Another Paul Copan article from Chris Shannon.
Some atheists think that the only way to know what is really true is to use the scientific method.
Richard Dawkins declares,“Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not.” Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin calls science “the only begetter of truth.”
This is called scientism, and it comes in two varieties.
Scientism comes in two versions: strong (science is the only path to knowledge) and weak (science is the best path to knowledge, even if some other disciplines like philosophy may help).
Scientism, particularly its strong form, is a worldview or philosophy of life that affirms two things: the material world is all that there is, and science is the (only) means of verifying truth claims. All claims of knowledge have to be scientifically verifiable; otherwise, they are meaningless.
The rest of the paper discusses the following topics (and more):
- What is science?
- Can the scientific method find evidence of non-physical and/or intelligent causes in nature?
- is materialism falsifiable or is it just an assumption?
- can scientism itself be tested scientifically?
- is science self-justifying, or does it rest on certain assumptions?
- has the progress of science removed the need for God?
- what is the god-of-the-gaps? Is there a naturalism-of-the-gaps?
- can scientism block the progress of science?
Also see my posts on how the progress of science disproved atheism via the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
“Richard Lewontin calls science “the only begetter of truth.”
And the scientific proof for this statement is?
Was nothing true or known prior to the rise of western science?
Is Descartes, “I think, therefore I am” false because it was not derived from science?
Can a scientist prove that pain exists in other creatures besides himself — or can he only see brain scan images and reactions of others that he assumes is caused by pain?
Can science prove that selfhood – the “I” – actually exists, rather than being a mere illusion or emanation caused by complex biochemical reactions? If not, on what basis can he conclude that the entity performing the scientific experiment actually exists?
Can science adequately account for free-will agency? If not, on what basis can the scientist conclude that his experiments are ultimately caused by something other than mere mindless molecules-in-motion, defeating any reason to believe in either the experiment itself or its outcome?
Can the universe, which is the scientist’s sand-box, explain its own existence, and why it consists of elegant, law-like phenomena?
Can the scientist explain whether logic is interwoven into the fabric of material reality or is a mere invention of humans? If the former, how do immaterial things like logic come to exist in a purely material universe? If the latter, why should we trust it?
And this is just between sips of coffee…
LikeLike
Seems to me that truth would have to exist first in order for science to discover it. But then, some would distinguish between “facts” and “truth” with science more concerned with the former and philosophy the latter.
LikeLike
“Do beliefs have to be proven scientifically to be true.”
Depends on what you mean. They have to be provable scientifically to be fact though, that’s for sure.
But I think what you meant to ask is “do beliefs have to be proven scientifically to be reasonable.” And of course the answer would be “no.” But also of course, beliefs that are proven false beyond a reasonable doubt are, ahem, not reasonable.
LikeLike
Dawkins is basically saying that we should trust him because physics gets such amazingly precise results.
Are historical facts not true because they can’t be replicated?
LikeLike
By this rule, yes, history is not knowable.
LikeLike
Isn’t it interesting that scientism can’t be proven by science?
LikeLike
“Do beliefs have to be proven scientifically to be true?”
– No
Can beliefs be true?
– Yes
What is the Truth anyway?
– No one knows for sure! We are so small in the order of things! Whatever works for you is fine. You are responsible for yourself. Pay attention to the world around.
LikeLike
I got around to reading this at last. It’s great! Am sharing it with atheist friends who adhere to scientism. Thanks.
LikeLike
I’m glad you found it useful, and that you know people who can use it, and that you are going to share it with them!
LikeLike
Teralek, how do you know that no-one knows for sure what truth is? If no-one knows, then no-one knows that no-one knows – including you! Think about it…
LikeLike
That’s a way to go: Hard Skepticism… However I’m not going there. People who doubt the existence of everything, tend to be bruised all over… so I’ve heard… :)
Religiously speaking (because that’s what I meant), canonic religions are a matter of faith with no proof whatsoever.
Like catholics or protestants all other faiths claim with absolute certainty that they alone know the truth. Nothing makes any faith any more true than the other. So faith is personal, as is spiritual truth because it can’t be tested experimentally.
And if the truth is merely personal that would make absurd concepts of reality. For example I could believe really hard that it is the Sun that circles the Earth and by believing it, it would be true.
So I conclude that the most reliable way to know the truth (as shown through science or philosophy) is through the scientific method.
Don’t get me wrong, although I know that science is a way to explore reality I also “know” with high assurance that there is more to reality than materialism (imagine Jodie Foster in Contact). We simply are too primitive to discover the other side of reality. I believe there is a God, I just can’t define “It”. I can merely speculate and pick up indirect evidence to infer some of His characteristics.
Probably the best defense for God’s existence is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, though it doesn’t say much about Him. The fine tunning argument is more easily dismissed in my opinion. (Unless we’re alone in the Universe – that would be a very very odd situation in any case, God or no God).
I have other beliefs which are hardly debatable scientifically, though through Philosophy give nice arguments. Moreover I became very interested in Near Death Experiences. They too are a very strong evidence that something is going on in reality beyond materialism, and it’s very exiting.
Finally I’m far from taking for granted the stories from the Bible or any other “sacred” book. I find most of them pure fantasies and miss interpretations.
So yes spiritually speaking no one knows the truth, not even me… we are children in the order of things, this is obvious to me.
LikeLike