Evidence part 2: Scientism

In part 1 of this series I went over a brief introduction and ground rules for my arguments. One of the things which we must get out of the way in order to have a discussion is the notion that science can explain everything, or even that science is the best way to prove something. Rather than get into a lengthy discussion of metaphysics, I will use logic. If there is something that science can't explain, than the statement "science can explain everything" is false, by the law of non-contradiction.

Here is something science can't explain. Mathematics. Although science uses mathematics, it doesn't explain how mathematics works, or why it should be true. Furthermore, mathematics works without science. I could prove, using mathematics, that the circumference of a circle is 2 pi r without ever examining or measuring an actual circle.

Furthermore, while science may b able to demonstrate that velocity is approximately acceleration times time, I can prove it definitively using calculus in a much more sure and convincing way.

Having established that there are things which science can't answer, let me give a less concrete example of something science can't answer. Science can't answer any question that asks "why?" Oh I can say "why is the sky blue" and science can tell me that blue light is scattered more than red. I can ask "why is blue light scattered more than red" and science can tell me that it has to do with particle size and the wavelength of light. But ultimately I will ask a question that involves "why are the laws of physics such and such" and at that point the best science can say is "because they are."

Scientism is the belief that when science says "because they are" we have to suspend all critical thought and just accept it on faith that either science will explain it or it isn't explainable. Ironic, isn't it. As shown above, if scientism is true, we'd have to give up mathematics, and then science wouldn't "work." In other words, the principle of scientism is self contradictory.

In the next few posts I will go into the arguments that Comfort makes in his video that started this whole thing; the argument from existence and the argument from design. They are probably two of the "easiest" to understand.

On to Part 3.

Posted in: atheism,God