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 4 of 16)
46. "....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." If that were to happen, DD, the consequence would be that your whole God myth as understood today would be blown apart, and your next blog would be very, very interesting as you scramble to incorporate alien life forms into Christianity, as explained by God. Oh, wait...Scientologists already did that. You did get me thinking though. I just can't assume that water is H2O anymore. Not every molecule has been tested. There may be a water drop somewhere that isn't H20. And I just burned my finger on my Yankee candle, but I can't assume next time the flame on that wick will be hot. Maybe the Cinnamon Stick Potpourri Rum Cake, when lit, doesn't have a hot flame. Nope, just can't ever ever believe anything anymore. (Especially your dogma.) BTW, did you have a point? I'm not sure, but I think it was "Science doesn't know everything,(even though you argue about things that science does know) therefore God can exist."
Jude at 7:51AM on Sep 25th 2008
47. Scientific principles are based on experiential and theoretical knowledge. And I agree with Dinesh that it is not set in stone. For instance Newton mechanics break down when reaching the speed of light. These laws were around for 250 years when Einstein discovered relativity. Einstein then saw Newton mechanics as a good approximation. How many of our current “laws” are merely good approximations?
The Lord said that without miracles people will not believe.
It seems like even with miracles people will not believe, but contend that it's just natural unexplained phenomena. Even when the Lord walked the earth you might expect the people to be more susceptible in believing in Him, as the level of scientific knowledge was basically non existent compared to today.Yet they still did not believe in Him, but crucified Him.Why was this?
Thomas also did not believe. The Lord was gracious enough to let him feel the wounds first hand.
This is because of hardness of heart and the use of mental fortifications to push out any of God's personal introductions. My question is why do atheists not believe in God? Is it because they have many reasons and therefore they don't believe. Or is it because they do not want to believe and therefore find many reasons. My other question is what would make an atheist believe in God? Would a Damascus experience help, or would that not be scientific enough.
Daniel Cabral at 8:06AM on Sep 25th 2008
48. This is it?
This is all you got?
It sounds like intelligence when you type it, but then when we read it, it comes out like gibberish.
Kinda like religion, doesn't really make sense no matter how many ways you postulate.
Using science we can now be assured that you sir are an idiot. Time and time and time again you have proved this "fact" so it can now be surmised that you are indeed a foolish man with foolish thoughts. But I guess in your mind, miracles can happen, maybe one day you will rise from this soon to be dead blog-o-sphere and be a rational thinking person. We can all pray for that. giggle giggle
TJ at 8:08AM on Sep 25th 2008
49. Cliff. Defining God according to one's own preference is just another subtle form of idolatry. If God is the sum of all distributed knowledge across all peoples minds then He would be extremely confused and fickle. Who in history ever defined God or claimed to be a direct representative for Him, with works and words following? Jesus Christ made that outrageous claim. He claimed you could know God for yourself. Not just with a mental acknowledgment but an actual relationship.
Daniel Cabral at 8:47AM on Sep 25th 2008
50. The premise that science cannot measure everything to verify natural laws in no way adds credibility to non-scientific metaphysical explanations such as miracles. There is NO logical connection there.
And before anyone gets really stupid, the science definition of theory (properly Theory) is NOT synonymous with the general definition. Generally theory can be used in context as "I have a theory about that...", which implies a certain level of guesswork and indeterminacy. Science uses Theory in the place of "Law" as a concession to the stated fact theat we cannot measure everything for conclusive proof; however, Theory is applied by science when all measurements (and verified predictions) conform to the evidence without statistical deviation.
GearHedEd at 8:51AM on Sep 25th 2008
51. "no finite number of observations, however large, can be used to derive an unrestricted general conclusion that is logically defensible."
Your enemy today must be Inductive Reasoning. Hume's argument technically isn't "wrong".
"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."
That's because YOU made up this "law". From a functionalist point of view DNA is an array of data and an instruction set for protein generation. Theoretically this function could be replaced by nanotechnology.
Scientific "laws" also have "jurisdictions". Newton's laws of motion for example work in our experience, but as you approach near-light speeds they are superceeded by Special Relativity. Newtonian physics are revealed as part of the whole, but they are still laws within their own "jurisdictions".
It is appropriate that you cite Karl Popper falsifiability. I agree that our deepest scientific facts are taken on faith whether or not they are true. The problem is now you can never inductively prove anything anymore because you wrote this article. You know how you like to say that atheism has brought more death than Christianity? Just because it fits a pattern to you, doesn't mean it will continue in the future.
Dinesh, the case you present is logically solid (even though your example sucked). Unfortunately for you, it is an unwieldly weapon.
Mokele Mbembe at 8:56AM on Sep 25th 2008
52. 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
xxxx
Beautiful. Thanks for the first and most likely the best laugh of the day. Off to go wake up the kiddies.
Tim at 9:03AM on Sep 25th 2008
53. Daniel,
When people debate about God, the heart of the reason those debates fall apart is that both sides fail to define "God" in advance, which allows too much wiggle room to dodge arguments by changing the definition.
