About me:
I am a retired Clinical Diagnostic Scientist, a Registered Nurse, and a life-long student of philosophy.
Heuristic Critiques is a collection of essays directed at restoring sanity to a number of leading, corrupted ideologies: politics, education and epistemology, religion and Faith, morality, language, reason and logic, transgenderism and gender identity, Wokeism, and Critical Race Theory. Topics examined are undergirded by my conviction that we exist within an objective, natural reality which is practically and logically independent of human minds, social interaction, and social constructs.
We cannot gather truth apart from Belief and Faith, which are the sails that propel our vessel of empirical Truth into the harbors of Knowledge.
There is no evidence for God. Such is the doctrine exemplified by modern scientific atheists. The school is populated with individuals having a better than average intellect; a eugenic blend of scientists and atheists who, like Richard Dawkins for example, openly propagate the creed that God is a delusion. On this view the Faithful, such as Christians, are intellectually unsophisticated, utterly detached from objective truth, who not only believe without evidence but consider its absence a virtue. The scientific atheists proclaim that piercing the veil of reality, demands evidence. Not just any evidence, but empirical evidence. Scientific evidence is wedded to empirical evidence; the resulting knowledge is achieved only through observation and/or experimental procedures defined as the Scientific Method.
Evidence attained outside the principle of the Scientific Method is counted by the scientific atheists as no evidence at all. Without evidence there is no knowledge. Thus, in line with this creed, if any and all knowledge is derived from the exemplar mechanism of science, then it must follow that only scientific knowledge can be true. On this view not only is one’s knowledge of God in conflict with science, but by default doesn’t even rise to the level of knowledge! To entertain any notion of God, according to the scientific atheists, is to dogmatically reject the scientific daylight of reality.
I am going to argue that this incompatibility is itself a delusion. The scientific atheists succeed, if at all, from the popular polarization of science upon the common mind; by playing upon a genuine authority of its claims and a general affirmation from that authority. If scientific authority is often unchallenged, it is because, for the most part, the common person is poorly equipped to judge it. I am not only willing, but quite pleased, to confess the brilliant, luminary of science which allows learning contingent truths about our world as it really is; and, thus, corrects our otherwise false and unproductive imaginations.
But for whatever reason, the intent is to dissolve this apparition from their minds; and not surprisingly takes the form of the doubtful implication that what the scientific method can’t tell us we can’t know.
I am rallied to the human campaign as a search for truth; and this means a sanction of rationality as well as science. But I unequivocally denounce the contemptible, unyielding assertion that science is uniquely, and exclusively, qualified to conduct it. I have said this more than once – an insight barrowed from William James – and it merits repeating: While I believe we can grasp truth, I am adamantly opposed to the arrogant claim we can infallibly know when we have it in our hands; and in particular, the orchestrated presumption that science is the only means of putting it there.
The scientific atheists are keenly versed in their given disciplines. Nevertheless, I cannot help but think their battle against God is less motivated by their science and more by a personal disdain for Him. I have a suspicion that God Almighty is more “real” to them than they care to admit. In the first place, it is rare that an intelligent mind not only comes to hate, but openly professes to hate, a false, fabricated entity. To suggest, in ways I can hardly conceive, this hatred results from an unusual sensitivity of Devine claim upon them is interesting, though it can certainly be disputed. But a notion that they refuse to accommodate a claim made upon them by the concept of God certainly cannot. It is tempting to consider that the concept may be as real as the Lord Himself! But for whatever reason, the intent is to dissolve this apparition from their minds; and not surprisingly takes the form of the doubtful implication that what the scientific method can’t tell us we can’t know.
This speaks to the emphasis the atheists place upon the principle of the Scientific Method. In all disciplines, science precedes to explain the chain of cause-and-effect behind the structure and behavior of the entity under study. Within this domain reside the processes for formulating and testing hypotheses by continual efforts of observation, experiment, measurement, prediction and repetition. When one’s search for knowledge is guided in one’s inquiry through each and all these processes, one is said to be engaged in the Scientific Method of inquiry. What the scientific atheists will not accept is that it is not the only means for acquiring knowledge. From their perspective, only knowledge achieved by the principle of the Scientific Method, confirmed by empirical evidence, is to be valued. This is the first vexing delusion of scientific atheism.
Or, again, it is no disparagement to science that it cannot address moral and ethical principles; what is disparaging is the sweeping generalization that, therefore, there are no such principles.
