Science vs. Religion: A Topic in My Junior-level Philosophy Class

[Alethiometry]

I'm currently taking a course called The Philosophy of Science, which is required for my major. My instructor is currently attempting to prove that science and religion are the same thing via six arguments. The most troublesome one is entitled "Separation by Foundation". Here's his argument:

"Religion is, but Science is not, based on faith; Science is based on proof and observation.

Now that we know what faith is, we can evaluate Separation by Foundation, and we can see quite clearly that it is false. If accepting something on faith is including it in the foundations, then it is clear that everyone accepts a great deal on faith, scientists doing science included. They do, of course, accept the testimony of their fellow scientists on many matters - not every claim made in the journals gets checked before being accepted. Even in those cases where checks are made, where, for example, experiments are repeated, scientists do not allow themselves to be taken in by Classical Foundationalism, not even when they are doing perceptual psychology. We would rightly think a scientist crazy if he began to raise serious questions about the existence of his laboratory or co-workers.

Science may move beyond common sense, but it has no alternative to starting with it. Scientists, like the rest of us rational believers, have no choice but to accept a great deal without proof or justification. So accepting things, even important things, without proof, marks no difference between science and religion. It may be that what is accepted in this way, on faith, is different in science and religion, but that's tantamount to admitting that Separation by Foundation is false (-since it says that it is how statements are accepted, not what they say, that matters), and the difference lies elsewhere. Perhaps it does."

I've posted his complete argument here.

I thought you all might be interested in what a university student learns in a philosophy of science class. I'd also love to hear some counterarguments to his statements.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The difference is, with science you can in principle verify the claim by repeating the experiment (for things like physics and chemistry), or examining the physical evidence (astronomy, geology, paleontology) yourself. The fact that you do not necessarily actually do so does not change the fact that the assertions are based on evidence.

With religion there is nothing but faith in an arbitrary (by which I mean unprovable and unsupported by real evidence) assertion. Someone else's assertion of faith, by the way, is not evidence.

[noumenalself]

Now that we know what faith is, we can evaluate Separation by Foundation, and we can see quite clearly that it is false. If accepting something on faith is including it in the foundations, then it is clear that everyone accepts a great deal on faith, scientists doing science included. They do, of course, accept the testimony of their fellow scientists on many matters - not every claim made in the journals gets checked before being accepted.

It is just plain wrong to equate the acceptance of reliable testimony with faith. The reason that many epistemologists today think that testimony falls outside of the paradigm of foundational justification is that most of the time, when you accept some testimony, you don't pause to consider its source or state explicit reasons for why it is reliable. But this is simply a result of the fact that we automatize our knowledge. We have automatized background knowledge that people are reliable reporters of certain kinds of facts. If you stop to ask directions, you know that this is the kind of question that just about anybody who lives nearby is going to be able to answer reliably. You don't stop and offer a special justification for believing each individual. The same is true within narrower domains of expertise. A scientist has automatized his trust in the judgment of other scientists on certain delimited questions, and he has done so on the basis of prior evidence of the reliable judgment of those scientists. This is not faith, it is the opposite. It is the reliance on evidence, albeit in fallible, automatized form.

I've spent a good deal of time thinking about the issue of testimony and its relationship to foundationalism in epistemology and in the philosophy of science. Please contact me in private if you have further questions.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I'm currently taking a course called The Philosophy of Science, which is required for my major. My instructor is currently attempting to prove that science and religion are the same thing via six arguments.

<snip>

I thought you all might be interested in what a university student learns in a philosophy of science class. I'd also love to hear some counterarguments to his statements.

Yes, well that is certainly typical, but at least it was understandable. I have a BA in both physics and philosophy, and there were times in both where I couldn't even understand what the heck they were saying -- especially in higher-level epistemology classes, which were anything but....

I do question you posting that entire passage onto your web page. I mean just because someone is attacking the entire basis of human knowledge doesn't mean that one ought to violate his rights.

The passage was very disgusting, even evil, in the manner in which it glossed over the difference between having evidence (even if you were the only observer) and having faith, which means no evidence whatsoever. Basically it was an concerted attack on the evidence of the senses and reasoning based on the evidence of the senses. If the senses are taken as being invalid -- even in the absence of evidence or of proof of that -- then anything goes, and reason goes out the window.

It gets a lot worse, if you stick with philosophy in modern college; which is one reason I didn't go on to get a Ph D. I mean, four to six years of dealing with arguments that are far worse or no arguments at all in the rational sense will weigh on your subconscious, and it might take ten years or more to weed it out of your system. I said no thanks to that.

It does bring up an interesting issue, however, in the absence of any evidence provided by someone, at what point do you say it is arbitrary? For example, if a bunch of people were harassing you over an extended period of time, and you go to the police with just that story, they are not going to believe you at all. I know, because I've been there. I've had so many people trying to convince me that it didn't really happen, that I have to wonder if they think I just went insane. As I told one of my colleagues, if I had told them I saw a UFO and went inside and talked to the alien occupants, they would probably have an easier time of accepting it.