Mokele Mbembe at 9:26AM on Sep 25th 2008
54. "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." --DD
_____________________________
Wow! NOW I'm convinced! Why didn't someone tell me before that the Bible's "truth" derives from such vague platitudes? And why did it take so long for someone to tell me that ONLY THE BIBLE acknowledges how humanity feels around in the vast darkness of the universe like some blind insect looking for...looking for everything! And why did it take so long for the arrogant Christian to realize--and admit--that there are no absolutes such as, "God loves you...God loves everyone!" Or better yet, "God hates homosexuality." After all, if we can't measure God's love then we can't say that God loves everyone or hates anything. Oh, I know! Christians will say that God loves everyone if we would all just take Him into our hearts. Well, using Dinesh's argument that we cannot claim as "law" how all of life consists of DNA since we cannot measure every form of life for DNA then we can likewise never claim that God loves everyone since we can never truly measure that absolute statement (law) in reality. Maybe God actually hates some people (say, on another continent or another planet) and there's nothing those folks can do about it?
Dinesh, this is the dumbest, most pointless drivel you have ever posted.
Paul at 9:37AM on Sep 25th 2008
55. Paul,
"Dinesh, this is the dumbest, most pointless drivel you have ever posted."
I disagree. He's usually worse than this.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:14AM on Sep 25th 2008
56. Clif, if you wrote a book about this stuff, I would buy it.
Daniel Cabral, "hardness of heart" and "use of mental fortifications" are just religiospeak for intelligent thought and the scientific method. You make a typical assumption that all people start from a belief and move toward atheism. Many of us never believed in any sort of supernatural force that would be called "god". What hubris you have.
Linda at 10:18AM on Sep 25th 2008
57. Ryan,
Jesus existed with all the qualifications and deeds listed as His. I wouldn't try to modify His attributes and accomplishments. You might as well say He didn't exist at all rather than say He was in a coma or died sooner.
This means he had the strength on His own to move the seal of the crypt, a seal Mariusz Pudzianowski couldn’t move. Jesus had a kite-like hang-glider, also invisible, so as to ascend to heaven upon a coincidental thermal before over 500 witnesses. The fact is that if you do not want Him to be God then you fuss with the petty, traipsing around Him like those contaminating a forensic investigation just for kicks . If you know He is God then you’ve moved on with the power of the Holy Spirit within you. There’s no need to continuously challenge Him just as there is no need for scientist to continually challenge gravity. You’ve learned to deal with it.
Speaking of gravity, we know black-holes exist, not by a transmission or a direct observable proof.. Rather, it is how they influence others bodies around them, those close enough to reflect the forces of their massive attributes contained. Their power is legendary. No different with God. You know He exists by observing those around Him. If science has progressed to acknowledge black-holes what is their problem with God? It is because they haven’t escaped from their crib of rattles to grasp the real instruments available to detect Him.
His early death, if it was so, was due to the overwhelming anguish embracing the burdens of all mankind, the capacity to comprehend the enormity of His disgrace from the Father. His death and action against hell announced His perfect ability to regain relinquished Adamic power & man’s other birthrights from Satanic forces. Without these deeds, salvation is hollow and incomplete.
He owned everything while he was here. His work was finished no matter how it is now subjected to petty vandalism. The vandals being the inept and darkened of mind, the fools and the destitute.
It used to be the popular position: that He didn't exist at all. That he was a fictitious being made up by scheming and devious religious enthusiasts. For many reasons, now quite logical and scientific, that no longer is a rational position.
So we have moved to submitting alterations and modifications to the events for which He was famous. We try to find rogue “gospels” to slander Him. That He is the focus of any thought and such virulent attempts to undermine His total work is an inadvertent validation of those who are legitimate earn from the fixated, envious, obsessed and the listless.
A similar reason is attached to the same posters here. Like fruit flies always around DD's board with what amounts to graffiti.
analyst at 10:22AM on Sep 25th 2008
58. "You know He exists by observing those around Him. If science has progressed to acknowledge black-holes what is their problem with God?" - analyst
________________________________________________
Then we can deduce that HE is neurotic, psychopathic, demonic, egotistical, compassionate, kind, sinister, lying, convoluted, straightforward, truthful, caring, loving, forgiving, bigoted, racist, greedy, envious, sick, healthy, good, bad, ugly, beautiful... etc, etc, etc.
Well that went well. God is us and we are god therefore god only exists as long as we exist. Unless of course baboons are god and god is a baboon and as long as baboons exist, god exists as a baboon.
"Like fruit flies always around DD's board with what amounts to graffiti."
analyst
Maybe god is a fruit fly.....
Right back at-cha.
TJ at 10:36AM on Sep 25th 2008
59. analyst,
Though we can never get enough Pudzianowski references around here, don't be surprised that I don't find your case convincing.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:49AM on Sep 25th 2008
60. "This means he had the strength on His own to move the seal of the crypt, a seal Mariusz Pudzianowski couldn’t move." --Analyst
_________________________
In keeping with the theme of Dinesh's pointless post: Since nobody actually saw (and measured) Christ's moving the seal of the crypt, we cannot make an absolute statement that He factually did move it.
Just thought I'd highlight that little bit of logic for those of us who are not...how did Analyst put it?..."the inept and darkened of mind, the fools and the destitute" vandals flittering about like a swarm of "fixated, envious, obsessed and...listless" fruit flies.
Paul at 10:55AM on Sep 25th 2008