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 2 of 16)
16. DD, I cannot see what "laws" or "observations" have to do with miracles.
The Biblical God made the laws, and can easily -- being omniblarblar -- rise above and beyond them as He pleases.
God is not controlled by nature of natural laws; miracles by definition are super-natural.
-------------
C.S. Lewis: Science began with belief in a Lawmaker
‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’
Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
Rob at 9:47PM on Sep 24th 2008
17. Ryan - yes sir, but religion also provides a sense of "community" to
a certain type of person. And for the weak it is a way to get through
life. I am an anti-religion conservative. You probably figured the
conservative part out, eh?
Cliff Mansfield at 9:57PM on Sep 24th 2008
18. "From this we can conclude that: scientific laws are not really "laws" but merely generalizations based on previous tries." -DD
Dinesh, you are exactly right. Scientific laws, theories, ideas - whatever you want to call them - are not set in stone. Some say that scientific theories/laws can never be truly proven, only disproven. However, in many cases, there is a certain theory, sometimes called a law, that is widely accepted as the best explanation for a given phenomenon. (Examples includes universal gravitation, general relativity, and yes, evolution by natural selection.)
So you are correct that it is possible that miracles could exist. It is also possible that bigfoot, the loch ness monster, or ghosts exist. But until the existence of something is demonstrated to the point where it's almost definitely true, there is no point believing in it.
Jacob at 10:05PM on Sep 24th 2008
19. I don't know why I am letting my self get drawn into this, but...
Dinesh, you are a complete fucking idiot. Your puerile glee in setting up a ridiculous argument like this one is only exceeded by your infantile approach in proving your point, which by the way, was what?
Things are what they are. We observe and assign quantative values to them based on whatever mathematics are valid to explain that which we observe. With me so far?
We have observed DNA. We know through a variety of means the 'relative' speed of "light". We know that atoms consist of certain "things" which have a known property, empirically derived, and have created the LHC to see if more "things" related to the basic nuts and bolts of our perceived physical reality exist.
Miracles? First, you neglect to mention any. Then, well... oh, yeah, you didn't mention any, thereby negating any empirical evaluation of such. Weak.
Shakespeare said it best, to Horatio on the battlements after the ghost's visit- "There are far more things (etc.)"
In sum, why does this matter? Things are what they are, both in the quantative reality, and the not-so-quantative (i.e. the meta-physical) from the Greek, meaning "above" or "beyond" the physical. The evidence, subjective of course, is that there are things beyond the realm of our quantitative experience, but whose existence is hard (if not impossible) to disprove, or prove, or whatever.
But who cares? To an atheist, whose goat you are again lamely trying to get, it doesn't matter- it doesn't exist. To the believer, it is a matter of faith- a state of mind that falls well short of a healthy imagination, but... well, they aren't really equipped for advanced comprehension are they?
So. What's your point, amigo? Truth be told, you never had one, aside from your Prime Directive, which is to stir the shit, which you excel at, and is really your only reason for your pathetic existence, n'est pas?
Good Riddance, fool.
Aloha!
Robert at 10:45PM on Sep 24th 2008
20. gonesh's 'argument' seems to be the only one religion has - if I can't understand it, no one can understand it.
Clif Kuplen at 10:55PM on Sep 24th 2008
21. Do you support Torture?
http://beyondbotts.blogspot.com/2008/09/torture.html
Botts at 11:30PM on Sep 24th 2008
22. Yes, science has defined rules and laws and is born of the effects of peer scrutiny. It makes your preposterous arguments about the ethereal look silly in comparison. As I have told you before; being an intellectual holyroller is like being the world's tallest midget. You're pathetic and ridiculous.
Streit Rhoades at 11:26PM on Sep 24th 2008
23. Clif Kuplen wrote, "gonesh's 'argument' seems to be the only one religion has - if I can't understand it, no one can understand it." ________________ EXACTLY! How many times have I heard this nonsense from religious morons? The literal translation is, "I am a f*cking moron. If you are also a f*cking moron, then you probably can't understand anything pertaining to science, too. Let us join forces and proclaim stupidity to reign supreme in Stupidville."
Master Shake at 11:33PM on Sep 24th 2008
24. D'Souza disingenuously asks, "Does science really have laws?"
"(Scientific) Law
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them*. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
(* although it might be fair to say that they describe them but don't explain them. e.g. how gravity affects things as opposed to why gravity affects anything.)