I think scientists are put in this position occasionally when someone claims to have run an experiment and has come to conclusions that seems outlandish, until they run them themselves and verify the results. So, it is not as if scientists take each other at their word for everything published. I would suggest watching some of the programs on The Science Channel or The Discovery Channel to see how it is that scientists will disagree with one another even about the outcome of an experiment or a discovery. In other words, they most definitely do not have faith in one another. One might say that if someone has built up a reputation of being accurate in his assessment, that other scientists take the position of "trust but verify." And the more controversial a scientist's claims are, the more other scientists will want to run the same experiment before accepting it.

So, the whole focus of the paper is way off base. A rational man goes by the evidence. And if you were witness to something and cannot provide evidence to someone else, then the more outlandish your claim is, the less you will be believed. That is just the nature of a rational man's mind. To a rational man, faith is out the window.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

It's kind of interesting what people will take without evidence, just taking someone's word at it. For example, when I was going to a local Objectivist meeting to watch We the Living my alternator belt broke, leading me to be late. So I called up the host and apologized. No problem, they would wait, which is good because I love that movie.

Turns out that belt had been coming off for about two years, though not on a regular basis until recently, when it was coming off every week or so. I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on until I noticed that the alternator housing bushings where worn out and the whole alternator was not tightly attached to the rest of the car. I tightened up that part of it and put a new belt on. Hopefully, this will be the last time I have to fix that problem for at least a year or so, because it's a real pain in the butt and the back to replace that belt.

Why do I mention this? Well, as it turns out, science works that way. Some things are accepted more readily than others, when someone makes a discovery or writes a report. If the science or the conclusion seems to be off base or out of the ordinary, it is not accepted; and it might take ten to twenty years to have your discovery validated by someone else, even if that wasn't their goal. So, how ought one to handle that mentally?

I think that if you are confident in your findings, because you know they were based on the facts and logically affirmed, then one ought to accept it for yourself even if no one else can confirm it.

The point is that the mind is individual; it is not collective. Maybe no one else can even understand what you are getting at. Like the scientist who asserted that there was a solar wind. Most scientists at that time thought it was impossible, because the gravitational pull of the sun would prevent particles from streaming off it into space. Or look at the theory of evolution, and all the controversy surrounding it.

Objectivism has certainly been that way, taking nearly 50 years to become more or less well known enough that one can even say that word without people wondering what planet you came from. There are still people out there who think we are irrational kooks -- or it might be better to say that if we reject the status quo then we are proven to be irrational to some people -- but having rationality on one's side will eventually play our in your favor.

So, if you know you are rational, and no one else accepts your position, I think an aspect of integrity requires you to "stand by your guns" regardless of criticism. You will run into that a lot if you stick with science, especially if you affirm the evidence of the senses. They will throw all sorts of rationalistic conclusions at you, but one has to learn to stand by what one has observed and process it rationally.

In other words, the important question is: What are the facts and what is your mind doing with them?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Hopefully, this will be the last time I have to fix that problem for at least a year or so, because it's a real pain in the butt and the back to replace that belt.

It must be a quantum belt, because it jumped off again

I took it to a professional, and for $40 he did what I had done -- put it back on and tightened all the bolts real tight.

If it comes off again, maybe I'll enter it into a magic show. The amazing quantum belt! It jumps for no reason at all!

If I charge money for it, maybe I could afford a new car

However, I am still curious about this topic. Did you ever discuss the paper with your professor -- in class or in a paper? I'm wondering what he'd tell you if you told him what we told you

[Alethiometry]

I am very interested in an Objectivist response to what he's said.

However, I'm not sure if I'm interested in mentioning this topic in a large lecture hall. I doubt I'll change his mind. I also don't care to make others think as I do, I'm more focused on becoming a good scientist at the moment.

[Clawg]

Well, the basic discipline of science is math (or logic). A good mathematician knows a large part of proofs of the algorithms and formulas he's using. 1:0 for science.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Clawg

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I am very interested in an Objectivist response to what he's said.

If you have the time and the money, then the best response will probably be Dr. Peikoff's Induction in Physics and Philosophy available via the Ayn Rand Bookstore:

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP82M

I haven't listened to the complete version yet, but I've read articles and heard lectures that were parts of it.

I'm not sure what else can be said about that article you posted. Like most modern philosophers, he dismisses the self-evident, which can't be proven since it is basically axiomatic -- i.e. observation and non-contradictory identification of that which is observed is the root of philosophy and science. One doesn't try to prove that which one has observed; one uses that observation to integrate it with the rest of your knowledge in a non-contradictory manner.

Your professor's stance is basically Kantian, in that he doesn't take the senses as giving us information about real reality. Don't buy into that.

It sounds like it is a large class, so maybe you can't do much, but keep this in mind: If you actually fell for what he is preaching, then you could never be certain that he gave a lecture on why the self-evident is not admissible. After all, you heard it with your own ears and saw it with your own eyes; and no one else did that for you; and he didn't prove that he was standing up there giving a lecture.

In smaller classes, I used this observation to my amusement, such as pointing it out to the professor and wondering if he could prove that we were being lectured to, since it was self-evident and only self-evident that he was doing so