[5] Can Science Discover Truth?

In this essay, we will consider another facet to empiricism – science – which finds wide application in virtually all academic and educational circles today. “Science has proved it,” is considered to be an infallible statement, touted by everybody, right from elementary school kids to university professors, not to mention the average man on the street. So, if somebody is told to be “not scientific,” it is a subtle insult on his intellectual credentials. In this essay, we will subject the discipline of science to logical analysis and see whether science has the credibility these people claim it does.

Epistemology Is the Issue

It is important to note that in all these essays I am writing about epistemology – about how we can gain knowledge. We have been examining various schools of thought in the history of philosophy and critiquing them. We saw how agnosticism and empiricism makes knowledge impossible. Epistemology is the controlling principle in any worldview. So, please read this current essay with that in mind, since in this essay we will be looking into whether science can discover “truth.” (It will help if you will read essays [1] and [2] again, so that you will grasp the concept of worldview more comprehensively, and can understand my critique against the epistemological “foundation” of science.)

Science has had a lot of “success,” in the sense that today we have computers, aircraft, digital cameras, microwaves, medical technology, the internet, and a host of other amenities which has made life more comfortable than what it was couple of centuries ago, or maybe, even half a century ago. But it is a grave error to confuse pragmatic success with epistemological power. The two are totally unrelated. Just because we get certain results, it does not mean that the method used to achieve them is infallible. We will analyze science from the vantage point of epistemology, and see whether it deserves the reverence which many scientists claim it does.

Defining Science

We begin by defining the terms. “Science” is a word that is too common in usage, that almost everyone using it think they know what it means. But a simple challenge for them to define it might leave them gasping for an answer. It is indeed a miserable state of affairs that the scientist, who is busy experimenting, and charting graphs in his lab, is most of the time not aware of the very foundations and limitations of his discipline. That is left for the philosophers to worry about, he thinks. This often so because, the scientist is a very “practical” guy who wants results immediately, while the philosophers are those who have a lot of time at hand, who can “theorize” about these issues. But it is this very attitude – that, we shouldn’t worry too much about theory, but focus on practical results – that makes scientists more stupid than they realize they are. I wouldn’t be surprised if that statement had jolted you. But if you share my worldview, you cannot help but affirm that “God has made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1 Corinthians 1:20). In this essay I intend to demonstrate precisely just that, so read on.

So, let’s being by defining science. This is what Merriam Webster has to say about it:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split – more at shed

Date: 14th century

1: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

The meaning of a word if often limited by its usage in the historical context. Today, “science” refers to the academic discipline where information is gained by the process of observing, experimenting, framing hypotheses, repeating the experiment again, cross-checking, and arriving at a conclusion. But that is not the sense in which the word was used a few centuries ago. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge. Science, way back then, referred to an organized body of knowledge, regardless of the method of acquiring it. But it is not so it today’s context.

So, in my critique of “science,” I will be operating on the colloquial usage of the term – the third and fourth definitions given in Merriam Webster above.

The First Principle

The first principle of any worldview which starts off with science is based on observation and sensation. So, the crucial point to note is that science is based on empiricism, and I have refuted empiricism in the previous essay. So, we can dismiss science straightaway, without further ado. But, since such a big deal is made about science by the majority of the populace, it will be worth the effort to show them the chinks in the scientific armor.

There is a truism in scientific circles that they will accept something as true only when “proved” by science. It is repeated so often, and from various angles such that most school goers and college students are brainwashed with this maxim. It will take a considerable amount of reason to wipe this from their consciousness.

It can be stated without exaggeration that the first principle of the scientific worldview is that “everything should be proved by science.” But again, does this proposition justify itself? Does it satisfy the very demands it is making? Can you prove that very statement – that “everything should be proved by science” – by science? No! Worse still, can you deduce the other components of a worldview such as metaphysics, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology from such a first principle? No! Right at the level of the first principle, science collapses, but wait! I have lots more to say. Keep reading…

Observation and Sensation

The first thing to note about science is that it is based on observation, which, in turn, is based on sensations. Sensations are unreliable, which is why two people looking at the same thing, can come up with totally different conclusions. Please read the previous essay on empiricism to understand why sensations are unreliable.

If observation is SO reliable, then why do you want to repeat an experiment? Why do you want other people to repeat the same experiment? This is a subtle betrayal that your senses are not reliable, and you want to test them again.

