On Medium: Does Science Preclude Atheism because Atheism Destroys Reason?
Read on to expose the sophistry of John Lennox’s facile remarks on how science supposedly conflicts with atheism because atheism undermines our capacity for reason.
Lennox's argument seems similar to C. S. Lewis' map analogy: just as we wouldn't trust a 'map' that we know wasn't drawn by a cartographer, but was a mere accident produced through spilled ink, so the atheist shouldn't trust a brain that evolved through a process of natural selection, which had no divine hand in its provenance.
But scientific truth is not philosophical truth. Philosophers are after absolute truth while science contents itself with a tentative theory that has so far passed every test the scientist has thought to throw at it. Science seeks to approximate the facts of reality; nothing more.
If our senses and our brains both evolved with no greater purpose than to keep us alive long enough to reproduce, then we shouldn't expect them to reproduce reality with perfect fidelity. But we should expect them to be accurate enough to enable us to negotiate those parts of reality which impact upon us and, lo and behold, this is exactly what science does. Science enables us to create technologies which furthers our survival and will-to-power. Hence, science is 'true' in the pragmatic sense of that word, which is fully compatible with a naturalistic model of epistemology.
I suppose Lennox would have to say that science shouldn't be useful even in that limited sense if no deity were controlling nature. This is pretty much the old design argument. An organism is roughly as complex as an airplane, and we can't imagine the forces of nature assembling an airplane. Even if those forces could eventually do so, we wouldn't want to fly in such a construct.
But this is specious, at best, as I explained in the article, since nature has evidently shaped star systems and planets. Do we fear to step on the Earth, for fear that it's too insubstantial to support our weight, given how star systems naturally evolve? No, we trust nature even more because of its indifference. If God were responsible for natural events, God could change his mind about them, in which case the natural order would be at his mercy and could come to nothing at any moment.
Lennox's argument seems similar to C. S. Lewis' map analogy: just as we wouldn't trust a 'map' that we know wasn't drawn by a cartographer, but was a mere accident produced through spilled ink, so the atheist shouldn't trust a brain that evolved through a process of natural selection, which had no divine hand in its provenance.
ReplyDeleteBut scientific truth is not philosophical truth. Philosophers are after absolute truth while science contents itself with a tentative theory that has so far passed every test the scientist has thought to throw at it. Science seeks to approximate the facts of reality; nothing more.
If our senses and our brains both evolved with no greater purpose than to keep us alive long enough to reproduce, then we shouldn't expect them to reproduce reality with perfect fidelity. But we should expect them to be accurate enough to enable us to negotiate those parts of reality which impact upon us and, lo and behold, this is exactly what science does. Science enables us to create technologies which furthers our survival and will-to-power. Hence, science is 'true' in the pragmatic sense of that word, which is fully compatible with a naturalistic model of epistemology.
I suppose Lennox would have to say that science shouldn't be useful even in that limited sense if no deity were controlling nature. This is pretty much the old design argument. An organism is roughly as complex as an airplane, and we can't imagine the forces of nature assembling an airplane. Even if those forces could eventually do so, we wouldn't want to fly in such a construct.
DeleteBut this is specious, at best, as I explained in the article, since nature has evidently shaped star systems and planets. Do we fear to step on the Earth, for fear that it's too insubstantial to support our weight, given how star systems naturally evolve? No, we trust nature even more because of its indifference. If God were responsible for natural events, God could change his mind about them, in which case the natural order would be at his mercy and could come to nothing at any moment.