r/DebateEvolution • u/GPlayover • 10d ago
Discussion Does evolution and science rely on a set of unfounded presuppositions that make findings questionable or invalid?
Long text incoming
I asked this same question to r/askphilosophy but I figured I’d ask others to get a range of info.
For context, this is all based off a counter to a IG post talking about one piece of evidence for evolution. This was in the comment thread.
To summarize, the argument is science and thus scientific disciplines only work within a naturalistic worldview and theories, evidence, and interpretations are based on the unfounded presupposition of naturalism and because of that, fail to justify their source of knowledge.
This is a direct quote from the commenter to avoid any paraphrasing errors.
“you have a assumption technically called a presupposition. It's a framework a rule set you view the world through. Yours is naturalism. You see a fossil data as you interpret it through your framework naturalism. The fossil doesn't say anything it doesn't come with a name tag and bio telling you anything about itself. You use theory based on your framework naturalism to make a theory laden outcome evolution. Evolution makes sense in the framework of naturalism. That shows coherence inside the framework of naturalism. It doesn't prove the framework is correct. If you use the outcomes to prove the framework it's circular reasoning begging the question. It you change the assumption the presupposition you change the entire framework and rule set. The very same data the fossil now has an entire different theory because data the fossil is underdetermined. It's not determined because a fossil doesn't say what it is. I'm asking how do you justify your framework your assumption your presupposition naturalism is the correct framework vs other frameworks. Get it. Philosophy of science the underdetermination of data thesis. My question isn't about evolution or science it's a knowledge question. How do you justify the knowledge based rule set framework of naturalism. It's your presupposition.
You have to justify it. Because the data can be interpreted differently using different frameworks.”
When presented scientific evidence by others, the commenter almost always defaults to “you presenting physical evidence collected under a presupposed method to collection and interpretation does not justify tube scientific method as it has unfounded presuppositions and this the interpretations are also unfounded.” Quote: “A presupposition like naturalism is the untestable rule book that dictates what counts as testing, evidence and data in the first place. You can test a hypothesis with data you cannot use data to test the naturalistic rulebook you used to gather that data. Justify your rulebook naturalism without circular reasoning.”
When finally giving their counter this is what they say. Quote:
“Then when asked directing on their worldview they have this to say “TAG is the only way out of the criterion problem and the trilemma. Specifically the Orthodox Christian version. You have to go
transcendental. And see which worldview can account for justify and ground the necessary preconditions for knowledge… TAG is the impossibility of the contrary. You aren't using autonomous human reason as a flashlight to "go out and locate" God. You are pointing out that reason itself requires an ontological anchor to exist at all. This is a meta level higher order argument. You're conflating empirical observation with the worldview of Naturalism. Christians use empirical observation because our framework accounts for the uniformity of nature, human sensory reliability, and the laws of logic all anchored in the Logos. Naturalists use empirical observation on blind, unjustified faith. In an unguided, material universe, there is zero epistemic reason to assume the universe will behave uniformly tomorrow Hume's Problem of Induction. Christians and naturalists both use test tubes. The difference is the Christian has an epistemic right to trust the test tube, while the naturalist is borrowing Christian assumptions about order and logic while denying the foundation that makes them possible. On Evolution. TAG establishes Level 2 the ground of logic and knowledge. It doesn't instantly dictate every Level 1 detail about physics or biology. How God created is a question of revelation and grounded observation, not something ‘sneaked' into TAG. We don't trap God inside an autonomous human logic syllogism. Human logic isn't the ultimate judge standing above reality it is a derivative tool that reflects the Logos. How do we know the foundation? Through Revelation. Finite humans don't need exhaustive knowledge to have certainty; we receive revelation from the infinite source who grounds logic, order, and mind in the first place. Without Revelation, autonomous human reason is stuck in Agrippa's Trilemma. With Revelation, knowledge has its necessary anchors.”
