James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by John Clinch , Thursday, July 09, 2009, 13:15 (5615 days ago) @ dhw

dhw refers to "the atheist faith in unknown natural laws"
 
I hope I am not quoting him out of context (he has accused me of that before!) but I think I'm justified in saying that he keeps using the word "faith" in this way in order to draw a parallel between the theistic and atheistic positions, all the better to dismiss them both as beliefs for which there is no evidence. But in saying that the view (which may be held by an atheist or a theist) that there's a natural explanation for a natural phenomenon is an act of "faith" is to conflate metaphysics with science. I think he is making a serious category error. 
 
At the risk of being a bore, I will say again that the magisterium of science is all of Nature. I really don't think this point has been adequately addressed. There are many phenomena of nature that have yet to be explained. Leaving aside the intriguing question of whether laws of nature really exist "out there" or are human constructs, it would be a fool who declares that there can be no unknown "laws", or processes or phenomena, of nature. - Most scientists have views ... beliefs, if you prefer - about matters not yet proven or established, sometimes quite strongly held. You could say that it's what drives science forward. The scientist who holds a theory ... a belief, if you prefer - about something not yet proven concerning some phenomenon of nature is emphatically not in the same position as the person who simply says "Godunnit". Of course, the reason is because the scientist has a view that is falsifiable ... it can, in principle, be tested. To take a much-discussed example, the view that life arose from inorganic matter or that RNA had a hand in it, or whatever, represents a view that is in principle testable. (Interestingly, there has been some recent progress on this but that is beside the point). The test may be imperfect, but part of the role of science is to seek to perfect methodology. - The view that God intervened miraculously to kick-start life on planet Earth is not falsifiable. It is a true declaration of "faith", properly so-called. It can never be tested, in principle. (And it raises the God-of-the-gaps point, but that's a slightly different matter.) - Part of the problem here is the language. The words "faith" and belief" have different connotations but are often used interchangeably. In my opinion, this allows dhw to draw a spurious parallel where none should exist. - Incidentally, I think that what I term the strong atheist position ... a belief that there is no god or gods ... is a statement concerning metaphysics and is a faith statement. The weak atheist position ... a lack of belief in God ... is possibly not, but I'm open to persuasion on that. I think that is an interesting question. I hold to the weak atheist position with regard to the Judeo-Christian God but I prefer not to make any positive declaration about metaphysics. In part, I think humans lack the language (though it doesn't stop me speculating). To my mind, at least, that makes me agnostic. - It may have been said before, but what I say in this post is the key to this whole debate, is it not? (1) Atheism and theism concern metaphysics. (2) Science concerns nature. A scientist may be a theist, an atheist or an agnostic but would any sane scientist seriously disagree with the statement "all phenomena of nature are natural and therefore the province of science"? One is about faith, the other isn't. I think dhw is looking for God in the wrong place