But, how many times do you want to repeat it? Three times? Five times? Thirty-seven times? On what basis do you set the limit? Who decides, and why? That is purely arbitrary.

Also, most scientists are not content with their own experimentation. They want others to repeat them. But why? Is it because your own sensations are not reliable? If so, are the observations and sensation of the next scientist reliable? How do you know? Who decides? Do you want to call in a third person? But why should his senses be more reliable than both of yours’ put together? When do you decide where to stop?

How many people should repeat the experiment? In how many places should they repeat it? There is no rational justification for the choice that is made here. Most often for the sake of convenience, the readings and experiments are repeated three to five times, under highly selective conditions, by few or several people.

Let me illustrate what I have written above with an example which might strike you close to home. Try jogging your memory back to your high school physics lab. Take any experiment you want. I will use the simple illustration of the experiment in which we measure the focal length of a concave or convex lens. Were all the readings you got the same? Wasn’t there a variation? What does this mean? It means that your senses are not reliable. Now go and check the readings your other classmates have got. Were they the same? If you have any degree of intellectual honesty, you will say no.

Usually, the readings will be close to the actual focal length of the lens, but it is not unusual to get a reading which is far outside the “normal” range. For example, if the actual focal length was 20cm, the readings you get might be 18.4cm, 19.2cm, 17.5cm, 18.7cm, and so on. On more than one occasion, when doing this experiment several times, you might get 13.4cm, 24.5cm or something similar.

You can apply this line of reasoning to any experiment you did in high school or college – whether it is measuring the thickness of a wire using the screw gauge, checking the temperature at which salivary amylase acts, or about the color of the flame when calcium salts are burned – and you will see the unreliable nature of observation. Scientists have no explanation for this happening, which is why during calculations with the data, when they want the “results,” the eccentric readings will be left out. This is not logical acumen, but selective bias. I will write more about this shortly. So, point one is that science is based on observation, and since observation is unreliable, science is unreliable.

Induction

Next, we have to note that science is based on induction. Induction is the attempt to arrive at universal conclusions based on general instances. But induction is always a formal fallacy. By observing isolated instances one can never make a universally binding statement. This is so because, to make a universal statement, one needs all the knowledge that is possible, and that means you should be omniscient.

Take for example, the experiment whereby gravity is determined by observing a pendulum bob. By just observing the motion of a steel pendulum for a few seconds, followed by a few calculations, you cannot generously state that gravity is the same everywhere, all the time. Have you observed all the pendulum bobs in the past, present, and future? Have you observed them in all places, under conditions which differ from yours? What if you used a bob made out of lead, or a hollow copper bob filled with water or mercury? Will the readings and calculation remain the same? Will the calculation for the “gravity” you get be unanimous? Go try it out, and honestly evaluate the results.

You will find that even when using the same bob, under the same conditions, you get different readings, let alone using different material in different conditions! You see, based on couple of hours of experimentation in an air-conditioned lab, surrounded by the scientific “aura,” you cannot make a universally binding authoritative statement.

Vincent Cheung takes this one step further. In his book, Ultimate Questions, he writes this:

Some people try to rescue induction by saying that, although it cannot conclusively establish any proposition, at least it can establish a proposition as probable. But this is both misleading and false. Probability refers to “the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes.” Even if we grant that empirical and inductive methods can discover the numerator of the fraction (although I deny that they can do even this), to determine the denominator requires knowledge of a universal, and omniscience is often necessary to establish this.

Since probability consists of a numerator and a denominator, since the denominator is a universal, and since empirical and inductive methods cannot know universals, then to say that induction can arrive at “probable” knowledge is nonsense. Even apart from other insoluble problems inherent in empiricism itself, an epistemology that is based on an empirical principle cannot succeed, since empiricism necessarily depends on induction, and induction is always a formal fallacy.[1]

Asserting the consequent

Next, science cannot avoid the fallacy of asserting the consequent. In logical language it is stated as,

1. If P, then Q

2. Q

3. Therefore P

Notice the form of the argument. Premise 1 only states what will follow if P is the case. That is, if P is true, then Q will be true. But there are a number of things which can be substituted for P, and still Q will be true. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Q will follow only from P. I will illustrate this with an example. If it is raining, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet. Therefore it is raining. However, the conclusion just does not follow from the premises. The ground can be wet due to so many reasons. A water pipe might be leaking, or a truck might have spilled water along the way.