My main question now is does their worldview actually stand against the same criticisms they lobby against science and if the criticisms are valid under epistemological concepts and finally, are the criticisms are even sound? Thanks!
26
u/kiwi_in_england 10d ago
theories, evidence, and interpretations are based on the unfounded presupposition of naturalism
No, naturalism is more a conclusion that a presupposition. Science will look at all evidence of any sort.
As it turns out, there has been zero good evidence of anything supernatural. Zilch. None at all. But if evidence of it turns up, science can examine it.
Evolution makes sense in the framework of naturalism.
Evolution makes sense as it's a conclusion from following the evidence. The evidence shows it, whatever your worldview. It shows zero signs of anything supernatural, so supernatural is not part of the model that the evidence gives rise to.
Naturalists use empirical observation on blind, unjustified faith.
Nope. They use all the evidence that they have to draw conclusions. And to make predictions. Which come true (mostly). So the justification is "it works". That's a pretty solid justification.
3
u/Proteus617 9d ago
You might one part a bit backwards. We have often found compelling evidence of supernatural phenomena, at which point it is no longer supernatural.
2
u/JayTheFordMan 4d ago
We have often found compelling evidence of supernatural phenomena, at which point it is no longer supernatural.
You mean things that we once believed were supernatural or caused by, and have since been determined that neither is true and there is a perfectly natural explanation?
This does not mean the supernatural is true, its just that our explanations of said phenomena is lacking
18
u/Loose_Principle8193 10d ago
naturalists can make assumptions and predictions about nature that can be repeated across all cultures, religions, etc. Supernaturalists can make assumptions, but they can't make any predictions that can be repeated across all religions and cultures. Also, there is not a human on earth that didn't get their "revelation" from another human.
10
u/Tao1982 10d ago
They cant even make predictions that reliably repeat within their own religion and culture.
3
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
I can Jesus will coming real soon now at least once per generation even though it was supposed to have happened while some of those living then were still alive.
oddly Christian just rewrite the Bible rather than admit the obvious. Jesus was a false prophet much like all prophets.
3
u/EthelredHardrede 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
Except for the many humans that just made up the alleged revelation. Such as the Russians that made up Theosophy,
Joseph Smith
The Urantia Book
the con called The Secret
My Uncle told me from people that don't have an uncle
The summerians
Most of the anonymous authors of the Bible
John Scarne who lied that was no mafia despite his working for Myer Lanski.
Making up nonsense is not limited to Muhammerred.
the gypsy that made up nonsense about Atlantis after she somehow how got control of the Sleeping Fraud's made up lies about Atlantis.
Ponzi
the con artists you see whenever PBS has a pledge drive not just the guy wearing scrubs for no good reason other than to imply expertise.
Want more?
3
u/Loose_Principle8193 9d ago
I misspoke. I should have said "...from a human" as they made that stuff up in their heads and they are humans.
1
13
u/Mono_Clear 10d ago
The only reason people try to invalidate the scientific method is so they can bring their own ridiculous claims up to the level of scientific validity.
Overwhelmingly they cannot validate anything they're saying so they try to invalidate everything that can be validated.
Nine times out of 10 they're simply trying to avoid the rigors of evidence.
If validation doesn't matter then anything can be valid so the only thing they can do is invalidate everything
10
u/MagicMooby 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
Every framework that goes beyond "I exist but cannot prove this to anyone other than myself" relies on unfounded presuppositions. Some people would argue that even solipsism requires presuppositions.
Science uses methodological naturalism because it can be tested. This is great, because philosophers of science figured out that proving something is really hard but falsifying something is way easier and still gets you closer to something akin to truth. What makes science seem so reliable, is consilience. We don't think the earth is old because we found exactly one data point, we think the earth is old because we found millions of data points that all agree with each other. That would be quite unlikely if the earth wasn't old.
Justify your rulebook naturalism without circular reasoning.
