You'll have to read the comments before gettng a clear idea of John Pieret's position. He says,
...But what I think Dawkins' own example (inadvertently) demonstrates is the correctness of PAP. The scientific community itself, through its practices, recognizes that miracles (assuming, as you must for the sake of this argument, that they exist) cannot truly be addressed by empiric investigation. "Miracles" may be debunked (at least by showing fraud or trickery -- merely showing a sufficient naturalistic cause for something does not mean you have shown the phenomenon is not miraculous) but they may not be empirically confirmed. That inability to truly engage the issue means that empiricism is not capable, in the end, of answering the question of whether God exists.
And since I share with Dawkins the view that empiric investigation is the only game in town for obtaining knowledge, and that the rest is mere opinion, refusing to claim knowledge of God's status is not fence-sitting, it is good scientific practice.I've heard this before. John's opinion is that science can never absolutely disprove the existence of anything, including the most ridiculous claims of miracles and magic. Thus, according to him, you have to remain agnostic about everything if you are being a good scientist.
While philosophically sound in principle, this doesn't work in practice. Taken to the extreme it says that science can never be sure of anything because there's always the possibility that we could be wrong. I wonder if John proclaims his agnosticism about evolution and intelligent design?
I suspect not. I suspect that religion gets special treatment for some strange reason. It's okay to take a stance and say you don't believe in astrolgy but it's not okay to say you don't believe in God. Strange.
4 comments :
Here's noted intellectual Mahlon Marr getting specific with the probabilities:
The odds for God
...
Let's meet him halfway and assume for the sake of argument that there have been no supernatural events since the creation - the Big Bang in technical terms. Either the universe was created by a super-powerful being, or it came into existence spontaneously. There is no scientific theory or evidence available that can even begin to account for either possibility.
.
So, scientifically, philosophically and reasonably speaking, the odds for the existence of God are an undeniable 50-50. Throw in some slight scientific evidence from the argument for intelligent design (which brought the atheist/physicist Fred Hoyle to state that the existence of God is "almost beyond question") and make it a 50.1 to 49.9 advantage for God.
...
Let's try a substitution exercise: there have been absolutely no reliable sighti - er, encounters - with invisible pink unicorns since the Earth was created. Therefore the odds that invisible pink unicorns exist is exactly 50|50.
Now, that's much better. Evolution and Intelligent Design are much more reasonable examples than Santa Clause and the tooth fairy that you bearded me with at my blog.
The answer may shock you but, yes, I do proclaim my agnosticism when addressing evolution, Intelligent Design and astrology!
The same roots of my agnosticism are at work in my understanding of empiricism as it relates to scientific issues as apply to how empiricism relates to non-scientific issues. There are, indeed, inherent limitations on our knowledge but those limitations play out differently depending on which questions you are asking.
First of all, we cannot demonstrate the truth-delivery characteristics of empiricism empirically. That is not a particular problem because (by experience) ignoring those things I empirically encounter tends to hurt. I can't prove my pain is real but, who cares? It feels like pain to me and comes consistently enough that it might as well be real, as far as I'm concerned. But that justification for empiricism obviously becomes weaker the farther away from my personal experience the issue is. So yes, considerations of the limitations of knowledge still apply, even in matters of science, and may even be demonstrated by such things as the Uncertainty Principle.
More importantly, however, when dealing with questions about the physical nature of the universe and the operation of the natural regularities of that universe, empiricism is fully engaged -- that is, as I tried to explain in my article, the scientific method can provide evidence both for and against any scientific proposition. Indeed, if it can't do both, it isn't really a scientific proposition, IMO. As I think I showed in my article, the scientific method can provide (some) evidence disconfirming (some) claims about (some) empiric consequences of (some) versions of god(s). But science is structurally incapable of providing confirming evidence for a God. Thus, there is no force whatsoever in any claim that the mere lack of empiric evidence for god(s) is evidence that no such god(s) exist.
That Game Is Rigged!
But without that supposed inference, you are left with evidence showing that some versions of god(s) have some evidence against them (let's not even go into omphalosism) and a lack of evidence for an infinite number of possible other god(s) where no such evidence was expected anyway. That doesn't sound like a proper foundation for making an assertion to me.
Compare that to the situation with astronomy: if there are physical effects of the planets on people at the time they are born, you would expect to be able to find empiric evidence for it. Coupled with the empiric evidence against astrology, the lack of such evidence in favor of it makes me willing to accept the provisional judgment that astrology is false, at least as described by its present adherents, and with the caveat of a willingness to reconsider if better evidence comes along.
On a personal note, I don't understand why doubt bothers people so much -- especially doubt for or against a god -- we'll know (sort of) soon enough.
John, it's interesting that you proclaim your agnosticism when addressing Intelligent Design Creationism. I wasn't aware of this.
In case you forget from time to time—like when you're posting on talk.origins—is it okay if I remind people by saying ...
Catshark wants me to remind you that we can never know for sure that Intelligent Design Creationism is wrong. He believes that true scientists must reserve judgement and remain open to the possibility that Jonathan Wells could be right and Darwin could be wrong.
Would that be a fair way of describing your agnosticism. :-)
Well, Larry, what you can say ... at least until you provide me with some peer-reviewed scientific literature establishing that no biological structure was ever designed by a supernatural agent ... is that science has not ruled out God acting in the world. Oh, wait ... there aren't any such articles, are there?
My objection to the concept of ID has never been that science has demonstrated that it wrong or even particularly unlikely. My objection is that what goes under the rubric of ID is theology/philosophy masquerading as science and that its present proponents use dishonest arguments, such as quote mining. On that score Jonathan Wells is clearly a lying little git not worthy to carry Darwin's intellectual jock strap.
Allowing ID, as it is being practiced now, to be taught as if it was science is bad educational policy and is illegal in the U.S. But the concept of ID can be taught as philosophy, current events and even theology (in a comparative religion course) with no objection from me.
Indeed, we've been around this mulbery bush with theistic evolution. You (and anyone else who bothered paying attention) already know my attitude about that. TE is what ID should be ... theology without the dishonest arguments and with truth in advertizing.
I'm quite agnostic about Ken Miller's beliefs.
Post a Comment