Does science really have laws? The proposition that it does is at the root of the argument that science is based on undisputed "facts" while religion is based on subjective "values." Moreover, if science has laws that are known to be incorrigible, then miracles would seem to be impossible.
So what exactly are scientific laws and what degree of certainty can we attach to them? This question was raised in a recent email I received. "My question concerns your summation of Hume's position concerning scientific laws," the writer says. In my book on Christianity, I cited Hume to make the point that "no finite number of observations, however large, can be used to derive an unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible."
This raised for my correspondent the following question: "How do you suppose a modern-day Hume would answer someone who points out that all humans are made from DNA? Surely he would not be so stubborn as to insist on the possibility that there are a few of us walking around without DNA. What say you?"
Here is my answer. Consider the proposition that all life forms--including all humans--are made from DNA. Hume would say this is not a "law." Rather, it is an observation based on common experience and testing. The reason we cannot speak of a "law" is that we haven't checked every human and every life form that has ever existed to ensure that every one is made of DNA.
So where do we get this so-called "law"? And where do we get other laws, such as Newton's inverse square law or the law that says "light travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum"? Hume would argue that we have measured many humans and other life forms and found DNA and therefore we infer that all humans and other life forms are made of DNA. Similarly we have measured the speed of light frequently and from this we derive the idea that light always and everywhere travels at the same speed.
Hume's point is not to deny the practical utility of these conclusions, but to deny that we know something as a law just because we have measured it many, many times. As Hume writes in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, from the proposition "I have found that such an object has always been attended with such an effect," it is impossible to derive the conclusion, "I forsee that other objects which are in appearance similar, will be attended with similar effects." Logically, Hume notes, this is a non-sequitur.
In particular, just because we have measured light at a given speed a hundred or a thousand or ten million times doesn't mean that light always and everywhere travels at that speed. How do we know that on a distant star, light travels at the same speed as it does here? In truth, we do not know. Along the same lines, if tomorrow a life form was located on, say, Mars, and this life form did not contain DNA, we could no longer hold that all life forms are made of DNA.
From this we can conclude that: scientific laws are not really "laws" but merely generalizations based on previous tries. Once we recognize this we see why miracles are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility. Since we cannot name a single empirical scientific law that is in principle inviolable, we cannot rule out deviations from these so-called laws. I'm not arguing for the validity of this or that miracle. I'm simply saying that the idea that these things cannot happen is based on an ignorance of what science shows and doesn't show.
Hume, generally regarded as an exploder of metaphysics, was also an exploder of the pretensions of scientific knowledge. Recognizing the power of Hume's argument, the philosopher Karl Popper conceded that science is incapable of "verifying" truth; it can merely "falsify" hypotheses and thus (we hope) draw us a little closer to truth. This truth, however, remains elusive, just over the horizon. The biblical notion that "we see through a glass darkly" turns out not to be theological hocus-pocus but a clear-eyed summary of the human situation.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 16)
1. That's nice; now, prove they happen.
Remember what DD has frequently said, in reference to Richard Dawkins, about "letting a biologist out of the lab"? It goes both ways, DD.
Ian X. Christian at 7:35PM on Sep 24th 2008
2. Think of it this way, a scientific law is something that's been observed to the point of being able to safely assume it's generally true until something contrary is observed.
And a religion/myth is something unobservable that cannot ever be denied without being called a heretic and/or burning in hell.
Clear?
Was this the end? Sort of weak.
Ryan Anderson at 7:37PM on Sep 24th 2008
3. "...the philosopher Karl Popper conceded that science is incapable of "verifying" truth; it can merely "falsify" hypotheses..."
That's kind of like, you can't prove a negative? Would that also be like "scientists" wannabes trying to disprove the existence of God?
Keep up the good work, Dinesh. You have a unique position in the intellectual crowd, humbly fighting the good fight, using logic and reason amongst those who are willfully blind to the truth of God.
God bless, Dinesh D'Souza!
VOTE
FOR
SARAH
Rev 3:16 at 7:47PM on Sep 24th 2008
4. DD: "Once we recognize this we see why miracles are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility. Since we cannot name a single empirical scientific law that is in principle inviolable, we cannot rule out deviations from these so-called laws."