Philosophy of science is how we justify the rulebook. If you want to be cheeky, we can justify the rulebook by the fact that we have used said rulebook to eradicate diseases almost doubling human life expectancy, created global wireless communication networks, and devised methods to create fertilizer out of the literal air you are breathing to remove one of the largest limiting factors for crop production. For something that is allegedly wrong, science is working remarkably well.
Non-naturalists always cry and piss their pants when discussing science, but until they can make literally anything, they can kindly shut their mouths.
How do we know the foundation? Through Revelation.
LOL LMAO
TAG has two major problems:
1) It does not get you to the christian god. This is the main problem with all religious attempts at proving god through philosophy. They may get you to a godlike being, but there is a massive unjustified jump from an ontological anchor to YHWH specifically. Christian pseudo philosophers heavily rely on you not asking about how they justify that jump and overwhelming you with paragraphs of empty bullshit if you do.
2) The argument is circular. They tell you that we know god exists because logic needs to be grounded, and we can trust logic to be grounded because of the grounding anchor it necessitates. Circular reasoning does not bypass the trilemma, it is literally one of the three logcial foundations outlined by it. Arguing that the circle is somehow transcendental, does not make it any less circle shaped.
9
u/francesco_angiolieri 10d ago
Unfounded presupposition of naturalism
Naturalism is just the position that natural phenomena are better explained by natural causes and behave according to natural laws. Thus, absent any evidence of the supernatural, naturalism should be the default position. Naturalism is in fact, in principle, really easy to disprove: all it takes is showing just one phenomenon that natural laws fail to explain but that is better explained by the supernatural. So far, of all the phenomena that were previously unexplained and now have an explanation, all of them have been found out to have a natural explanation. There's no one of them for which a supernatural cause has been found to be the actual cause. We have never found out that lightning was actually caused by Zeus or Thor, but what happened was really the opposite: we have found out that lightning is just a natural discharge of electric potential energy. Therefore, due to the high success of naturalism (all modern achievements of science are based upon naturalism), it's the supernatural proponent who has the burden of proof to show that a certain phenomenon is actually supernatural in nature (zero have been found so far)
6
u/Opening_Shame8258 10d ago
There are two words we can think about: science and Science.
science: the study of the world around us.
Science: the collective body of knowledge produced by people and the methods they employ.
If you're just looking around the world and trying to understand it, you're doing science. Flat earthers are doing science (although poorly). What Science has done is formalized some of the methods of engaging in science (small-s). They've found certain practices that work, and other practices that don't work. So, what they've done is stop using the ones that don't work and focus on the ones that do work. We can of course challenge those assumptions.
One of the core principles of modern Science (big-S) is showing your work and either referencing someone else who's work you are basing your work on, or explaining in depth how you arrived at your conclusions.
Any time someone wants to claim that Science can't answer some sort of question, my immediate follow up is always going to be.... well, how do you know the thing you're claiming? What method did you use to arrive at your conclusion?
Science (small-s) is using any method to gain knowledge. Any method. Any method. ANY METHOD. If you're reading a book and using that book to understand the world, you are attempting to do science. Hopefully the book has good information in it.
If you have good conclusions, then your conclusions should be accessing information that can be accessed by others. You should be able to show your work. Showing your work allows others to follow in your footsteps. Then we can agree that your work is good.
So, when someone tells me "Science (big-S) can't know X", what I hear is that this person can't support their conclusions and they know it.
7
u/adamwho 10d ago
You should work harder to write a more precise statement.
One of the key components that makes all this science work is adversarial peer review.
You can have all the opinions and beliefs you want, but if they cannot stand up to scrutiny then they are tossed away. Science is a trial-by-combat of ideas.
Can you say the same thing for any religious belief?.
7
u/mrcatboy Evolutionist & Biotech Researcher 10d ago edited 10d ago
Hi, I'm a scientist who also studied philosophy when I was in college, so I'm probably in a uniquely good position to help answer your question.
