Science versus History

I've met a number of atheists over the years who claim they only believe what can be shown to be true by science. The evidence must be peer reviewed. They discount all other evidence. When challenged by the historical evidence for Jesus being better than that of Tiberius Caesar they declare that history is untrustworthy so they don't believe in Jesus and they don't believe in Caesar.

This position is obviously extreme and it represents only a tiny minority of atheists but it does reflect our current cultlure: Science is Top Dog. Science is the best way of determining the truth. Science trumps history.

But I think that this just isn't so. I think Science = History.

Let me explain.

How does science work?

In an ideal world:

Science is based on observations. To explain those observations someone creates a hypothesis. Experiments are then devised that can falsify the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is not falsified then increasing trust is placed in that explanation for the data until we might say we have a scientific theory e.g. of gravity.

Now the essence of good science is that the experiments are repeatable; someone else can repeat the experiment and get the same results. You can go check it for yourself.

So far so good. I can believe the theory is true because I can go out and test it. But here's the catch.

Do you test it?

For gravity I do. I'm always dropping stuff and it always falls to the ground with a reassuring clatter.

But what about theories of particle physics? Cosmology? Evolution?

I bet you don't.

So how do you know it to be true?

Trust.

It's been peer reviewed. Great. This means that some other group of scientists have repeated the experiments and found the result to be true. This might be true. But experiments are costly, require specialist equipment and large amounts of time and money. And some data – like a long running climate study - can never be repeated. So what's more likely is that they checked that the methodology sounded reasonable and that they too took the results on trust. And unless someone needs to replicate the results for their own work any fraud or error is unlikely to be discovered.

But surely a scientist wouldn't commit fraud would they? They're committed to the pursuit of truth...

and...

fame, research funding, getting published, promotion, job security, a pet theory, minimizing effort etc. ...

They're human. And if you not quite sure that's possible then read this and this.

So ultimately when we trust a peer review article we trust that the scientists who wrote and reviewed are reliable. That they are reliable eyewitnesses of the experiments they record. And on the whole that's a reasonable assumption to make.

So that's the first catch – or rather similarity with history. With history we have to trust that ancient writers are accurately reporting the events of their day. But this isn't done naively – the bias of the writer is considered and their purpose for writing is assessed. And when events they describe can be corroborated from other sources  greater confidence is placed in their accounts. On the whole we can decide if a source is a reliable account of an event.

Which leads us to catch number two.

Observations require interpretation. Just as an historian examines the data and forms a theory as to why an event happened, the scientist's hypothesis is ultimately an interpretation of the known observations. And more than one interpretation can fit the known data. So which interpretation are you going to choose? For the individual scientist that depends on what they've been taught, the theories they have emotionally invested in and what's currently fashionable (i.e. the ruling paradigm). None of which may be true. In other words scientist are biased – just like other people. But it doesn't stop there. The scientists who peer review your work are also biased and if they don't like your interpretation – even though it explains all the known observations – your work may never get published. And if you're not sure of that, here are three examples where  publishing against the paradigm is unlikely to suceed : climate change, evolution and the big bang.

Thus I think science and history are similar methods of knowing: both require trusting a source of observations and weighing up the explanatory power of any proposed interpretation.  Ultimately, a scientific paper is an historical record of observations along with an interpretation. Science is not the be all and end all of knowledge as many think. It's not a statement of ultimate truth.

 Science doesn't trump history.

From Whence Comes Morality?

 

Where do objective moral values come from?  What makes something good or evil?

Before looking at this question, what do I mean by an objective moral value?  I mean something that can be considered good or bad throughout time and space.  An objective moral value doesn't change.   So where do they come from? Assuming they exist.

Let's assume there's a God. That He is the creator of the universe.  Are morals external to Him?  Something for Him to obey and be judged against?  Or are they His arbitrary rules to which we must conform?

Can there be an evil God?

The first question suggests that there is something that God is not sovereign over, so can He really be God?  And the second is hardly satisfactory: morals just become some crazy test for us to pass.  So here's a better proposal: that morality reflects God's character.  An action is good in so far as it conforms to how God would act.  Lets see how this leads to objective morals.

