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 3 of 16)
31. Re: Hume exploding the pretensions of scientific knowledge.
And here’s an unstructured verse for the Faithful Devotees of Science and of PUNY Human Intelligence. Then ponder over what Albert Einstein said: “There is NO DEFENSE in SCIENCE against the weapons which can destroy civilization [and BRING man BACK to the STONE AGE].”
Of Science
A White Knight himself he anointed
And, to the AWED world, he vaunted:
“There is no One greater than I am,
Who can heal you of your diseases
And deliver you from your untimely death;
Who can usher you into the Halcyon Age
Of Ease, Luxury, and Riches.
There is no One greater than I am
Who can offer you the Universe
As your field of dreams truly boundless;
Of adventures awesome and intergalactic;
As your proud possession and everlasting dominion;
As your unbroken fountain of cosmic glory and fame.”
Someone behind me, however, said,
“A bright lad he is indeed,
But in the dark he moves blindly,
Whither he goes, he’s fuzzy.
He is not the Great One
But the Blundering Knight,
Bloodied and helpless,
A tattered mess, a piteous sight
Before the Charging Windmills
Of STORMS and FLOODS and EARTHQUAKES,
Of TORNADOES, earth-shaking DROUGHT and FAMINE;
Of swarming LOCUSTS and plague-bearing VERM IN;
Of DEADLY DISEASES that unhinge the mind,
Of man’s recurring FIERY RAGE and HATE
That DEVOURS his FELLOWMAN
And ALL his pleasant lands.
BELIEVE My Word – and YOU will LIVE.”
Antonio Apostol Jr. at 2:38AM on Sep 25th 2008
32. 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?
xxxx
can god make a rule he can't break? What about his mom?
Clif Kuplen at 2:36AM on Sep 25th 2008
33. Hey Clif..
.. I liked the hamster 'thought experiment' and the Glossolalia deal.
Have you been hit by lightning yet for dissing God's Ma?
not-pboyfloyd at 2:46AM on Sep 25th 2008
34. While the argument presented in this article can be considered valid it is only so when one assumes the definition that "truth" is absolute- as any good scientist and philosopher would know "truth" is currently being debated as to what truth means and there is no absolute truth for the word truth (presenting to us an oxymoron for the word "truth")- The truth spoken about in this article could be categorized under "logical truth" which basically states - "as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system." and truth is what we have determined to be factual through a logical establishment of observation. Truth is and will always be a mixture of subjective, relative, objective, and absolute depending on the truth being presented (won't give examples)- but there is a system by which you can categorize each truth into one of these categories.
Corin Prendiville at 2:55AM on Sep 25th 2008
35. Also you had an epic fail with your english language. You misused the word "generalization" were generalization means that through most incidents you noticed a particular trend (but not always) whereas DNA and the speed of light have been a constant guaranteed evident in every experiment thus far tested and both have been tested considerably which makes it a "fact" what this article is really trying to disprove is whether or not fact is TRUTH which is actually just having a slapping contest over the flaws of the english language and our inability to produce words that are defined well enough to trump all interpretations of a word- where truth means multiple things and not a single thing.
Corin Prendiville at 2:55AM on Sep 25th 2008
36. As far a Hume goes, how disingenuous does one have to be to use an 'argument' that if disproven would only HELP your position?
Atheists showing Hume to be wrong would not change D'Souza's mind, he'd thank atheists for helping him disprove Hume and go a long way to helping prove GOD!
All D'Souza seems to be doing here is stirring the shit-pot.
Religion is shit.. philosophy is shit... let's throw science in there and mix liberally!
Hume is perfectly right except induction is ALL. WE'VE. GOT!
We make sense of the world using language. We understand each word used by induction. Sure we can deduce what a word means from it's context, but what if the circles you travel in misuse the word? No, the only sure way to be understood is induction, which, as Hume was pointing out is 'not at all'.
But it still works.
not-pboyfloyd at 2:59AM on Sep 25th 2008
37. But, Antonio Apostol Jr, Hume was exploding pretentions to ANY knowledge.
For example you might go to sleep a Christian tonight and wake up 'not' a Christian.
"Impossible!", you say? You don't believe a word of Hume then, so shut yer face!
not-pboyfloyd at 3:06AM on Sep 25th 2008
38. Have you been hit by lightning yet for dissing God's Ma?
not-pboyfloyd at 2:46AM on Sep 25th 2008
xxx
No, but I can't come over and play x box with Him and Kyle anymore.
Clif Kuplen at 3:35AM on Sep 25th 2008
39. Ahh, here we are at D'Souza's third sentence he says, "Moreover, if science has laws that are known to be incorrigible, then miracles would seem to be impossible."
Once again, can't you just claim that they are 'God's own incorrigible laws' that only sustain life because, if we imagine God sitting at a line of adjustable 'universe settings', then only God setting the exact amount of energy released when hydrogen nuclei combine into helium nuclei and such "sets" the universe 'correctly' and with Godly accuracy, life is possible, whenever you feel like THAT?