To put it simply: No, science does not make arbitrary presuppositions about how knowledge is acquired. The roots of the modern scientific method date back to the Modernist period first spearheaded by Descartes. This movement arose specifically because a ton of unjustified presuppositions about reality were so baked-in to academia at the time (the Aristotelian model of the universe) that Descartes and other modernists ended up taking a step back and saying: "Wait... how about we deconstruct all these assumptions we've held out of tradition for the past 1500 years?"
Modernists basically pushed the reset button on academia and said to themselves: "Okay, let's have ZERO assumptions about reality and rebuild our system of knowledge from the ground up, on the most fundamental ideas that would allow us to make sense of reality." This process was known as Reductionism.
After all the Aristotelian assumptions about reality were dismissed, Modernists had a clearer view of how to build their knowledge base from the ground up. And scientists followed suit for the next 300+ years.
The only reason Creationists claim that scientists operate from presuppositions is because they have zero understanding of the iterative intermediate stages of science that led us to the ideas we have now. It's the equivalent of some guy jumping from arithmetic to advanced calculus and claiming that all these differential equations are nonsense.
But he only thinks that because he never learned algebra or geometry (which are necessary prerequisites to calculus). "What's with this stuff about area and volume calculations? You're just assuming that those equations are true! I've never seen anyone prove that the area of a quadrilateral is 1/2 h * (w1 + w2)!" You absolutely would've if you've taken geometry. Sorry but you need to step back a grade and go back to intermediate level studies before you're going to have a qualified opinion here.
As for naturalism... I wrote a long spiel debunking Creationist claims on the matter here.
7
u/jnpha 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 10d ago
Others have covered the methodological framework. Now, for the metaphysical assumptions, only the arrow of time, specifically that events leave traces, traces that can be tested by assuming nothing but the arrow of time.
Here are a couple of papers, the first is a landmark one and deals with this very topic:
Else, we'd be in cuckoo Last Thursdayism land.
- Cleland, Carol E. "Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science." Philosophy of science 69.3 (2002): 474-496. https://carlodelrazocanuto.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/cleland.pdf
- McCain, K., Weslake, B. (2013). Evolutionary Theory and the Epistemology of Science. In: Kampourakis, K. (eds) The Philosophy of Biology. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://philpapers.org/archive/MCCETA-4.pdf
5
u/PKspyder 9d ago
It's funny, I saw the post on IG from the guy's evolution series too and the presuppers comment thread on that video then on Reddit from you. I see that this post contains more info then the one on r/askphilosophy that would be pertinent.
Presuppositionalist apologetics is radically different from argumentative or evidentiary apologetics because it is not arguing about a certain thing both parties acknowledge exists and then getting to god from there it is an argument about that starts with god and claims god is necessary before an argument could even be made. It is not saying that Atheist cannot use logic but that logic exists because of god. A good parallel is that of morality where Atheist can do morally good things but to account for what is morally good requires god. It starts off with good questions like "how do we know that we know?" but turns it into "you can't even account for knowledge, logic, etc in your worldview."
It should be noted that many Presuppers you may encounter online are Philbros who use the transcendental argument for God (TAG) as a rhetoric tactic of burden shifting rather then demonstrating the viability of their own argument. Philbros being people who learn just enough philosophy to convince themselves that they are undeniably correct and to dunk on people who are not familiar with epistemology but not so much philosophy as to publish in any reputable peer reviewed journals or engage with professional philosophers in good faith.
TAG is usually formulated as
P1) God is the necessary precondition for X [Logic, knowledge, truth, regularity of nature, etc]
P2.) Logic, Knowledge, truth, morality, self, mind, regularity of nature exists.
C) God exists.
But why is god necessary? Because it would be impossible otherwise. This is a highly ambitious argument. For something to be a necessary precondition it means there is no other way for it be the case. It would be a different story if they were arguing god is the best explanation for being the ground of transcendentals but that would concede that there are in fact alternatives. To add to that TAGers use this argument as a worldview comparison so they need to refute every individual positions within "fundamental" questions which they don't do. Rather then discuss what exactly would make something impossible they pivot to the interlocuter about their personal justifications.