I will use another example from my field of study. If the brain stem is damaged, then the patient will be dead. The patient is dead; therefore the brain stem is damaged. This is ridiculous! The patient can die due to various reasons. It just does not follow that the brain stem has to be damaged in all situations. He might have had a heart failure, renal failure, respiratory failure, or a massive blood loss.

Take another example from literature. If someone reads Shakespeare, he will have good command over the English language. He has good command over the English language; therefore, he has read Shakespeare. This again, is fallacious!

If the law of gravitation is true, then freely falling bodies will have constant acceleration. Freely falling bodies have constant acceleration; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Can you see the fallacious nature of this type of “reasoning”?

The scientist starts off with a hypothesis where he predicts a result. He then, performs an experiment, and he gets the result. Therefore, the smart scientist concludes, his hypothesis is true! This is the type of “thinking” that takes place in the hallowed portals of science today. Science “works” by asserting the consequence, and you cannot achieve formal syllogistic validity with such type of reasoning. It is irremediably fallacious. You cannot side-step this fact, no matter how much you try to brush it under the carpet of scientific jargon and elitism.

Equations are Arbitrary

Next, we will deal with the method by which equations are discovered. Again, let’s go back to your high school physics lab. You have dangled the pendulum bob and recorded readings till your patience is exhausted. You have a set of readings, which are different from each other. Then you take the sum of them and then divide them by the number of readings. That is then touted as the “objective” value. But why did you choose to average all the readings? Why not take the mode? Why not the median?

You see, your choice of the average was purely whimsical. That is, it was arbitrary. Your data did not dictate that choice to you. You have a set of data before you. Now what do you do with it? How do you proceed? No matter in which direction you go, the data did not direct you to do so. It is a private decision independent of the data.

And, even then, what you have is the average, and not the actual reading itself. It seems like you have thrown out all your facts (the recordings) and stick to what is not a fact (the average). So much for observation, experimentation, and the claim that science deals with “facts”! Half-baked characters, whether in the university or in the ghetto, can easily chant that “science discovers facts, science discovers facts…” again and again. But asserting something again and again does not make it true.

I have just shown you that in science, you never deal with the “facts” as they are. You twist and contort them according to your personal whims. Scientific laws are not discovered, they are always chosen according to the private fancy of the investigating scientist. The raw data does not dictate the mathematical procedure you use to arrive at your conclusions. It is done on a purely subjective basis, and cloaked as “objectivity” in academic circles. So much for the intellectual neutrality which scientists claim!

But wait! I am not done yet. We are yet to see how laws are derived. You take your “facts” and plot them on a graph. Then it is time for you to draw a line. But how do you choose? There are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through the points on the graph. Each line will represent a particular equation. But which line do you choose? Again, that is purely arbitrary! Which line represents the “real” equation? There are infinite number of lines for you to choose from. What is the probability that you will hit the right line? It is one divided by infinity, which is…..zero. Are you shocked? I have just subjected science to strictly logical analysis and this is what emerges.

In case you are dumb enough to say that I am “biased” because of my worldview, and therefore you won’t listen to me, at least listen to what others who have nothing to do with my worldview have said. Karl Popper, a very famous philosopher of science states, “It can be shown that all scientific theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.”[2] Albert Einstein, speaking about the real nature of the universe, said: “We know nothing about it at all…. The real nature of things we shall never know, never.”[3] Now, that was Albert Einstein for you. Bertrand Russell, who was antagonistic to Christianity all his life, said that all scientific laws are based on asserting the consequent, and thus, knowledge is impossible on the basis of science.

Ideal Situations

Finally, we have to note that all scientific laws describe ideal situations, which are never possible to attain in “real” life. Gordon Clark illustrates this point, again, with the pendulum bob.

The law of the pendulum states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.

Some might say that this might apply to physics and not to other disciplines such as sociology and biology. I do not dispute that. But that doesn’t mean you can escape from the rest of the above refutation such as the unreliable nature of observation, induction, asserting the consequent and so on. I mostly chose examples from physics because it is foundational to other experimental disciplines. Coming to the point, in science you deal with ideal situations which are impossible to replicate in real life. You cannot have absolute vacuum, frictionless surfaces, and tensionless strings. If this is so, then on what basis do scientists so cockily assert anything? Purely on the basis of their imagination. Nothing else. What passes for “knowledge” in scientific circles is nothing more than imagination, which is neatly re-packaged as “facts.” In fact, the present day structure for benzene, which is used all over the world in all chemistry textbooks was based on a dream which Kekule (a German chemist) had where he saw a snake engulfing its tail by its mouth. And today, his dream is the basis for chemical equations involving benzene all over the world!

