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 5 of 16)
61. does dinesh truly think he stumbled upon some great way of proving miracles to be possible or, like pboy said, is he just trying to stir up the shit-pot? i can see either to be equally possible.
either way i think it's pretty ridiculous. sure we can't absolutely prove that in every single instance a certain outcome will occur, but theories serve us very well and we would be foolish not to use them.
if we can't claim to know anything unless we prove it in every possible instance, if there are NO absolutes, whatsoever, am i to believe that when i can no longer see and touch and hear a person they might no longer exist? by your argument i couldn't say it's impossible for my son to just no longer exist when i don't see or hear him. we don't have any evidence of people just materializing, then vanishing, then materializing again, but so what?
can you imagine the implications this? if you say we cannot PROVE anything, that we can't actually KNOW anything, then we wouldn't really be able to say that opposing murder is a universal standard. just because it was wrong in numerous incidences does not mean it is always going to be wrong, right? and just because the evidence of a person's murder points to one person would not necessarily make that person guilty of committing murder. the fingerprints at the scene of the crime could have materialized from nothing. it's never happened before, that we know of, but that doesn't mean it couldn't EVER happen.
in fact, some people may just die in a means that looks like a murder by natural causes. so what if they had 37 stab wounds? just because we THINK we know that a person would have to do this to another person for it to happen doesn't mean that is the case because we can't really prove anything! we don't have any record of it happening before, but that doesn't matter.
so dinesh, should we just stop prosecuting people for crimes, which might not actually be crimes, because we can't ever prove anything? or should we go along with the best knowledge we have today and use that as a guide?
i think the second option makes more sense. it would be logical for us to accept the outcome of things we have observed numerous times as a "law."
Richelle at 10:57AM on Sep 25th 2008
62. In the end, Dinesh makes a sound case for the notion that Christianity ranks as nothing more than superstition bordering on mass hysteria driven by the full realization that "We're all gonna die! I don't wanna die! I know, I can live forever if I just repeat my fantasy to myself over and over again! Jesus is my savior! Through His death I receive eternal life!"
Paul at 11:00AM on Sep 25th 2008
63. Analyst: "Like fruit flies always around DD's board with what amounts to graffiti."
I guess it would seem that way to someone who's afraid of the free exchange of ideas...
Ryan Anderson at 11:15AM on Sep 25th 2008
64. "Keep up the good work, Dinesh. You have a unique position in the intellectual crowd"
Dinesh's 'unique' position in the intellectual crowd is of course that he is not really an intellectual as this very weak piece demonstrates. I've met a great many scientists and none of them are in the slightest bit interested in 'disproving the existence of God' Most of the are far too busy doing science and developing the kind of technology that makes it possible for buffoons like you to post your nonsense here.
timbo at 11:26AM on Sep 25th 2008
65. Hume's skepticism about science should be compared to his skepticism about religion which was much greater. Religious belief requires a kind of faith that is so contrary to reason and experience that it is a miracle that it exists at all, Hume quiped.
Mark at 11:17AM on Sep 25th 2008
66. "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"
Speaking only for myself I am an atheist because I have never had any experience (by which I include reading or talking to other people) that would lead me to conclude that there is a deity of the sort that Christians describe. To make me believe in God would be simplicity itself. Merely provide an experience that indisputably proves the existence of God
timbo at 11:28AM on Sep 25th 2008
67. Maybe it's time that the atheists here clarified what their true positions are. It seems that some by their own admissions are technically not "atheist", but rather could be agnostic, ignostic, ietsist, deist, pantheist, pandeist, or pastafarian. The nuances get so fine, I can't even decide.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:41AM on Sep 25th 2008
68. Timbo...
I might identify myself as an atheist, but I do so only out of lack for a better description for how I view our existence.
I can fully accept that perhaps there is some force or being that has caused the universe to exist, but I refuse to ascribe to that force/being the prejudices of humanity--specifically, Christian humanity.
In other words--in the face of a complete lack of evidence--I cannot believe that the creative force behind the universe is so petty that it would terrorize the minuscule lives of humans by threatening them with eternal suffering and death because some of them like to, say for example, wear blended fabrics, or eat the wrong foods, or love the wrong people, or forget to remind the creator frequently enough just how much they think about the creator when the creator already knows these things.
Flat out, as far as I'm concerned, there very well might be a "god" of creation, but it's certainly NOT the Christian god of creation. And adding to that, I find the arrogance of Christianity to be the most unappealing of all human traits: "Believe what I believe or you will die, mother-f#cker! Die! Forever! And if that aint enough, then you'll burn forever, mother-f#cker!"
It's just too stupid to terrorize people like that.
Paul at 12:01PM on Sep 25th 2008
69. It'll crack me up when I see the Christians objecting to my use of the phrase mother-f#cker, yet they'll have no problem with the fact that their religion essentially terrorizes people into submission with its ultimate promise of eternal death and suffering.
Anyone who has their priorities in that Christian order really should have their head professionally examined, because something is definitely askew there.
Paul at 12:12PM on Sep 25th 2008
70. When you think about it, Christians are kind of sad, really. They need help because they can't deal with living in this world. They have to constantly fantasize about their next world where they'll all be kings!
Paul at 12:15PM on Sep 25th 2008
71. As far as I can tell, Christianity fits the very definition of insanity.
Paul at 12:18PM on Sep 25th 2008
72. Paul - I think you may have mistakenly taken me for the author of this rhetorical question:
"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"
In fact I was responding to it with my own reasons for being an atheist.
timbo at 12:38PM on Sep 25th 2008
73. Paul,
What you describe sounds more like Ietsism.
Mokele Mbembe at 12:35PM on Sep 25th 2008
74. Daniel Cabral:
"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."
These are questions that "believers" seldom ask, in my experience, let alone care about.
1) Atheists are not a single entity, unlike Christians. for example. They are not an organized religion with a dogma that they must "believe" or ascribe to. Therefore, atheists' belief (or questioning) depends upon the individual of whom one might happen to ask such a question. The major difference (in my personal opinion) is that non-believers simply do not see any reason to believe as you do. All religion (perhaps especially Christianity) requires at least a kernel of "faith" or, if you will, belief without any evidence or logical cause for such a "leap of faith". Even Thomas Aquinas, one of Chrisitanity's most thoughtful apologists understood this. Believers must, of necessity, find at least this "kernel". Atheists and agnostics can be thought of as simply not having found it. As a result, some of us do not see the need or the value in joining any church or espousing any doctrine on the off chance that we "might" get into heaven if we happen to be wrong about the existance of a deity. This is, of course, a very brief distillation of my personal views about the subject and is not in any way meant to be "representative" of other non-believers. In short, I have not found a reason (in my own heart or intellect, one might say) to believe. Therefore, I do not believe.
2)I imagine if I could find that kernel of faith, whether by personal experience of some manifestation of God, or by enough other peoples' reports that I felt to be real rather than imagined, I might choose to believe. At the least, I might continue "looking".
However, I must say, after roughly fifty years of keeping as open a mind as I can, that I still have not found either of the above. Since I am left with only my own intellect and personal life experiences from which to judge and, since I do not find it frightening or demeaning to realize that I am an animal (perhaps with greater intellect) like all the others and will eventually die and that is probably "all there is" to the meaning of life, I do not feel the "need" to find God. As such, I am content and do feel that I am missing anything.
Harvey at 12:46PM on Sep 25th 2008
75. Mokele; I'm an agnostic who believes that anyone who tells you anything about god is delusional or a liar.
Ryan Anderson at 12:58PM on Sep 25th 2008