We observe the universe but, whether by honest aversion or privileged disregard, we frequently fail to acknowledge the more important fact that we exist as observers within it. Our existence and our very purpose for existing are replete with riddles; all as ultimate questions requiring answers from which the natural sciences can neither assert nor affirm. Any scientist pronouncing to the contrary is most likely blind to these riddles, to our existence, or both. Thus, the success of natural selection in explaining the design and purpose of evolved organs and behavior as “apparent” (ostensible rather than actual), is extrapolated to the doctrine that all design and purpose is apparent and, hence, an illusion; not the least of which applies to our own existence. And one can only wonder how to square this view when purpose and design seem to confront us at every turn, or with the principle of emergence implying goal and direction. Or, again, it is no disparagement to science that it cannot address moral and ethical principles; what is disparaging is the sweeping generalization that, therefore, there are no such principles.
This sort of subversion provokes the greatest ironical contradiction upon science: is there anyone among us who can envision a more futile exercise than a search of truth carried forth by a researcher refusing the duty for honesty and truth? I cannot provide irrefutable proof that an ancient Jewish rabbi, Yeshua, is the Son of God. Neither can science offer irrefutable evidence that this unspeakable marvel we call the universe, was created in the Big Bang. Yet, I believe in both. I am never offered irrefutable assurance that the whole of natural life arose as the goal and purpose deliberately willed by a Creator. Neither can science offer inarguable assurance that variation within a species magnificently adapted, each and every one, to the environmental conditions, are the product of evolutionary processes to which nature must inevitably lead. Yet, I believe in both. None of these beliefs impinge one upon another. None are emphatically refuted nor proved by science. We may be prepared to affirm any or all of them “true”, or equally reject them all out of hand; but neither choice will be dependent on science as the decisive arbiter.
As stated earlier, many scientific atheists advance the questionable position that the Scientific Method leaves belief and faith obsolete. Only science, they concur, is the bearer of absolute truth, and what is known to be true by science evaporates any need to consult belief or faith. But this is simply another scientific atheists’ delusion – a denial of the limitations of induction. The foundation of every hypothesis and every theory relies on inductive reasoning. Induction attempts to guarantee that past experience and knowledge of natural events are reliable indicators of future events. The necessity of induction is a means to overcome our human limitation to observe all events in nature.
Science is left with a disquieting and curious conclusion: empirical evidence is valueless apart from believing the scientific method as valid, which cannot itself be proven by science.
Cosmologists say that at the center of every galaxy is a black hole. It is estimated that the universe holds between 200 billion and 2 trillion galaxies. Thus, it is rather unrealistic to presume all of these galaxies can be observed and verified. Nevertheless, the black hole hypothesis remains essentially an established fact. This is because inductive reasoning is grounded in the Principle of Uniformity of Nature: a premise which concerns unobserved matters of facts; that what is true in our observations of the few is always true in unobserved nature generally.
The Principle of Uniformity of Nature is an inference drawn neither from induction or deduction; addressing things in their entirety we have neither observed nor experienced, as an interpretation or impression of the universe as it really must be. Clearly then, it is not a mere fact from our experience; and if we did not already bring it to our mind, we would not find it in experience. And so, we discover that we cannot even establish an inductive argument unless we first assume a premise, the Principle of Uniformity of Nature, which itself can never be proven inductively!
The point made is extreme. You cannot reason your way to the Principle of Uniformity of Nature, nor to any hypothesis, nor to any scientific Law. No mere combination of facts alone considered true of the universe we can see, can lead us to a universal law governing the parts we can’t. Science is left with a disquieting and curious conclusion: empirical evidence is valueless apart from believing the Scientific Method is valid, which, nevertheless, cannot itself be proven by science.
We are left with a predicament: a shadow is cast not only over the uncertainty of inductive conclusions but forces us to question the very principle from which those uncertainties are inferred. If science cannot be proven “inductively it cannot be proven scientifically,” for clearly that is but a mere attempt to judge the “scientific method by the scientific method.” But you and I can, of course, reason and believe in the Uniformity of Nature, from which comes our assurance that even the Laws of Physics apply equally to things we have observed as well as to things we have not. The scientific atheists may want to reevaluate their position in regard to the derision and contempt focused on believing without evidence: Jesus said, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29). Likewise, if the Uniformity of Nature is to lead to knowledge one must take it on faith to be valid and true: no different than the pious faith behind every petitionary pray. In conclusion, since the scientific method must be taken on faith, any suggestion that it renders faith obsolete is patently absurd.
