Misconception #5: Scientists Are Arrogant; They Can't Know Everything.
Science for the De-Converted – Part V
Imagine you baked two dozen cookies and your secret ingredient was cashew nut oil. You know you put cashew nut oil into the batter. You bought it, you tasted it, and you poured it in. If someone else comes along and says, “oh no … there’s no cashew nut oil in these cookies,” how would you respond? Laughter perhaps? Wouldn’t that seem arrogant?
That is how a geologist feels when someone tries to explain why the earth is six thousand years old. Her knowledge about the real age of the earth has been measured by her personally—many different ways. She confirmed it through many findings, corroborated it with many published papers, and has never been confronted with any reasonable evidence to the contrary. She feels certain about the age of the earth. So when someone concocts a very unscientific theory about the age of the earth, a scientist may appear smug or arrogant.
Of course it’s fallacious to say that if a scientist is arrogant she is therefore incorrect. But this misconception is used by religious people in that manner. They use it to vilify the group they perceive as their enemy. After all, science consistently disproves truths that they hold dear. They’ve been doing it for centuries, and will probably continue to do so.
If scientists are arrogant, it does not mean they are wrong. But the second part of the misconception is a much trickier one. Religious leaders try to discredit science by saying “it can’t explain everything.” In so doing, they are implying that religion transcends science.
The people who use this argument are muddying the waters by incorrectly defining the word “knowledge.” A leading purveyor of this notion is Dr. William Lane Craig, who said in an interview on his “Reasonable Faith” website:
“I think the major obstacle [for Christians who want to present intellectual arguments for their faith] today is religious pluralism or relativism. Students don’t think that religious beliefs are knowledge. They don’t think that they are expressions of facts, and they don’t think that they are things that can be known. And so they think that religious beliefs are mere expressions of personal taste or opinion. As a result, when Christians claim that they know the truth about these matters, people are deeply offended and think of Christians as bigoted, dogmatic, and even immoral people.”
By dallying with definitions, Craig goes on to seemingly confound non-theists in debates when proclaiming that science cannot explain why we “know” certain moral things–like why Nazi experimenters were bad, but Western medicine is good.
The Truth: Belief is not knowledge.
The fact is, we don’t know that Nazi experimentation was wrong. We believe it. Beliefs are based on emotions, not facts. Let’s refer to the dictionary definition for “know”:
1. To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty.
2. To be cognizant or aware of.
When using the word under definition 1, nothing can be known outside of science. There is still much to be believed under definition 2. Beliefs, however, are not the purview of science.
By saying that science can’t explain why we know certain atrocious actions are wrong, Craig implies that science is inadequate in some way. Craig is conveniently using the second definition for “know,” then applying this conclusion to science, which only uses the first definition. That his opponents are dumbfounded by this appears a victory only to people who are also caught in Craig’s tomfoolery. Should math also be discounted because it cannot explain ethics? No, because math has nothing to do with ethics. Neither does science.
Craig’s ideas are even more dangerous than that. He reveals in the lengthy quote above that he thinks belief equals knowledge, that ideas believed on faith are facts. His credibility as a scientist plummets with that statement, and he justifies the same level of cognition that leads faithful followers to stockpile guns and secretly plan terrorist uprisings. (http://hutaree.com/)
The Truth: Science has no problem saying “we don’t know.”
They say it all the time, in fact. Science begins with a question, not a conclusion. A scientist will form a hypothesis, which is really an admission of ignorance regarding a given potentiality, and an attempt to determine the answer to a question. If scientists thought they knew all the answers, there would be no scientists employed.
Saying “I don’t know” is also the morally responsible position when there is no certainty. Convincing others to taking a “leap of faith” (whether or not you pretend it is a rational leap) is arguably immoral because you presume certainty where there is none. Craig clearly commits this immoral act by presenting himself as a scientist, then using sophistry to present faith as fact.
Consider this: A religious position is an arrogant one.
According to dictionary.com, there’s only one definition for arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride. Now let’s compare the scientific and religious positions on a few issues:
On Certainty
Scientists say “we don’t know” when there is no certainty.
Religious leaders have certainty when there is no certainty.
On Humanity
Scientific evidence indicates that we are an accidental product of the universe.
Religious leaders believe they are created by and chosen by God for a purpose.
On Learning
Scientific viewpoints and theories are constantly being refined and improved,
Religions rarely abandon or change their doctrine even when confronted with compelling, contradictory evidence. They also presume to know all the answers, and are often willing to kill other people to enforce and defend those answers.
On Our Relationship to Earth
Science indicates that we are consuming resources that are finite, and that we should be mindful to manage those resources in order to preserve our well-being.
Religious people believe they are “not of this world,” and are more willing to squander resources because they believe earth is temporary and that the next life is more important.
So which of the two take a more arrogant position?
I eventually realized that I had been severely misguided when it came to science.
Discussion
Loading comment form...
« If The Fires Exist EP - Drew Stedman
Misconception #6: Science Takes the Beauty Out of the Universe »
Has Craig ever debated a behavioral scientist, who would have much to say about why organisms, groups, and species consider certain actions wrong, and why they engage in various degrees of self-sacrifice?
I do think that religious beliefs are matters of personal taste, as well as cold-blooded striving for personal status and social acceptance. If not, there wouldn’t be over 3,000 sects of Christianity.
[...] Misconception #5: Scientists Are Arrogant; They Can’t Know Everything [...]