Tissue of logical fallacies

John Robbins calls the scientific method “a tissue of logical fallacies.” Nothing can be more appropriate. Science can give you results, but not truth. So when people say things like “something is true only when proved by science,” they do not know what they are talking about or asking for. “Scientific truth” is an oxymoron. Science can never rid itself of the fallacies which are a part and parcel of its foundational methodology.

There is no point hoping that sometime in the future, we will discover truth through science. As long as you are stuck with empiricism, induction, and asserting the consequent, there is no way you can get out the epistemological abyss. No way! (In case you didn’t hear me the first time.)

But it works!

“But science works!” you say. I heat food with microwaves, fly in planes, send e-mails and so on. It “works”! But you have only succeeded in telling me what science can do. You have not told me how it can discover truth. Science can achieve a lot of pragmatic ends, and its function stops right there. It can NEVER furnish you with truth. This explains why false theories have also “worked.” Long before the theories of relativity, Newtonian mechanics was in vogue and it “worked.” So, when Einstein challenged scientific orthodoxy with relativity, they criticized him severely. But today, physics is unthinkable without relativity! Did Newtonian mechanics “work”? Yes! Do the theories of relativity “work”? Oh, yes! But how can contradictory theories both “work”? Well, welcome to “science”!

Let me again use an example from medicine. About fifteen or twenty years ago doctors stated that beta-blockers (a drug meant for reducing high blood pressure) should never be used in heart failure. So, in your board exams if you had mentioned that you can, in fact, use them, the examiners would have flunked you. Now the medical community recommends the same drug for heart failure with a big smile! You ask, what the heck is going on? (You now realize what a BIG stake you make on your doctor!) In fact, if you are relying too much on medical technology, just read up on the history of medicine and you will actually discover that the “trial and error” method was at the crux of the whole enterprise! Your doctor might not aware of all this. Maybe you should wake him up!

Scientific Mythology

The false conceptions of science which are embraced by scientists and other “intellectuals” is similar to the wide-eyed fascination with which children listen to mythological stories. The essence of mythology is to take you out of your humdrum world and promise you something which it cannot deliver. In the beginning, kids do not realize this, but later on, during adolescence, they grow out of it. The same way, the problem with the big kids – the scientists – is that they never even come close to intellectual puberty, let alone mature after that. They keep listening and drooling, all the while hoping that science will deliver its mythological promises, which it never can.

The solution is not to discard science all together, but to realize its limits and not over-estimate it. Its time to strip the mythological elements in science which have been a part and parcel of its community for so long. Science can help us achieving practical ends. That’s all. Scientists should keep quiet after that. No matter how successfully the theories “work,” it cannot give you truth. This explains why even contradictory theories also “work.” It can never give you absolute truth, so it is always false.

Epilogue / Epitaph

All is said and refuted with regard to the scientific methodology (mythology?). We could have dismissed science straightaway since it is based on empiricism. But, since there is so much of hype created today about science and its ability to discover truth, I think it was worthwhile writing an entire essay blaspheming the god of science. I know many of you who venerate this idol called science will find my attitude to be sacrilegious. I know I might have stepped on your toes. I owe you no apologies for that. In fact, you should be glad that I exposed the falsity of your assumptions. This is the task my Master has equipped me for – to tear down unbelieving strongholds and to take every thought captive to Him (2 Corinthians 10:5). Have you believed that science gives you truth? Its time you woke up from your delusion. You should not expect something from science which it cannot deliver.