In other words, if you, you personally D'Souza, want to think of scientific laws as anti-religious, that's fine AND if you end all your debates using scientific laws to try to prove God then that's fine too!
What kind of 'PMS harpy' argument is that though?
It is equivalent of saying, "Hey I cooked, you do the dishes, that's fair!", on Monday, then saying, "Hey, you cooked, you dirtied the dishes, so get washing them up!" on Tuesday!
It is exactly saying that no matter how you look at it, you win and anyone disagreeing with you loses.
If your there Renzo, that can't be 'properly basic' can it?
not-pboyfloyd at 4:27AM on Sep 25th 2008
40. D'Souza goes on, "So what exactly are scientific laws and what degree of certainty can we attach to them?"
I think that I'd rather believe that light travels at 182,262 miles per second(in a vacuum) than that some goofs stole the 'Ark of the Covenant' from the Israelites and then they all came down with hemmoroids due to the 'Wrath of God'.
(Does that even "count" as a 'miracle'?)
(( Is that one 'miracle of the hemmoriods' per case? ))
Exactly how 'low' is the 'bar' on what is a 'miracle', good thing or diseasy thingy?
Stubbing one's toe, accident OR God's Wrath?
not-pboyfloyd at 4:53AM on Sep 25th 2008
41. Dinesh,
You are right. You can never prove something a 100%. Your desperate attempt to keep the illusion that a infallible being wrote a fallible book 2000 years ago is still alive, barely. There is no evidence for Christianity but since we can never prove something 100% you still have hope however small.
Your arguments are designed for Deism, not Theism. Yes, there may be something beyond our knowledge that exists. But why would this thing never say anything and write a horrific book about its opinions.
Dinesh, please do more research on Cognitive Bias. You are a classic example.
james at 12:40AM on Sep 26th 2008
42. Only because I awoke at 4 am with nothing to do did I read this article and the only observation I can make is that the chemical reactions from people thinking about it generated a little more unnecessary heat for the universe. Writing about this is almost as useless as trying to understand how the people in the State of Massachusetts have continued to elect the pond scumb known as Ted Kennedy.
Johnny at 5:28AM on Sep 25th 2008
43. D'Souza 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.""
But you can't just try to have us imagine that you believe an atheist philosopher because 'that's philosophy' when it suits you and disregard that exact same philosophy when it doesn't suit you.
Just because you believe in 'magic' doesn't give you the right to 'magically' believe in Hume's philosophy when you want then 'magically' not believe him surely!
Scientific laws vs. miracles?(KAZAAM!)Hume.(Can't know for sure.)
Scientific laws vs. No God. D'Souza will give us a 'break' here, and like us be absolutely certain that the scientists are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
Imagine now, that if these (Godly)scientific laws WEREN'T so spot on then life couldn't exist at all!(MUST know for sure.)
Eating your cake and having it too!
not-pboyfloyd at 5:29AM on Sep 25th 2008
44. Here's the 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?"
This is a simple straightforward fact. A package of DNA is made as an egg which is fertilized with a package of DNA in a sperm and grows in the womb to be born as a human baby.
D'Souza says, "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."
Wow! D'Souza can't even read a simple question. The e-mailer asked what Hume would say about the 'law'(the fact actually) that all humans are made FROM DNA.
D'Souza changes this to 'made of' DNA, changes it to all life(including humans) on Earth(I'm supposing) then argues that 'E.T.' might not have DNA.
Y'see, this is what happens when you let a Christian apologist and debater near the notions of philosophy, fact, truth, words with specific scientific meanings/more general meanings and a penchant to twist things around and 'strawmanify' anyone's point to defeat THAT instead of the original point.
If Hume read up on biology he would just say that 'All humans are made from DNA is a fact!'
He might say that all life on Earth is made from DNA is another fact.
He might even suppose that all life that has ever been ON EARTH was made of DNA is another fact.
(One of the scientific definitions of LIFE on EARTH is that it IS made of DNA, so there's yer LAW right there, D'Souza-baby!)
BUT, Hume would NEVER say that any extra-terrestrial life would be made with DNA.
It is ridiculous to say that each and every life form ON EARTH needs to be tested, exactly the same as it would be ridiculous to imagine that we would have to measure each and every photon travelling in space to be sure of it's constant speed!
not-pboyfloyd at 6:05AM on Sep 25th 2008
45. D'Souza says, "..."laws" .. merely generalizations based on previous tries. Once we recognize this we see why miracles are entirely within the realm of scientific possibility."
If this is true, then you can't tell a miracle from a very rare natural, if counter-intuitive phenomenon.
If you can't tell that then the word 'miracle' is useless.
For example, we can't call Jesus rising from the dead a miracle because even in your own booklets quite a few people rose from the dead!
The only people who imagined that coming back from the dead was a miracle would be folk that had never heard of Hume. If they HAD they'd be left with a puzzle. Are resurrected people 'miracles' or just oddities?
Guess we can be a bit more careful about how certain we ARE about scientific laws, sure, but you have to give up Christianity!
You have to give up your argument about how improbable life is in the Universe too!
not-pboyfloyd at 6:26AM on Sep 25th 2008