Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

TheLurker wrote: »

Any claim about the correct/factual/true/accurate nature of reality falls into the scientific realm . . .

. . . All of those are scientific claims. Science is merely a methodology for building confidence in the accuracies about claims made about the true nature of reality. Any claim that can be true or false about reality falls with into the realm of science.

Let me stop you there for a minute, because I think we have a problem. Science proceeds through the examination of empirically-observable evidence. It follows that science can only scrutinise claims about empirically-observable things.

To sustain the assertion that science can examine claims about “the true nature of reality” we could claim that reality is confined to empirically-observable things. But that’s a self-defeating position, since that claim is itself not susceptible of scientific verification. (How could we prove, by examining empirically-observable things, that no non-empirically observable thing exists?) We can assume that no non-observable thing exists, but we can have no scientific basis for that assumption and, if we allow ourselves to assume thing with no scientific basis, we can hardly object to others who do the same.

Another way to sustain the assertion that science can examine claims about the true nature of reality is to broaden our definition of science so that it is not confined to a methodology which proceeds from empirical observation. But (a) we’ll find an awful lot of scientists who disagree strongly with us, and (b) if we treat as science arguments which depend, e.g. on pure logic, then we have to concede that, e.g., the ontological argument for the existence of god is a scientific argument. Again, the objections to your position will come mainly from the scientists.

TheLurker wrote: »

I think you are confusing the difference between a scientific claim and a claim science cannot answer. There are plenty of scientific claims that science cannot answer (are we in a multiverse, is string theory real, what happened before the big bang)

Again, I’d have to disagree. If I understand it rightly, something like the multiverse proposition is not a scientific claim, precisely because it’s not susceptible of scientific verification. There are plenty of scientific claims that, as a matter of practical reality, we can’t verify because we lack the technology, but if you make a claim which is inherently untestable, it’s not a scientific claim. The multiverse proposition seems to be to fall into this class. We can’t observe other universes; if we could, they wouldn’t be other universes – just very distant corners of this universe. (Or so it seems to me.)

Incidentally, the fact that a claim is not a scientific claim doesn’t mean that it’s meaningless or unimportant or must be dismissed. The claim that, e.g, as regards abortion, a woman has a right to choose is plainly not a scientific claim, but it’s a meaningful and weighty one. We couldn’t object that someone professing this belief was “unscientific”, or that they were irrational to believe something for which there was no evidence, could we?

In fact not just ethical claims like this, but a wide range of philosophical claims fall into a class of non-scientific claims which can be significant. We can evaluate these claims and adopt them, or alternatively reject them; we just don’t rely on science to evaluate them. We employ other epistemological methods. And an awful lot of theological claims fall into this class.

TheLurker wrote: »

Recognising that a claim is unanswerable is in fact an important part of science and evaluating claims. Ignoring that is anti-science.

Holding that a claim is accurate without supporting that in the fashion that science says is required, is anti-science. It is essentially saying that science is wrong. Christians do this all the time.

Again, I disagree. Refusing to consider the scientific verification (or lack of it) for a scientific claim is certainly anti-science. But demanding scientific verification for a non-scientific claims seems to be to be equally anti-science; it betrays a failure to understand the nature of science and the application of scientific methodology.