Are you having a negative reaction to what I wrote above? You can have three or four PhDs behind your name, you can stroke your chin and try to exude that elitist aura, and you can play with your gizmos, gadgets, and dials, while pretending to ignore the shakiness of your very scientific foundation. But I know where you stand, and I have exposed it to you. You can ignore all of it, and still convince yourself that you are very smart. But the truth is that you are so irrational and stupid, that your reaction seems like brute instinct, rather than careful logical deliberation. For if you had even once ounce of rationality and logical sense, you will see through the epistemologically shaky and irrational “foundation” of science. You can always fool ignorant simpletons with clichés which are asserted again and again in university circles. But if you try such gimmicks with the Ambassadors of Christ, we will turn and tear you to pieces (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Do you want to know absolute truth? With your epistemological bootstraps you cannot pull yourself out to find it. Unless the Light that enlightens every man reveals it to you, you will still remain in your epistemological void. Its time for mythology to end and Revelation to take over. “To the Law and the testimony. If they do not speak according to His Word, they have no light of dawn” (Isaiah 8:20).

---

[1] Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, p 20.

[2] Karl Popper, Conjecture and Refutations, Harper and Row, 1968; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 11.

[3] Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: Life and Times; Avon Books, 1971; p. 504; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 10.

[4] Empiricism

Introduction

Empiricism refers to the school of thought which says that all knowledge comes through sensations. That is, when we observe the world around us using our sensations, we gain knowledge. The major proponents in this school of thought were David Hume, John Locke, and George Berkeley. We have already refuted David Hume in the previous essay on agnosticism, so we shall not repeat the same here. Moreover, I will not give a critique of individual views here, since the refutation I outline here will apply to all of them. There have also been some religious men such as Thomas Aquinas and William Paley who have advocated empiricism and tried to build a case for God’s existence based upon that. I will include a brief critique of “religious empiricism” as well.

The First Principle

Empiricism alleges that all our knowledge comes through sensations. Therefore when we see, hear, touch, or feel something, we gain knowledge. Observation is the means of acquiring knowledge.

Now, the questions to be posed to empiricist is, How do you know that all knowledge comes from sense experience? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes from sensations, derived from sensations itself? If not, where did you get that proposition from? How do you know sensations are reliable? How can one state that all knowledge is derived from sensations, without demonstrating the reliability of sensations?

Empiricism collapses right at this level. The first principle is not self-authenticating, and does not make knowledge possible. We can dismiss empiricism right away, but we will pose some more questions and see the logical pitfalls in empirical epistemology.

How do you “sense” sensations?

How do you “know” what is a sensation? That is, how do you know you are experiencing a sensation? Do you know that also on the basis of sensation? If so, then, what is the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? In other words, how do you sense a sensation? And how do you sense the sensation (S2) which senses the first sensation (S1)? And how do you sense the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation (S1)? And you cannot stop there! How do you sense the sensation (S4) that senses the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? You will have to go ad infinitum. You can never even being your worldview if you want to hold on to your view that sensations convey knowledge.

What I have written above is neither a tongue twister nor an exercise for semantics. It is nothing but the logical outworking of empiricism. If it is true that all knowledge comes from sensations, then on the basis of empiricism, you cannot even start your worldview. With which sensation are you going to begin with? And why do you choose that sensation? Nobody has still answered the question of how they know they are having a sensation. Moreover, how do you know that you are not having a sensation? Again, on the basis of sensation? How do you “sense” that you are not having a sensation? You see, empiricism is fatally flawed right at the beginning.

Most importantly, how does sensation translate to knowledge in your mind? One has to write down in syllogistic form the argument defending the view that sensations can instill knowledge in the mind. All of them believe that the mind is a tabula rasa, which is like a blank slate, and sensations writes knowledge on the mind.

But how did you get to know that the mind is a blank slate in the first place? By sensation? Through which sensation did you sense that the mind is blank? Have you “sensed” your own mind the in the first place? How?

How did you sense that the mind is “blank”? If the mind is “blank” how did you manage to sense it? What is there in the mind for you to sense it, if it is blank? But, what is the “mind,” to begin with in the first place? Answer that question in a manner consistent with your epistemology. On the basis of sensations alone, first define what the “mind” is. Then, tell me how you got to know that this mind was blank. Again, answer that question on the basis of empiricism alone.

According to you, one has to sense everything to get to know it. But how do you sense a mind? Through sight? Sound? Touch?! Taste?!! Smell?!!! You see, I am simply drawing out the implications of empiricism for you. Do you see with your eyes what is in your mind? Do you hear it? Do you smell it?! Do you taste it?! Do you feel it? Now, tell me, how did you sense your own mind, let alone the minds of other people? Answer that question before reading further. I am holding you to the empiricism you are holding on to. Justify sensations, and then go ahead.