The point is, that long before Mendel laid down an inheritance principle, both gardeners and dog lovers successfully operated under the principle without in fact knowing the principle.
We must now turn our attention to the atheist’s scientific creed that knowledge is only acquired via the principle of the scientific method. More simply stated, it is the questionable notion that the only objective knowledge is scientific knowledge. Now, in the past we know that some enlightened people accomplished some rather impressive things in a rather normal garden. Although they were most certainly unfamiliar with scientific methodology, they were nevertheless able to produce vast varieties of plants long before there was offered any explanation for the heritable traits observed, and long before they could properly be designated as botanists.
Without being condescending, it is perfectly correct to say they were ignorant of genetics and of any Law of Inheritance, if certainly because the Law was yet undiscovered. And being ignorant of it, they should hardly be expected to speak from it. But it seems inarguable that a good many common amateurs could produce uncommon beauty. Madame Pierre S. du Pont, for example, knew that through controlled pollination new varieties of roses could be created to suit one’s preference. And she seemed to know it apart from any contrived insistence that science must first tell it.
Or, again, the historical evidence indicates that persons were capable of breeding specific physical characteristics into dogs almost from the day this thing we call dog appeared. Though apparently blind to the biological mechanism from which they arise, breeders knew they could produce a short dog or a tall dog; a dog with long hair, short hair, or even no hair at all. I am not suggesting that such pioneers of the field, oblivious to the Law of Inheritance, were remotely successful in achieving desired results as we are today. Precisely when you might expect to see your dog with short hair, or preciously when you ought to expect a preferred rose cultivar, could never with accuracy be predicted, if predicted at all. I am suggesting, however, notwithstanding full comprehension, that an early gardener or breeder could in time produce your rose or dog, if only you were patient enough.
It was left to Gregor Mendel guided by scientific method to make the association between genotype (genetic makeup) and phenotype (visible characteristics) with the final offspring. He readily showed that in peas heritable traits follow a predictable pattern. With the eloquent mathematical model he constructed, parental characteristics passed to offspring became with a degree of certainty predictable: not only for peas but for all plants and all animals. Mendel, and the discovery of The Law of Mendelian Inheritance was the progenitor of the modern scientific marvel of genetics.
Seeing, therefore, that have I no motivation to precipitously narrow his contribution, my early suspicion, however, still remains valid. The point is, that long before Mendel laid down an inheritance principle, both gardeners and dog lovers successfully operated under the principle without in fact knowing the principle. I can anticipate that a critic may accuse me, by subtlety or trickery, of denying the obvious: that these first genetic pioneers where really scientists guided by scientific methods. No matter how you attempt to conceal it, he charges, those pioneers were really doing science and their knowledge, though admittedly small, resulted from science. And the charge is worthy of address, though I cannot see any real scientists making it. For they of all people, know what science is and know when they see it.
The whole matter comes down to approach. The gardener wants results- a particular rose; the botanist, the real scientist, wants answers.
But merely going through the process, the motions of collecting empirical facts is of very little value. For no number of facts or corresponding clues will alone allow for reaching the goal of all science. That goal is of offering a credible explanation. It is an explanation, derived from interpretations of the data and facts. But more importantly, data and facts synthesized by a human mind. The mind then offers a picture of the way the world really is, and a world we subsequently can no longer picture in any other way. Without a human mind to synthesize and analyze, there will be offered no explanation to which mere collections of data and facts can’t in their nature bare witness. Once the mind has done its task, conviction in the explanation is directly proportional to how accurately it predicts the future and whether or not it can be repeated.
The distinction then between scientific knowledge and any other, is really one of degree of insight, or quality. It is perhaps useful to picture scientific knowledge as knowledge by approach. You may think of it like this: the common person knows he needs water in order to live; another makes a living by knowing water’s molecular structure. The distinction is merely one of approach. For instance, in the laboratory, when I set myself to the task of predicting Y by experimenting with X, accompanied with an explanation for Y, I do so from the advantage of a scientist. If, however, at a baseball game I predict the next hit-and-run I am merely acting as a speculative, though calculating, fan.
If a man’s life is consumed by looking only at microscopic cells, the rose itself forever remains unseen.