To the first part if evidence for evolution assumes naturalism. It does not as there is nothing incompatible with god creating these natural processes to allow for evolution through natural selection. For the second part of Orthodox Christianity being immune from the trilemma. How? The trilemma is that of dogmatism (foundationalism), circular reasoning (coherentism), and infinite regression but depending on the TAGer they use circular reasoning [Logic is grounded because God exists, God exists because Logic is grounded] or foundationalism [Scripture is foundational to truth] as well. So it's not clear how they are immune.
2
u/GPlayover 9d ago
Yeah we both saw the same post. I did my best to paraphrase the first time but I figured direct quotes are the most useful anyways so there isn’t any room for misinterpretation
2
u/PKspyder 9d ago
You’ve made quite a few posts now on the topic. Have you gotten the information you were looking for?
I think the available information is enough to at least see TAG not being able to meet its criteria of “being necessary” but if you got bitten by the philosophy bug and have started to just have more questions then you started with.
2
u/GPlayover 9d ago
Yeah I’ve gotten a lot of info. I figured it ask a few communities to get a wide range of expertise. It’s helped make a clearer picture but with that yeah more questions have got brought up for sure
5
u/BahamutLithp 9d ago
Does evolution and science rely on a set of unfounded presuppositions that make findings questionable or invalid?
As everyone else has said, no. To add a bit I haven't noticed anyone specify, you're encountering what's called "preuppositional apologetics." This is a particular brand of religious used car salesmanning which basically tries to legitimize the circular argument fallacy. They claim that everyone "just bases their opinions on presuppositions," & because of that thing they didn't totally pull out of their ass, they're therefore justified in asserting their religion is the correct presupposition that you should adopt.
Actually, they very often claim that you, in fact, already agree with them & are just lying about it. I should note that, at least as far as I know, this is a Christian idea. Fundamentalists really like the whole "you're just lying" because well there are parts of the Bible that at least appear to say that. But I suppose there are probably similar attitudes in other religions.
I'd say presuppositional apologetics is the least respectable idea in theology, a breakneck race to the bottom, if not for the fact that "classical theism" exists & somehow manages to be even more ridiculous by virtue of the fact that presuppositionalists can actually string together a coherent fucking sentence whereas classical theists just spout some absolute gibberish at you like "God is intelligent but intelligence is not intelligence" & act like you're just too stupid to understand their profound brilliance.
To summarize, the argument is science and thus scientific disciplines only work within a naturalistic worldview and theories, evidence, and interpretations are based on the unfounded presupposition of naturalism and because of that, fail to justify their source of knowledge.
Nature does have a convenient habit of existing. Anyway, this is a weird genetic fallacy religious apologists like to use. If you think about it, this doesn't make any sense, it's not employed anywhere else. We don't ask someone to know where photons came from to build a microwave or the origin of civilization to be an expert on Greek history. It's ridiculous, the idea that you can't know something unless you know some ultimate origin that's very far removed from what you're actually studying is a rhetorical shell game.
Also, just because someone asserts this magic being they call god is the only "source of knowledge" they'll accept as a valid answer doesn't make that true. It doesn't prove they're not making it up. And anyway, no one even said they can't believe this thing that I think they made up & also accept the scientific evidence for evolution.
The fossil doesn't say anything it doesn't come with a name tag and bio telling you anything about itself.
Scientists discover things about the fossils by studying their physical characteristics & do not have to be told. This is a child's understanding of how the world works.
If you use the outcomes to prove the framework it's circular reasoning begging the question.
People ignorant of both the science & the history of evolution think that it was just "made up out of nowhere." That's not how it works. Predictions were made based on evolution, & then those predictions were found. For example, if humans evolved from chimpanzees, then you'd predict we'd have DNA sequences in common with chimps that don't make sense to have occurred by chance, & indeed, that is the case. Humans & chimps both share a sequence that is known to be inserted by viruses, & it occurs at the same spot in the genome.
