Not long ago a remote acquaintance related an announcement that was made by his daughter, a new college student. “I have looked through the telescope at deep space and there is no God out there,” she declared. I ached for both of them, for him because he had no idea how to respond, and for her, losing track of rational thought over so simple an issue. We are not taught how to think. We are taught what to think, or at least what to remember for the test.
Rational thought is a skill that is gained by studying it. It is not gained by just thinking that you have it. It is certainly not gained by maintaining ignorance of the methods of determining validity of evidence, or what constitutes evidence. Rationality is not attained by joining up with a group (although the fantasy of “personal eliteness” is). Rationality requires work; it requires intellectual discipline; it requires true skepticism, not cult “Skepticism”. It requires studying specific techniques and processes of discrimination that are used for validating propositions that are true and invalidating those that are false.
But these things are not pursued when a worldview is at stake. The formation of a self-centered worldview actually requires that rationalization replace rationality. When the objective is more important than the logical means to obtain it, then it is not rational, it is rationalized. This is the problem for Atheists: denying authority and creating self-eliteness is more important than the process required to support it. So any process will do.
Over at the blog, rationalatheist.com , Jennifer Umbehant presents her testimony, “Why I Don’t Believe in Christianity”. She presents a list of 16 reasons. I might take them on one at a time, if I have time. For now, let’s consider her summary statement.
The following statement is the conclusion of her list of reasons “not to believe in Christianity.” These paragraphs deserve comment:
“I could go on and on. But I'll try to sum it up a little: The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general. I can't see a world that would be "designed" like we have come about. Evolution by natural selection can explain almost everything we wonder about in the natural world here on Earth. Why would a God create a universe 13 BILLION years ago, then let the Earth form 4.5 BILLION years ago, just to have a religion that would FINALLY worship him only 2000 years ago? It doesn't make sense.
”Evolution can explain almost anything we wonder about here in the natural world. Why is our DNA almost 99% the same as chimps? Because of evolution. Why do we need sleep? It seems a designer could have formed us without that need, but evolution can say we need sleep to conserve energy. Why do we have appendixes that are useless? Why would God design us with useless organs? Evolution can tell us that these organs could have had a purpose in the past, but don't anymore. Why do chickens have teeth when they are in their embryonic forms? Why would a God form a chicken "in the womb" with teeth that get re-absorbed back into the body later? Evolution has an answer.
”Turning away from Christianity and my earlier beliefs took YEARS. But I've really thought it through. What I was taught and what I have read in the Bible was not sufficient enough to answer my doubts and provide me with a rational reason for believing in a god.”
http://www.rationalatheist.com/Articles/christianity_dont.html
Her first statement reveals her scientism:
“The first and foremost reason I am an atheist is because of my knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science in general.”
Knowledge of evolution, astronomy and science is not enough to make a decision on non-material entities. What is speaking here is not evolution, astronomy, and science, it is a conviction for philosophical materialism, a patently false and easily falsifiable philosophy.
Knowledge of material manifestations has no bearing whatsoever on non-material manifestations. While this might seem to be a rookie mistake, it is so common that it needs to be the poster-child for the non-rational, rationalization syndrome. Looking for the non-material within the exclusively material domain is blatantly not rational.
Viewing the universe from a human point of view, in order to make sense of it from a deity’s point of view, is without merit. It does not disprove a deity to say that “I don’t comprehend or make sense of the creation”. In fact, as most atheists will admit, denial of a negative is not proof of a negative. Negatives cannot be proven. (Hence the faery, unicorn, orbiting teapot, flying spaghetti monster strawmen, to be addressed independently of this).
In addition, the use of demonstrably false “science” statements reveals bias-as-fact, creating excuses rather than following evidence. For example, chickens do not have teeth in embryonic form, they have bumps on their forming beaks; attempts to manipulate DNA in order to induce chicks to grow teeth produced somewhat larger, but still microscopic, bumps, not teeth (teeth are not bumps on a bone – they are not even bone; they are unique specialized mechanisms). The appendix is now thought as a “reboot” device which enables an ill gut to be replenished with digestive bacteria after a purging illness. Chimps do not have 99% the same DNA as humans except in the carefully chosen, extremely tiny region of DNA that was selected to be explored with the expressly stated expectation of showing similarity; remaining huge areas of DNA have not been compared, but are not expected to show similarities of anywhere near that order – that’s why they weren’t tested in the first place.
And evolution, of course. The reason it can explain everything is that it is composed of story telling. It cannot be falsified, because it cannot be proven, empirically. Therefore, evolution (macro) is a metaphysical concept, not an empirical concept. (One should read Popper before delivering scientistic atheist manifestos). Evolution is historical, forensic, inductive, speculative, abductive; it is not empirical. The fact that evolution has an answer for “everything” should be a clue: if it explains contradictory (paradoxical) instances, it cannot be a valid conclusion. In fact, it is not evolution that explains everything, it is the stories made up about evolution that try to look as if they do. The fallacy is called Ad Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: “Just So Stories”.