Correct, but it logically follows from this point that miracles are NOT supernatural events, but rather unexplained natural events.
Important distinction.
Ryan Anderson at 7:51PM on Sep 24th 2008
5.
I would submit that the occaisonal anomoly( or miracle if you will) is the exception that proves the rule( or law, if you will...again :-).
Miracles are things we don't understand. 500 years ago, simple things we take for granted today would be considered miracles. Take for example the process of reviving a dead person through medical means: is this a miracle? was this what happened with Jesus, some far thinking apostle performed CPR on his lifeless corpse?
NO, and NO.
Don't assume because we can't explain something it is a miracle.....or your career would fall into the miracle catagory( ie. I don't understand THAT?).
mac at 7:57PM on Sep 24th 2008
6. Mac; how's it going? I've always felt that if Jesus existed, and if he actually continued to live after the crucifixion, that's it's likely that he didn't actually die on the cross. The gospels say he "died" in a shorter than ususal time (3 hours vs. 3 days if I remember correctly). Could be he slipped into a coma that Roman military medicine would not have been able to identify.
Ryan Anderson at 8:26PM on Sep 24th 2008
7. What this argument is essentially stating is that we cannot possibly know anything about the nature of reality. I can't trust my senses because I'm not sure they're not lying to me; I can't trust my logic because I'm not sure if some divine being is playing a trick on me or not. Nothing is certain, therefore, it is useless to try and live a code of life based on the uncertain information. Any God who spends that much time trying to screw around with our heads so that we cannot even possibly expect to make sense of the world around us, and then proceeds to damn people to hell for choosing an incorrect path of life, is the definition of sheer evil. Fortunately though, this argument borders on the absurd, along with aliens building the pyramids, so we don't have to worry about it.
mastersword at 8:35PM on Sep 24th 2008
8. DD you have made a wonderful argument to disprove everything you say you believe in. No such thing as a human being knowing that he/she knows an absolute about anything. So much for Christianity.
Jerry Brown at 8:52PM on Sep 24th 2008
9. Does science have laws? DD your a member of a cult who thinks a dead guy came back to life and flew off into outer space and is hanging around out there waiting to come back with his angels and take over the planet. It's called mental illness DD, please seek treatment.
Larry at 8:57PM on Sep 24th 2008
10. I watched a program on the History Channel that studied the effects of how Jesus was tortured. From this Dr's perspective, he was already dying by the time he picked up the cross and carried it through the city. For anyone to suffer internal injuries, and then carry this cross, is nothing short of a miracle. That, or he was one determined individual.
MrWiteKES at 9:00PM on Sep 24th 2008
11. Amazing to me how many folks find God when they are facing death. Why do you think that is? Man needs a superior being to believe in. And man needs science also. The two can coexist. Look in the sky- God created all those stars and their planets and their beings also. Now what you realy need to do is define "God".
Cliff Mansfield at 9:06PM on Sep 24th 2008
12. ok seriously you sound so stupid. you say in an argumentative way that science isn't always right but christianity or other religions have a chance to be? what the hell? and about light, just one example anyone can prove you wrong on, it more than likely IS always the same everywhere. you know why?
because if we can find the measure from a certain area and me measure the time it takes to get, not just here, but to everywhere, and it's always 186,000 miles per second then it more than likely is.
and compareably we CANNOT completely measure dna stupid, it's so complex and to take the time to get EVERY LIFEFORM is just unthinkably mind numbingly difficult. now we can rightly make about a 99% certainty that everyone has dna because that's at least what does have it.
seriously, you make up the most pointless blogs then rant on about stuff that's not right...at all sometimes.
daniel hogue at 9:08PM on Sep 24th 2008
13. Man with a mortal mind defining god. Now that is a good one.
Jerry Brown at 9:14PM on Sep 24th 2008
14. "God" is a different thing to everybody. If in your mind it/he/her is something that is indefinable by man then it is your right to believe that. To me "God" is something else.
Cliff Mansfield at 9:28PM on Sep 24th 2008
15. Cliff; ""God" is a different thing to everybody..."
Exactly. Yet it's easier for the powers-that-be to maintain control if everyone is dedicated to the same thing... enter religion.
Ryan Anderson at 9:41PM on Sep 24th 2008