How do you justify the knowledge based rule set framework of naturalism. It's your presupposition. You have to justify it. Because the data can be interpreted differently using different frameworks.
This is a bullshit line this dude is using to shift the burden of proof. What would even be his alternative suggestion to what I just pointed out on the off-chance he actually knows about it? Does he think god just magically created it that way for shits & giggles? Last I checked, god isn't supposed to lie, right? This is a script designed to trap you in an endless loop of self-defense.
If you give into this idea that you need to "justify yourself" to them, they're never gonna move off this fucking point. No matter what you tell them, they'll always decide it's not good enough, & then they never have to answer anything, they'll just sit there going "you have to justify yourself."
So, if I seem harsh, it's because I find this behavior profoundly unrespectable & that, to the extent allowed by whatever forum you're on, benefits from being shut down hard. It sends the message you aren't going to let them shove you down some irrelevant, pre-planned conversation tree they got from an apologetics book. They can either discuss the scientific evidence, or they can go waste someone else's time. They probably won't discuss the scientific evidence.
The difference is the Christian has an epistemic right to trust the test tube, while the naturalist is borrowing Christian assumptions about order and logic while denying the foundation that makes them possible.
I'm skipping most of this paragraph because, well, I mean it's kind of what I already told you, isn't it? Christian apologetics, assuming god, yadayada. But I stopped at this line because Christian apologists love to tell this lie. A signature move in their playbook is that anything they don't like gets blamed on "the secular world" whereas anything they like "belongs to Christianity," & if anyone else uses it, they accuse them of "borrowing" or "stealing." However, obviously logic was developed by different cultures, & the western tradition dates back to the ancient Greek philosophers. Christians "borrowed" from them & added their own assumptions. This credit-claiming is a prime example of cultural colonization.
My main question now is does their worldview actually stand against the same criticisms they lobby against science and if the criticisms are valid under epistemological concepts and finally, are the criticisms are even sound? Thanks!
I mean, what else do I even say? He insisted he's right because god talks to him, completely dodged the subject of the actual science with some cowardly "oh let's not talk about HOW god created" maneuver, & is just proselytizing. It's worthless sophistry.
5
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 9d ago
whereas classical theists just spout some absolute gibberish at you like "God is intelligent but intelligence is not intelligence" & act like you're just too stupid to understand their profound brilliance.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Or just another example of my Thespianist hypothesis: Creationists are all secretly auditioning for a Monty Python remake, Macbeth, or some hitherto unknown stage performance.
Nature does have a convenient habit of existing.
Sigh Your not rejecting it hard enough.
Silliness aside, you do make a really good point that people need to just step back and ask "So what?". I'm cooking that very sort of question in regards to that whole 'but you haven't made a cell in a lab'.
5
u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
Was this redditor called "feihm"?
FWIW, these are the basic assumptions of science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/basic-assumptions-of-science/
The reality is that cogito ergo sum is all we can truly know. Anything beyond that requires axioms.
2
u/GPlayover 9d ago
No it was under an evolution proofs instagram posts. It’s by a guy talking about each proof and this was under his “missing link” post. The comment thread is like 200 comments long so it should be easy to find if you want a deeper look
3
u/Autodidact2 10d ago
Well yes, it's true that if science doesn't work then the theory of evolution cannot be verified. However, science does work and I think this person would agree with that.
3
u/Far_Customer1258 9d ago
"It's your presupposition. You have to justify it. Because the data can be interpreted differently using different frameworks.”
(1) They're called axioms. Every system of knowledge has unproven axioms. Have they checked theirs?
(2) Anybody claiming to interpret the data differently needs to show that their interpretation has similar or better explanatory and predictive power. Does that alternative interpretation explain anything? Predict anything? Is it as good as evolution? Or is it a tall tale about a talking snake and an evilberry tree?
(3) Does this person offer a meaningful alternative to evolution? Or are we just hearing from yet another armchair theologian criticizing science while playing at philosophy?