If the mind is “blank,” as empiricists claim, what is there for you to sense in the first place? There won’t be anything for you to sense! So, how in the world can you state that the mind is blank without even knowing what you are talking about? Are you trying to be funny or something?

And how do you sense when the mind is filled with sensations? And how do you sense the sensation that is conveying knowledge to the mind? Have you “sensed” these sensations? How do you know which sensations you are sensing? Again, on the basis of sensation? If you are bombarded with a whirlpool of sensations, which sensation do you pick out from to convey knowledge to you? Again, on the basis of sensation? You should answer all these questions if you seriously believe that empiricism is justifiable.

You see, I am asking, how do sensations translate to knowledge? Write down an argument in non-fallacious syllogistic form and demonstrate that sensations can convey and instill knowledge to the mind. It is impossible to write down that argument. Read again what I have underscored and then think of attempting such an endeavor. You will need all the luck in the universe, since you can never achieve formal syllogistic validity! How can you deduce a proposition form a sensation? Go ahead! I am waiting for some entertainment! Where will you start?! With which premise?!!! And again, if you want to maintain your consistency, you should first begin by justifying your “sensational” epistemology in the first place! (Pardon the pun, but I cannot avoid sarcasm here!) Getting my opponent into such a position is real fun, and resulting nuisance value is simply rollicking!

Are Sensations Reliable?

We know that mosquitoes bite and the water running between our feet in the beach sand feels good because we “sense” these events. However not everybody experiences this in the same way. People who have advanced leprosy will not be able to feel either a mosquito bite or the water running through their toes. People who are blind will not be aware that it is a mosquito which bit them. A thirty year old might not feel mosquito bite with the same intensity as a newborn. Also, if the mosquito bites you in the sole of your foot it won’t be as painful as a bite on your eyelid. People who have had a spinal cord injury might not be aware that they have legs in the first place, let alone experience a bite. And some people, who have had a limb amputated, might still feel that a limb exists (phantom limb phenomenon), and feel pain in that non-existent limb!

You see, the real feeling or sensation is impossible to settle upon on because there are wide varieties of individual factors which will vary from person to person and from time to time. You cannot “know a thing as it is” on the basis of empiricism. Sensations not reliable and it is impossible for people to have a unanimous decision on any given sensation. Just read the examples I have given above. Each person can come up with contradictory interpretations. Take the example of a mirage when you are driving on a hot summer day. You thought it was water, but when you came near it turns out to be nothing! This is the way sensations are. You can never arrive at epistemic certainty on the basis of empiricism.

The scientific discipline is subject to the same pitfalls. Scientists can observe the same set of data and come up with contradictory interpretations. In the next post on scientific epistemology, I will deal with this in greater detail.

Empiricism and Induction

But, wait! I am not done yet. Empiricism is plagued with induction, and you have to answer the following questions as well. Induction refers to the method by which general conclusions are arrived at on the basis of observing particular facts. Now, we have already shown the problems with observation and sensation, and we need not repeat it again. But empiricism is infiltrated with induction, which again damages it all the more.

In induction, you observe a limited number of instances and then conclude that is the case everywhere, all the time. For example, you observe thousand crows, and all of them happen to be black, and then conclude that therefore, all the crows are black. But how do you know that? Have you examined all the crows in the past, present, and future all over the world? There might be an albino. Based on your limited observation (not to mention the problems with observation per se), you can never claim certainty.

Have you known all the minds in the universe in the first place? The minds of all the people who have lived are living and will live in the future? Have you known about the minds of all the people all over the world? If not, how in the world can you shamelessly make an authoritative statement that the all minds are blank and that knowledge is instilled by sensations? If you are trying to be funny, I can understand that. You are truly “sensational.” I appreciate your sense of humor, but the place to be funny is elsewhere and not in the arena of logical argumentation.

Religious Empiricism

William Paley, Thomas Aquinas, R. C. Sproul, and William Lane Craig, are some of the many Christian apologists and theologians who hold to empiricism. It is not my intention to discuss comparative apologetics at present. That will be deserved for a discussion much later on. For now, we will see a major pitfall in their reasoning.

They try to start on the basis of observation and then make a case for the existence of God. Again, they have to answer all the questions posed above. They cannot do that. It is impossible for empiricism to have a self-justifying epistemology.