I think that D'Souza is being willfuly ignorant here.
How can anyone make it through a half decent college and NOT know this simple stuff?
Renzo, eric et al come on his blog to explain what D'Souza means from the philosophical perspective.
Can we expect them to comment, NOW, that they have been completely mistaken about D'Souza?
@Rev 3.16...
.. being as willfuly ignorant as D'Souza is nothing to be proud of.
not-pboyfloyd at 11:33PM on Sep 24th 2008
25. Here's a good one for you 'Goddies'...
...if we are to recognize anything, anything at all as a MIRACLE it has to be taken for granted that scientific laws are valid.
e.g. We know, from life experience(scientifically) that bushes just don't catch fire and start talking.
Even the most religious person on the entire planet can't turn around and say, "Just ignore the talking burning bush, scientists who deny that this is just an unusual natural phenomenon are so FULL OF IT!"
not-pboyfloyd at 11:42PM on Sep 24th 2008
26. What's the difference between a fundamentalist hockey mom and a pit bull?
Lip Glossolalia
Clif Kuplen at 12:35AM on Sep 25th 2008
27. Let us join forces and proclaim stupidity to reign supreme in Stupidville."
Master Shake at 11:33PM on Sep 24th 2008
xxxx
I've said many times here that fundamentalists are like hamsters inside a mirrored ball of dogma. They may sense stimuli from outside, but in any direction they look all they see are distorted hamsters.
Clif Kuplen at 12:38AM on Sep 25th 2008
28. D'Souza says, "The proposition that it(science) does(have laws) is at the root of the argument that science is based on undisputed "facts" while religion is based on subjective "values."
No it's not! That is just not true unless you accept the unaccepted premise that science is 'opposed to' religion.
As I mentioned, science being common sense, the laws of which are simply mathematical representations of reality, which is three dimensional and can mathematically proven to be three dimensional simply because calculus predicts how radiant phenomena lose 'strength' predictably ONLY if we live in three dimensional space and COULD lose 'strength' differently if we lived in four dimensional space SIMPLY does not have anything to say about magical mumbo-jumbo.
In fact the very notion of magical mumbo-jumbo DEPENDS on everything else being 'orderly'!
You can't have it both ways D'Souza. Without the order that the Universe shows, miracles would be meaningless.
If you simply define 'God' as the 'Order that makes sense of the Universe' then miracles become impossible and you are a Deist!
Example:- If we lived in four dimensions of space gravity would be measurable as the distance travelled by a small object towards the Earth = 1/3 of the acceleration(gravity)cubed!
Since we live in three dimensions of space then the distance is defined by 1/2 the acceleration(gravity)squared.
Now, imagining that 'Godjustdiditlikethat' is a different argument, I think, because then you wouldn't be questioning the truth of the scientific laws and comparing them to 'religious truth', which D'Souza IS, would you?
not-pboyfloyd at 1:17AM on Sep 25th 2008
29. Incredibly stupid. The question was "are all Humans based on DNA". Your argument about martians was incredibly dumb and not relevant, also, if you'd bothered to take your head out of your bible (let me guess, the King James version with all the mistranslations left in?) you would have found out that scientist have been pondering such things, and most do not expect to find DNA in xeno-organisms, though most believe some kind of coding system is necessary. I bet you're also one of those people who thinks theory means guess, because you can't be bothered to look up the word and understand its origins. Feh!
Caterina Pryde at 2:43AM on Sep 25th 2008
30. Not only that but Christians who agree with D'Souza, if squeezed hard enough will invariably say that God did it all, HIS natural laws(prescribed by HIM), described by scientists, are inviolable except for supernatural 'intervention'.
This allows a constant 'shifting of goalposts' trying on the one hand to compare natural laws unfavorably against religion AND trying to compare them favorably depending on the situation!
Heads you win tails we lose?
But can't you see how that is question begging? Can't you see how 'cheaty' that is?
If you need to resort to this confusion technique to convince yourselves that religion is 'valid', now that I've pointed it out for you, you'd need to be being willfuly ignorance to continue using these 'arguments'.
Simply put:- If you agree that God made the rules and only HE can break them(miracle) then you can't deny the rules to invoke the possibility of miracles, can you?
Well, if you are completely confusing yourself and each other, I'm guessing that you CAN!
not-pboyfloyd at 2:14AM on Sep 25th 2008