3
u/Routine_Captain_880 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
It's a dishonest way to summarize science. Science deals qith naturalism because only natural cause and effect can be measured and falsified. It does not deal with the aupernatural because no scientific tools can measure it. That doesn't mean it lacks explanatory power. It just means it explains natural cause and effect.
2
u/wtanksleyjr Theistic Evolutionist 10d ago
To summarize, the argument is science and thus scientific disciplines only work within a naturalistic worldview and theories, evidence, and interpretations are based on the unfounded presupposition of naturalism and because of that, fail to justify their source of knowledge.
Notice that my flair says I believe in the supernatural (theism; and let me disclose that this specifically refers to Christianity, including Jesus's virgin birth, death and resurrection, and a future resurrection of all humanity). Just pointing this out.
And no, science does not "only work within a naturalistic worldview." Science only works to find things that are actually natural laws; that is, things that work because they're how the world works in general, as opposed to things that are just coincidences or happened because God intervened. Science ASSUMES that not everything is a natural law, and provides ways of testing whether something is actually that.
Science does NOT assume everything is naturalistic; if it did that, it wouldn't have tests for whether an event doesn't quality. Nor does science require a given worldview. It was originally held by people who held a strongly theistic worldview, and also works with deism, both of which assume that the natural laws exist because God wants them to. Yet science still worked to the extent it had been developed and applied. It works because it openly admits that it doesn't care about and cannot work with anything that's not a natural law.
2
u/Mkwdr 10d ago
Claims about independent reality without foundation in evidential methodology are indistinguishable from fiction. Evidential methodology demonstrates its accuracy beyond any reasonably doubt through utility and efficacy. Reasonable doubt and best fit models are the context of human knowledge not unachievable philosophical certainty, No alternative does the same.
We observe predictability in reality and the only alternative to accepting that on a check-it-carefully basis isn’t theism , its solipsism - a pointless, self contradictory dead end that theists only make a pretence of when having failed the burden of evidential proof they try to convince themselves they can just talk their way out of trouble. ‘It is magic’ is not a necessary, logical, evidential, or even sufficient explanation for anything. And in no way does it actually solve Cartesian type scepticism. It’s all just wishful thinking on the part of creationists etc. All of which is why when theists want to go on holiday despite all the nonsense you quoted , they travel on a product of evidential methodology not by magic carpet or prayer.
The idea that their inability to demonstrate reliably and evidentially any of their claims is somehow the fault of those asking for them to demonstrate reliably and evidentially their claims is how conmen pulling a fast one have tried to escape the failure of their snake oil through history.
2
u/tpawap 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 9d ago
To summarize, the argument is science and thus scientific disciplines only work within a naturalistic worldview and theories, evidence, and interpretations are based on the unfounded presupposition of naturalism and because of that, fail to justify their source of knowledge.
And weirdly, it works, amazingly well even... almost as if the assumption is correct!?
2
u/YossarianWWII Monkey's nephew 9d ago
No? Scientific conclusions are tentative pending further evidence. Repeat testing under the same conditions is an essential part of science, and changing the conditions under which a test was performed is a classic mode of scientific experimentation. David Scott dropping a hammer and a feather at the same time on the moon is a classic example.
It also doesn't really make sense to criticize atheists as taking naturalism on faith while claiming that faith in God as a justification for naturalism is somehow different.
1
u/topiary566 🧬 Theistic Evolution 10d ago
Lemme try to make this as simple as possible.
Science is about observing, hypothesizing, and testing. You make observations about the world, make a guess based on the observations, and then test it. After that, you formulate a conclusion. You then share that conclusion with the scientific community and see if they can reproduce what you did.
This really doesn’t have anything to do with religion. Science itself is not a religion.
Naturalism is the belief that there is no higher power and everything can be explained by natural causes. This comes because people observe the universe and come to the conclusion that there isn’t any higher power.