But there is another area of their arguments which I would like to focus on right now. It is about how they arrive at “God” right at the end of the argument. William Paley was a priest who is famous for his “watch-maker” argument. His argument is based on the fact that there is order and design in the universe. Since it is so, there has to be Designer whom he equates to be God. But how does a Designer in one premise suddenly become God in the next premise? Which God (?god)? This last part of the argument makes a leap in logic. The conclusion just does not follow from the premise.

Thomas Aquinas starts with motion. He finally lands up with a First Mover, and then suddenly makes the conclusion that “it” is God. But which God? The God of the Bible? Or the god of Islam? Or some neo-platonic conception of God? You see, right at the end of the argument, they make a leap from some impersonal entity to “God.” First, this argument is not valid since, if you trace the premises carefully, this conclusion does not follow them. Next, simply stating “God” will not do. Is this “God” the Trinitarian God who has revealed Himself in the Bible or the monistic god of Hinduism?

You see, it’s not some “generic” theism which Christians should defend and preach. We should defend a specific and exclusive Christian theism which will rule out all views contrary to it right from the beginning. I will write more on this when writing about comparative apologetics.

Epilogue (?Epitaph)

All has to do with empiricism has been discussed and refuted. If you still hold on to the view that knowledge comes through sensations, it is not because you are logically smart, but because you are irrational and hopeless. There is no hope for you unless the Morning Star rises in your heart to remove your intellectual blindness. Read on, and you will be told about the Light that enlightens every man.

[3] Agnosticism

Introduction

Agnosticism refers to the school of thought in philosophy which asserts that it is not possible to gain knowledge regarding anything. The term was coined by T. H. Huxley, literally meaning “no-knowledge.” It is also called skepticism. The prominent men in this school of thought were David Hume and Immanuel Kant. They laid the philosophical basis for agnosticism. Immanuel Kant himself was a rationalist until he claimed he was woken up from his “dogmatic slumbers” by reading Hume. When studying the thoughts of these men, and refuting them, you will see that there are close overlaps with empiricism (the philosophy that all knowledge is gained by sensory experience). But since this essay deals with agnosticism, I will reserve a full rebuttal for empiricism later on. In this essay, I would like to briefly outline the chief contributions to agnosticism, refute them, and finally show you that agnosticism kills itself, with its very first principle.

David Hume

David Hume was a philosopher who lived during the time of the European Enlightenment. His epistemology of skepticism led him to agnosticism, and to throw doubt on the possibility of the miraculous and suspend judgments on metaphysical questions.

His skepticism was based on his epistemology. He was an empiricist, and hence believed that all knowledge comes only through sensations. Since no knowledge of God could be gained through sensory experience, he concluded that we cannot know God. In his famous Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding he writes this:

“If we take in our hand any volume – of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance – let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Read the above quote carefully, for with these very words Hume digs his own grave. He says that if a proposition is neither mathematical (abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number) nor empirical (experimental reasoning), it is meaningless. But look at the very statements he made to assert that! Is it either mathematical or empirical? Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. So, what shall we do with his words? In his own words, let us then, commit it to the flames, for it can nothing but sophistry and illusion! According to him, if a statement is neither analytical nor empirical it is meaningless. But look at the very statements he wrote to assert that. It is neither analytical nor empirical. By a consistent application of his own criteria we ought to conclude that his statements are meaningless.

So what do we do with his ideas and books? Commit it to the flames! History does not record whether he was consistent enough to do that, but it’s amazing and funny to see that these so-called giants in the history of philosophy made a morass of their own thinking, but were never aware of it. Hume’s skepticism was a result of his empirical epistemology. But who said that all knowledge comes through sensations? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes through sensations come through sensations itself? Then where did it come from? You can see an inconsistency right there.

Hume’s view was not a harmless one which was just another philosophy to fade with time. It had positive impact on Auguste Comte of the Vienna Circle, and later, A. J. Ayer, who came up with logical positivism. This is a philosophy of language which states that if a statement is not empirically verifiable, then it is meaningless and nonsensical. This view had devastating effects on Christian theology. Since all statements about God would fall outside empirical verification, they concluded that theology is nonsense. However, logical positivism too died by its own sword, since the very first principle that all statements should be empirically verifiable was not empirically verifiable.