The lack of education concerning the process of logic, rational thought, and empiricism vs. forensic abduction is clearly shown in statements like these. So it is not rationalism that brought Jennifer to atheism, it was something else, using rationalization to justify it. What it was we don’t really know. And possibly neither does she.
4 comments:
I think there is merit in your criticism of Jennifer's position, but it can only be said to be valid if two things obtain:
IF Jennifer truly takes a materialist, rather than merely a naturalistic position. Naturalism is not materialism, and the part you quote seems to only refer to the natural.
and
IF Jennifer's only reason for adopting a materialistic philosophy was blind allegiance to the present scientific consensus, which you've labeled 'scientism'
Chances are, Jennifer would also cite the LACK of nonmaterial or nonnatural observations in her personal experience, and the panoply of delight which is the data from the natural world, and which forms the bulwark of her experience. Is it invalid to express a philosophical preference based upon a wealth of data in one realm and a paucity of data in another, or is it simply an application of parsimony?
In other words, while I don't share Jennifer's views, without reading her entire statement I'm not sure your criticism is all that damning.
And, at the end, when you repeat you critique of evolutionary theory, I must say that I think your 'take' is a caricature.
Evolutionary theory is more than pan-adaptationist ad hoc reasoning. The claim that it explains everything is falsifiable, and false, but even if it were true that it 'explains' almost everything within its domain would not be sufficient to reject its application, much less 'disprove' it. Theories, in a sense, are never 'proved' so much as their predictions are tested and (now and then) falsified. They remain the ruling model as long as the number of instances of false predictions is far less than that of any other competing model based on natural causes.
Now, if Jennifer imagines evolution to be something more than the reigning model, but something akin to a belief taken on faith, you might have something. But that's not how the evolutionary biologists I know regard it, nor how I regard it. The version of evolution with a capital 'E', as a succedaneum for the Almighty, the secularist's object of worship, I don't accept, and it's not the version I teach. I grant that it's out there, especially in the popular culture, but to a large degree that image is merely a distorted projection of theistic belief on the part of both the 'true believers' and their critics.
I used the term scientism in the following sense:
"The principle that scientific methods can and should be applied in all fields of investigation;
Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary; 2nd Ed. 1979
"
After Evan Fales, "Naturalism and Physicalism", in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism; Cambridge university Press, 2007, wrote the following, I decided to use more explicit language:
"An initial difficulty that faces any discussion of naturalism is that there is suprisingly little agreement over just what naturalism is. Many different positions have been characterized as naturalistic, and it would be tendentious to bestow special status on any one of these"
I use what seems to me to be more expicit language, and it might not work for you. But instead of the disparate uses of naturalism, I prefer to use "methodological materialism", meaning the scientific method's voluntary restriction to material entities, and "metaphysical materialism", meaning the philosophy that nothing exists except in material form.
Scientism clearly applies to metaphysical materialism. TENS itself is not material. It is an idea, a non-material entity that serves to falsify metaphysical materialism by that force, even when it is invoked to defend metaphysical materialism.
Umbehant clearly rejects religion and theism on the basis of her understanding of science. Science does not require that she do that. She has adopted metaphysical materialism.
I thought maybe you would be along to engage me on evolution again. As always I agree that as a theory it is subject to revision. Still, I have yet to find anything that will disabuse me of the following:
First, evolution resulting in speciation requires mutation; possibly introgression; and sexual selection.
I am now able quote sources on this.
Second, I am still unaware of real examples of true speciaton, with the single possible exception of ring species, which I still have under study. I am not convinced that the species ever really were the same identical creature; that is not empirically provable. It appears to be another extrapolation of fortuitous circumstances, ie, circumstantial evidence.
I need to address this statement also:
Scott said:
"Is it invalid to express a philosophical preference based upon a wealth of data in one realm and a paucity of data in another, or is it simply an application of parsimony?"
I can't do any better than to quote the following statements from Gibbs and Hiroshi at U of Cal, riverside:
Parsimony, Mach and Einstein[1]
Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that
"Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."
Taken to its logical conclusion this philosophy becomes positivism:
the belief that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable and something that doesn't exist at all.
Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules. Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics.
It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism.
The moral of this story is that Occam's razor should not be wielded blindly. As Einstein put it in his Autobiographical notes:
"This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices."
---------------------------------
[1] This portion is taken virtually in entirety from Gibbs and Hiroshi; Univ of Calif, Riverside; http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
(I hit "publish" too soon)
The point is that parsimony is a poor tool for selecting philosophies.
If physical evidence is all that is wanted, then it is all that will be noticed.
It is not logical to deny that a theory, in and of itself, is not material. Yet it exists, as do ideas of all sorts. Ideas not only exist, they have marketable value. But they are not classifiable by weight, length and width, or any other material quatifier. So, metaphysical materialism, by its own measures, is not rational.
Post a Comment