-atomic particles? Doesn't the testimony of witnesses count as evidence for Dawkins? I would imagine so, or else he would be forced to personally verify every experiment upon which he bases his current research. (This is just the introduction, use the address below to view the full article)
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html
Debunking Dawkins
by Shining One 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
Satanus
we view faith as that which is a pre-condition for gaining any other knowledge
Faith comes before knowledge, is what you are saying. So does ignorance, naivete, babyhood, predjudice, superstition, fear, selfishness, jealousy. How irrational and silly your apolegetic.
S
-
The Chuckler
Rex, have you ever had an original thought, or is all of your life decided by cut & paste articles off the internet?
-
AlmostAtheist
For instance, confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith. There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else. Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories. We cannot test the truth of this principle scientifically, for we would be assuming the truth of induction to try and prove it.
I'm not familiar with these "laws" but they seem provable enough to me. If I drop a ball and it falls, I would use that experience to decide that the next ball I drop will probably fall. I drop it, it falls. Isn't that proof?
In contrast to that, I prayed on many occasions during my "faith" days. Sometimes what I prayed for came to pass, other times it didn't. That my prayers had any effect at all would be difficult to prove. If anything, it seems much more likely that they had no effect. This is particularly evident from the fact that I no longer pray, and things still happen, and don't happen. Just like when I prayed for them.
This article strikes me as more "bunk" than "debunk". :-)
Dave
-
kid-A
Rex, have you ever had an original thought, or is all of your life decided by cut & paste articles off the internet?
I have yet to see an original thought posted by uncle Rex. Just like a JW basing their belief system on watchtower and awake articles, he just cuts and pastes his belief structure from anti-evolution websites rather than producing any original, independent thoughts, this is quite typical for ex-JWs who then convert to fundamentalism.
-
Narkissos
faith itself is not irrational or unscientific, but that which must be in order to gain other knowledge through science and logic.
Beautiful formal contradiction in one sentence.
Let's assume that some type of "faith" (F0) is indeed a prerequisite for entering the realm of science and logic (S/L). That makes, ipso facto, F0 independent from S/L -- iow, "irrational" and "unscientific" -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
On the general basis of F0, S/L define their own working rules which also determine their borders; if you break the rules you are out of S/L, period. Besides S/L, religion defines other conflicting belief systems (BS1, BS2... SBX). Does the (assumed) fact that BSX shares the F0 basis with S/L give it a claim to the S/L realm? Not at all. What matters is, do they play by the rules of S/L or not?
The only claim to validity that BSX can make is a claim of possibility that applies, in principle, to any belief system (BS1, BS2, etc.), including pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. In spite of those BSs being mutually exclusive.
Whether it is internally consistent with any BS (especially the Christian one) to claim a S/L validity is another question, which I once tried to discuss here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/82598/1.ashx
-
Nate Merit
"First of all, Dawkins says that the disciples only believed based upon faith. This is not at all accurate. In John 20:19 and following we find Jesus, after his resurrection, appearing miraculously in a locked room among the disciples. He "came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord" (Jn 20:19,20). Jesus not only appears to them, but he also shows them his wounded side and wounded hands to prove to them that he is the crucified, but resurrected Jesus. Where is the faith here?"
(Hi Rex. Where is the faith? The faith that what you're reading in John actually happened. Something that is impossible to prove or disprove. It's faith. I'm always surprised to see the discomfort of conservatives with pure Faith. Having been raised in a culture that values logic, empirical evidence, and critical thinking, pure Faith is difficult for a modern to generate. So, attempts are made to ground the symbols of faith in something objective, scientifically verifiable.
The only empirical verification you're ever going to get from these books is the only one you should need, Rex. Your own inner witness. That should be enough)
(Again, Rex, taking these writings as historical is an act of faith. I can't prove it didn't happen any more than you can prove it did. It's faith. Faith is extolled and praised in the Bible. Embrace it. Faith is the very Stuff of religion.) -
tetrapod.sapien
a reply is one thing, because it can be unintelligent and assinine.
but "debunking" sir richard dawkins? HA HA HA HA!!
-
Enigma One
Debunking Dawkins?
LOL. In a cut and paste 4 paragraph post...you the almight Shining debunk an intelligent and thoughtful person like Dawkins? LOL You give yourself too much credit Shining. In all fairness since you are representing yourself as an expert in this field oh Shinola One would you care to share your educational background and certifications with us? Or did you get your BS degree from the Awake? -
seattleniceguy
>>
For instance, confidence in the law of non-contradiction could be said to be faith. There is no direct way to prove the law of contradiction except that it must be presupposed in order to learn anything or differentiate anything from anything else. Likewise, the principle of induction, which states that the future will be generally like the past, is what makes possible the formulation of scientific laws and theories.
>>
Goodness. Barlow is correct in saying that science depends on idea that the physical universe is a non-contradictory system. It's hard to imagine how you can honestly take issue with this. Can you imagine life in an irrational universe? It would be like living in a Picasso painting.
Barlow strangely describes induction as the concept that "the future will be generally like the past," which is probably a generally true statement, but rather distant from the actual definition, "The process of deriving general principles from particular facts or instances."
Yes, Barlow is absolutely correct. If you refuse to accept that the physical universe is a consistent system, then obviously science cannot stand. But neither can any other knowledge of any sort whatsoever, since all knowledge - even religious belief systems, save 100% mystic systems - is based on putting together component ideas to form conclusions, those nasty thngs we get through induction.
It strikes me as a bit unbelievable, and vindicating in a backhanded way, that the only way this author can see to attack science is to suggest that the universe is in fact an irrational system and that induction is inherently faulty. Geez, you want to believe that, go ahead. The rest of the universe will continue to function in what is clearly a rational manner, and induction will continue to teach us the principles by which it functions.
SNG