If there is a creator then He transcends the universe and time.
Therefore His character does not change in space or time.
Morals reflect God's character.
Therefore morals transcend space and time.
Therefore morality is objective.

So morals are neither arbitrary nor some external rule which God must obey.  So to talk of God as evil makes no sense.  Because if God was different then what we refer to as good or evil would be different.  God is good by definition.

Let's look at some examples. 
Why is adultery wrong?  Because God is faithful and loving, existing as a Trinity.
Why is lying wrong?  Because God is truthful.
Why is murder wrong? Because God is the giver of life, and to take a life is His prerogative.

So how can we know objectively what is right or wrong?  We need to look at how God has revealed Himself.  We need to look to Christ.

This then raises a final question:
If there is no God, can there be objective moral values?

Why do you believe what you believe?

I know the answer that I'd like to give.  But I'm not sure it's true.  We'd all like to say that our beliefs are based on evidence and reason.  But I doubt that's always true.  How big a role do our emotions play?  How much do I believe something... because I want to?

I've noticed how what I want to believe affects how I weigh up competing propositions.  If I want to believe something then I'm more prepared to listen favourably to the arguments.  If I don't want to believe something then I'll search high and low for reasons not to.  I'll still try and rationally weigh up the arguments, but I'd be naive to think I didn't require different burdens of evidence in each situation.

So for Christians and atheists, what might it be about our beliefs that causes us to cling to them?

For Christians:
It's comforting knowing God's watching over our lives and loves us. We cannot face the meaningless of a universe without God. A desire to see justice finally triumph.

For atheists:
A desire for autonomy and not wanting to be accountable to a higher being.  To be thought of as an enlightened person who can see through all this religious bunk. A dislike for who you perceive God to be.

So do you have better reasons for why you believe something?

Or do you just want to?

The Important Things in Life

How can you know what's important in life?
How can you tell what really matters?

It's easy really.

Remember you're going to die.

Then ask yourself: what would I regret if I died tomorrow?

So what comes to mind?  Money, job, career, holiday, qualifications, car, education, sporting achievements?

For me it's none of these.  What matters are people. It's the friends I've lost contact with, the relationships that have broken down and  the people I haven't told how much they mean to me.  I don't think this is just me. I'd guess most people will say others are the most important things in life.  But why is this?  Is it just because I want to be remembered as a nice bloke or is there some deeper reason? Why are humans so important?

If there is no God, then this life is it. There's nothing else. When I die, what's in my bank account won't matter, but then neither will my relationships.  The best I can hope for is that people remember me as someone who was great – but that won't bother me either, if all I am is worm food.  Moreover, unless I'm someone like Alexander the Great, in a hundred years I'll be forgotten.  It will be as if I'd never existed.  So why is it that my heart tells me that relationships are more important than all else?  Maybe it's because this life isn't all there is, that when I die it's not all over, and that how I relate to people has eternal consequences.

The Bible teaches that people are made in God's image.  That death is not the end.  Therefore relationships matter.  Money, career etc. don't matter – they won't enter eternity - but people do.  And people matter.  God cares about how we treat those who bear His image.  He made us for relationships – with each other, but most importantly with Him.  And this is the relationship we tend to forget most about.  But it's the one that matters the most. It's the one that determines our eternal fate. And if I'm reconciled to my creator then I'll start to put my other relationships right.

So in light of your mortality: how will you live tomorrow?

Determinism and the Death of Justice

We cry out for justice.  When we see the murder of an innocent we demand that the perpetrator should should be held accountable.  We long to see wickedness punished. But how does this desire for justice fit into a world without God?

In order to be held accountable for an action a person must have been free to do otherwise.  Whatever the pressures on the person when they committed an act, to be accountable they still must have had an alternative option, even if it was an unattractive one. But if naturalism is true, i.e. all there is is the physical universe and the laws that govern it, then no one can be held accountable.   If materialism is true then we are simply complicated biological machines responding to various stimuli. The brain processes the information it receives, following the laws of chemistry and physics, and the person reacts.  They may have the illusion of choice but in fact the wiring of the brain and the physical processes dictate the reaction.  They have as much freedom as a computer.