Immanuel Kant

Another individual who owed his intellectual development to Hume was Immanuel Kant. He was trained in the rationalist line of thought which was advanced by Rene Descartes, Benedict Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. The rationalists stressed a priori categories of the human mind, and knowledge. They were against the idea that knowledge comes through sensations. Contrary to that, the empiricists, such as John Locke, David Hume, and George Berkley stated that the human mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that knowledge is gained by sensations. These two schools of thought are rivalry, and Kant attempted a synthesis between these two philosophies. What seemed like an epistemological advantage actually landed him up in agnosticism.

Kant was initially trained in the rationalistic tradition, but then after reading Hume he claimed that he was “awakened” from his “dogmatic slumber.” He tried to attempt a synthesis between these two ideas. He said that all our knowledge is gained a posteriori from sensations, but it is structured by the a priori categories in the mind.

However, following this syncretistic epistemology which appears to be an apparent epistemological gain, we land up with wholesale loss. If all knowledge which gained through sensations is structured by a priori categories, then we can only know things as they appear to us, not as they are in themselves. We can know the phenomena, but not the noumena. We cannot know a thing as it really is, but only how it appears to us. We cannot know reality, but only appearance. This led him to state that we can never know the real state of affairs about anything.

Types of Agnosticism

Norman Geisler outlines two ways in which agnosticism can be classified.[i] In the first type, agnosticism can be unlimited or limited. The former holds that God and reality is completely unknowable. The latter claims that God is only partially unknowable because of human finitude and sinfulness. This position will reserve careful consideration later on.

In the second type of categorization, agnosticism can be weak or strong. The weak form holds that God is unknowable, and the strong form holds that God cannot be known. Those who believe that God is unknowable, cannot drive home that proposition with rational certainty. This leaves open the option that God can be knowable. The stronger position, that God cannot be known is the view which deserves sharp criticism.

Geisler, when analyzing these views, narrows them down to three alternatives when discussing about knowledge of God:

[1] We can nothing about God; He is completely unknowable.

[2] We can know everything about God; He can be exhaustively known.

[3] We can know something, but not everything; God is partially knowable.

The first position will be analyzed shortly. The second and third position will be analyzed when dealing with theism and the possibility of knowledge. It is too big a topic to be discussed here and my intention right now is to refute agnosticism, and not to consider the alternatives to it.

Self-refuting statements

Complete agnosticism is self-refuting. The claim that “reality is unknowable” posits some claim to knowledge. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to make that statement in the first place. They know that reality is unknowable. One has to know something about God to state that God is cannot be known. In their explicit attempt to deny knowledge, the implicitly posit a claim to knowledge – they know that God cannot be known. One has to assume some knowledge about reality in order to deny all knowledge reality.

Thus we can see that agnosticism self-destructs. If you claim that we can know something, then you are no longer an agnostic. Agnostics are those who know for sure that you cannot know anything for sure. Agnosticism contradicts itself right at the level of the first principle and cannot move any further. Anybody claming to be an agnostic cannot have a worldview at all, since agnosticism is about denying knowledge rather than affirming it.

Agnosticism collapses at the level of the first principle and leaves you in an epistemological abyss. You cannot have a worldview on the basis of agnosticism. You are in intellectual darkness, groping about not knowing where you are going or what you are talking about. Of course, if you are consistent there, you would not “know” that you are in intellectual darkness, which is why you need Ambassadors of the Light to come and enlighten you about it.

Epilogue (?Epitaph)

Strictly speaking, agnosticism cannot be rightly classified as a legitimate epistemology, since in epistemology you are dealing with how knowledge can be attained, and agnostics are trying to avoid that very possibility. Are you skeptic and proud to be one? Have you believed that skepticism is synonymous with sophistication? Well it’s about time you woke up from your “dogmatic slumber.”

If you really don’t know anything, you should just keep your mouth shut. If you do not know, then why do you want to open your mouth to say anything in the first place? If you know nothing whatsoever about reality, you cannot make any statement about reality. Logically, you should keep silence. If you do, however, claim to be an agnostic, every time you open your mouth to state anything, you are contradicting yourself and writing your own epistemological epitaph.

Or are you are in the category which says “I do not know”? If that is so, I commend your humility in owning up to your ignorance. To correct ignorance one needs instruction. Keep reading further and you will be told about the Light that enlightens every man.

---

[i] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Books, 1999; p 11.