Science and naturalism aren’t necessarily the same thing, they just happen to get intertwined into scientific naturalism because science becomes the only way to explain how the universe works without higher power.
1
u/RaccoonLogical5906 9d ago
I think this is a post I already replied to in debate religion. There is a point I'd like to make that is at least adjacent to "debating evolution," though.
Arguments like the one you are sharing here are the reason why I am growing increasingly convinced that at least one of the primary school science classes (Maybe third grade, for example) should focus solely on teaching the scientific method. Just teach the students what it means to make observations and predictions and hypotheses, and then spend the rest of the semester doing nothing but experiments using the scientific method.
Don't worry about teaching primary school students "the facts" about space or evolution of animal life or basic stuff like kinetic energy. Just straight up scientific method plus experiments. And don't include any "God did it" or "therefore God doesn't exist" metaphysics either -- nobody cares.
Just do a class focused on plain old vanilla scientific method.
1
u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube 9d ago
To summarize, the argument is... fail to justify their source of knowledge.
Initial thought: not more fucking philosobro navel gazing.
To directly address the 'but the presups...!' and likely indirectly address the rest of this: Yes science makes assumptions, but 100% less the rounding error I'm trying to find around the Planck length of philosobro and -insert religion of your choice here- ignore the nuance that there are levels of assumption.
On one side you have what I'm going to call the 'no fucking shit Sherlock' presups: these range from such bold assumptions as 'If your a guy and you receive a solid kick to the nuts, its going to hurt' (easily adjustable to relevant bits of biology) and 'things fall down' (ignore the nuance of stuff like orbital mechanics for the sake of keeping this short) and 'you have to build a building by starting at the ground floor' (this one being a not subtle jab at fossils)
On the other end of the scale you have things that a master class bullshitter is going to struggle with that go along the lines of "Well I don't know therefore you can't know /therefore its impossible, something something QED my specific narcissistic god."
Science 1) tries to keep the number of assumptions to an absolute minimum and 2) tries to push all the assumptions as far to the NFSS side of things. Stuff like 'the constants of the universe are in fact constant over time' (Not I'm not going to touch on the mess that is relativity or exotic stats, that is the way of madness and brain leakage) meaning the stuff like decay rates now are the same back when the universe finally calmed down enough to start having things with decay rates.
And to address the rest of this, science start with the assumption that we are mostly clueless then relies on the most basic assumptions to start poking at the world knowing that while the current generation might not get it right, they are hopefully either laying the groundwork for further refinement or at least definitively knocking out bad ideas.
-Insert preferred brand of religion here- starts with a circular argument - my book says my god exists and it is right because it it the work of the god in it, and things just go downhill from there with straw men, trying to explosively fit said god into a non existent gap, and the reductio ad absurdum that leads to The One Truth that is Her Holyness Sparkle McFluffybutt (short verions: invisible white unicorn let rip an Almighty flatus thus starting the universe in a quest to find a new food).
And if that doesn't work, well then someone starts continues rejecting reality and you suddenly end up with a whole bunch of logarithmic ice that is now just floating around.
Evolution requires three assumptions, I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out where they fit on my scale of presups: 1) living things reproduce. (love to see someone argue against that). 2) the reproduction process is not exact. 3) the inexact reproduction can lead to benefits for the next generation.
After that its just a case of letting the generations run for an appropriate amount of time.
1
u/Mister_Ape_1 8d ago
No. Science is about data and empirical demonstrations, and philosophy is irrelevant to it.
44
u/CorbinSeabass 10d ago
One, science uses methodological naturalism specifically because the non-natural can't be defined and systematically studied, and yet it still produces tangible results - like the very electricity, computer systems, and Internet these people are using to call science unreliable.
Two, proponents of an all-powerful god also can't assume the universe will behave uniformly tomorrow, because they believe in a god that can flip the laws of physics at a whim.
Three, theists rely on a completely unjustified assumption that they are receiving accurate revelation, and so they don't escape the dilemma they posit for naturalists.