When I rant and rave at my computer for its latest malfunction I am being irrational.  The computer was just following its programming.  When Basil Fawlty chastises his car we know he's gone over the edge.  You cannot hold a machine accountable.

Yet we hold humans accountable.  We lock people up or execute them for murder.  We act as if people have a choice.  If atheism is true murders, rapists, and terrorists have no choice.  The best we can say is that they are sick: their brains have their wires crossed.  They should receive our sympathy and not the due penalty. We shouldn't lock them up.  But can we live with this reality?  Do we really believe that we have no choice?  That when our consciences scream at us but we ignore them that we really couldn't have listened?

If atheism is true then justice is dead.  And my desire for it is just the symptom of a malfunctioning brain.

But this is not the view of the Bible.  God holds us accountable for our actions; that we should turn from our wickedness to Him and live.  How can this be?  The answer is that we are not just physical beings but spiritual. We are not constrained by the physical laws of cause and effect but, as spiritual beings, we transcend them.  We have genuine moral choices.  We are accountable. God has given us all a conscience that tells us when we are wrong, even when it's not in our interest to listen to it.

The Meaning of Life.

What is the meaning of life? Why am I here? What is the point of life?

These are questions we all ask. Philosophers ponder them. We all long for an answer. But the question I'm asking is: why do we ask these questions?

To ask the meaning of something is to ask about its purpose. When an archaeologist finds a strange object he wonders what it was for? What is the meaning of a kettle? What is the meaning of a knife? The meaning of the kettle is to boil water and the meaning of knife is to cut something. In both cases their meaning is external to them. The creator – man – decides what the objects purpose is and the object fulfils that purpose when it does what it was designed for. Another picture might be, what is the purpose of a private in an army? He cannot see why he does what he does, risking life and limb, but the General, whose plan it is the soldier follows, has a purpose, which he hopes the soldier will accomplish. Again we see that the soldier cannot define meaning for himself amidst the chaos but it is an external agent who defines his meaning. So when we ask what is the meaning of life we are asking: for what was I made? And only our creator can tell us.

If Atheism is true, then why should we ask these questions? We are here by chance and natural selection. There is no purpose. We are nothing but specks, screaming into the darkness to be blown away by the winds of time. This is the conclusion of Nihilism. There is no God therefore there is no meaning. And yet the fact remains they wrestle with this question. We all desire meaning. Some Atheists advocates a form of existentialism where we define our own meaning. But this is nonsense. The kettle and the knife cannot decide what their purpose is. The kettle cannot cannot decide today to be a spoon. The private in the army cannot decide he finds meaning by doing his own thing. Meaning is external. So Nihilism is right. If there is no God then there is no meaning. But in stating that they must have asked the question.

So why do we desire meaning?

If Athesim is true then there is no meaning and it makes no sense to ask about it, think about it or worry about it. We should live like animals, following our instincts to try and pass on our genes. We shouldn't waste time and energy with such questions: they don't help us survive. In fact they could be detrimental – because if there is no great purpose in life why bother even to pass on my genes? Why make the world a better place for my children? Why help humanity or nature to survive? We're all dust. No one will notice if we're gone. The universe will march on in indifference if humanity should cease to look on it. In short, to ask why we are here does not have any evolutionary advantage, so can only be explained as an accidental by-product of conciousness. This is not explanation but a mere just-so story and doesn't really satisfy. The same as life without meaning doesn't satisfy. Instead, I think, a better explanation is that we were indeed created.

When we ask the question: what is the meaning of life? It is a tacit admission that deep down we know that we are created even if we deny it to ourselves. If there is a creator it makes sense that we should want to know why He made us. It makes sense that He should place it in our being to want to know why he made us. It makes sense to ask the question - why is there meaning - as there is the possibility of an answer even if we may not like it.