As a scientist, I have a designated duty to explain Y. I feel no such obligation to explain my baseball intuition. But surely, neither scenario precludes knowing something about something. Something, either way, is known about water whether the man is simply thirsty or else a biochemist. A dog without hair may be successfully bred by a geneticist in the lab or by the common man in his backyard kennel. The real difference, and the only difference that matters, between the scientific breeder and the amateur, is that the former can give an explanation confirmed by prediction and the latter cannot. And in all matters that are matters of science, science is expected, rightfully, to be armored with the insight for explanation in the form of a hypothesis. But we have no expectation of the amateur. There is no question of knowledge either way, and, for the same reason, really no question of truth.
There is nothing conceivably truer about a dog whose characteristics were predicted by a professional geneticist, or a dog that came into the world by sheer luck at the hands of an amateur breeder. There is nothing fundamentally truer about the dual nature of light than the electromagnetism that powers a flashlight or a toy automobile. Neither is there anything about photosynthesis that is intrinsically truer than the rose itself. If a man’s life is consumed by looking only at microscopic cells, the rose itself forever remains unseen. He may justifiably claim to see the whole story hidden within the rose, but possibly can’t see the rose when in front of his face. The whole matter comes down to approach. The gardener wants results- a particular rose; the botanist, the real scientist, wants answers.
I hope in good confidence that I will not be misunderstood, if only because, at least for the moment, I have no wish for self-denigration. But I do wish to avoid hypocrisy. Daily I confess the accomplishments of science, and, prior to retirement, I had to utilize science in order to accomplish the day. The contributions science has made (and continue to make) to the human experience is an unequivocal testament to the power of human thought. It really has uncovered knowledge that cannot be uncovered by other means. But, as we have just seen, we have little reason to believe it to be a monopoly on truth. There is more than one road into “Rome”: and the road of science is only one of them.
Now unfortunately most people care not one wit about the lesser known, but marvelous, intricacies of science; and, thus, rarely ponder, whether an electron is virtual or real. Almost all people, however, care about their health. We are creatures who want life and want it more abundantly. The importance of religion here is too often neglected, and nurses have long understood health to include body, mind and spirit. But for the most part, the modern approach to medicine constitutes an exercise into the physical. Even so, few will neglect the comfort brought to daily life through advancements in pathology.
Many pathological processes that threaten to weaken the human body even unto death, are predictable, comprehended, and with great frequency treated and cure. It ought to be readily apparent, that elimination of disease is not ethically left to a lucky draw of the cards, neither to the wages of mere opinion. People may gleefully bet on a role of the dice, but no one is eager to bet with his own life. The ill patient says, “I feel the odds are that I’m anemic,” to which the Clinical Scientist responds, “You are anemic!” And with a strange, ambivalent pleasure, doubt is removed and the matter resolved. Praise of Medical Science is variously rendered: for some as cognate magic, for others, like me, as a gift from God through natural means, but for all, as the venerated inheritance from beautiful minds.
Science, like most other things, starts to falter when claiming an authority it has no authority to claim. The most atrocious of these is the scientific atheists’ suggestion that one must choose either science or God. And it is nothing short of tragic that people do in fact choose. This ill-conceived suggestion often takes the following form: “The business of science is to explain our observations,” he says. “Surely one can see what a hindrance belief in God becomes for a scientist. We engage in a humble, honest, search for truth which will lead to improving the human experience. Of course, we don’t have all the answers to the secrets of the universe, but what we must avoid is the temptation to say, ‘because we don’t know, God must therefore be the explanation’. Clearly, it is irredeemable and lazy for any scientist to resort to notions of a magic man in the sky; when his duty is to give a sound explanation for the Laws of Nature.”
This is not intended as a quote, but I assure the reader it is an authentic montage from the mouths of more than a few scientific atheists. If ever I wondered whether it possible to be a scientist and Christian, one look in a mirror ought to remove all doubt. And indeed, many do not experience the conflict between Faith and science as the scientific atheists suggest. There are scientists on both sides of the fence- those who believe and those who do not. The believer asserts that scientific inquiry provides no evidence against God, and a good deal for Him. The scientific atheists say they find no empirical evidence for God; and the more they dwell into Nature the more certain it becomes that any such evidence will forever remain elusive. Both study within the same universe. Both are presented with the same evidence. This would seem to indicate irrefutably that the real chasm is not between science and religion. The difference between the two is only explained by the pre-existent philosophy each bring to the interpretation of the evidence. The universal picture held by one is diametrically opposed to the other and are, thus, mutually exclusive.