“What I know of the divine science and Holy Scriptures, I learnt in woods and fields.” – scientist quote
I’m trained in cultural anthropology. Certainly everyone seems to have an opinion about human behavior. They are entitled to those opinions, but mostly they are culturally based. I try to explain this to my father who is a dentist. He is convinced on what the origins of war are but would not accept if I theorized on the origins of cavities. Although I’m not a “scientist” – only a social scientist – I would argue that my perception and training leads to a certain point of view that is vested in a western academic system. Other people aren’t wrong, they just have different viewpoints. I can analyze those viewpoints, deconstruct them, help change them (in the case of students), but they still exist for whatever reason,
That being said, certainly the more humanities oriented anthropologists and the science oriented ones are often locked in a battle. It’s not the battle between religion and science. It’s the battle between accepting that there are multiple ways of knowing and believing that science is the truest form of knowledge. In fact, science can use data, but there is still a human element in the interpretation of that data. This is how the “pluto” scientists made a mistake. In the view presented in this blog it would not be a mistake but rather insufficient testing. But more testing still requires human interpretations, human categorizations, etc.
My biggest problem with science of course is that it’s linked to a financial system. There are some anthropologists who have written on this topic. The marriage of science and money is a marriage made in hades because it guides what is to be studied, who gets to study it, how the interpretations are skewed, and creates a situation in which ethical violations are rampant and in which moral issues (to put it in religious terms) are unimportant. The drug companies are a clear-cut example of this, but there are many others.
My final comment is about the ethics of science even outside the financial system. In medical sciences, it appears that there are almost no real consequences for unethical behavior involving research with human beings. The US for instance has a long history of what could be called cruel, involuntary human experimentation and aside from a few lawsuits, there has never been legal repercussion. Of course, not all scientists can be held responsible for the behavior of some, but certainly there is nothing in place to stop this.
I know about this because I myself am a victim of involuntary experimentation that appears to be generated from an area like cognitive neuroscience or perhaps neuropsychology – something in the brain-to-behavior sciences. It has to do with trauma, induction of seizures, re-creation of past traumatic situations and anxiety. Sadly, I’m not crazy nor kidding. It is covered up by factions of the government, but who’s to say who is actually behind it. Anyone who has suffered what I have under this guise of “science” would know that science can be quite falliable. One of the worst parts apart from the suffering, financial damages and damages to my health, well-being and relationships is that I don’t even really believe in their science. Imagine being an unwilling guinea pig for a cruel experiment that is generated from a science you find erroneous. My sense of empathy and normalcy goes against their methodologies not just for myself but for any other possible victim. My own academic training goes against their basic premises in even conducting this kind of protocol. At some point in the future, like other “scientists” before them, they will recognize their errors, but unless someone does something to stop secret involuntary experiments, they will be arrogant enough to test further on another generation. That someone is not the victims who are studied as they try to use the internet to get the word out. That someone is someone who knows about this and decides that they don’t want to live their lives causing the suffering of others in the name of science.
I would like to suggest that Christians should not debate nor impede science (other than when they feel it has ethically extended beyond its bounds – maybe in the treatment of humans or animals, etc.). Despite all the nonsense in print and by certain TV evangelists, Christianity is really simply a belief (faith) that Jesus resurrected from the dead, and that that single act gave authority to what he said. Science has not been able to duplicate that, and it is therefore not acceptable from a scientific point of view, since it can’t be replicated. So we have faith in what we believe to be a fact, as I believe George Washington existed, though I have never met him personally and he only exists to me through literature and monuments. I respect anyone who has examined the evidence for Christianity and said they don’t believe it (of course, I find most have really not given it the time of day). I would say that it is kind of like black holes for me. No one can see them (by their nature since we are outside the event horizon), but there seems to be a lot of circumstantial evidence for them, and some day we will know for sure whether they exist or not, but it certainly seems reasonable to believe they are out there. I guess my point is that it does seem arrogant to me when a scientist says there is no God simply because they can’t prove it in an experiment. First of all, I would, respectfully, suggest who are scientists to say that everything has to be observable in a scientific manner? That is a step of faith in itself. Christ claimed to be supernatural, and therefore not bound to observable nature. Again, we accept this on faith. But by example, a weak one, I admit, until recently, we thought that electrons, protons, and neutrons were the smallest units. We now know that they aren’t because scientists developed a tool called the particle accelerator. So what seemed the final truth on matter, was not the complete story. I think everyone would agree with me that we don’t have the scientific instruments to detect God. Maybe someday we will…I’m being facetious. The point is that scientists should not assume because they can’t detect God, he doesn’t exist. There are many things out there in space, as well as on our own planet, that exist and we simple don’t have the means to detect them…yet.
Secondly, I have read a number of atheist’s rants and raves about religion, and I find it interesting that while they are extremely careful and diligent and try to be unbiased about their scientific research, they quickly dispose of Christian beliefs with emotional and often nonfactual claims, as do some Christians about scientific theories. This is senseless in my opinion.
Anyway, I don’t think science needs to be at war with religious folks and vice-versa. I think it confuses the point – that Christians believe in the resurrection…period. Now if Christians would just stop telling scientists how old the earth is… maybe we could all get along?
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your great response. You compare the evidence for Christ’s resurrection with the evidence for the existence of George Washington and the existence of black holes. To that I would like to respond with a quote from Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The reason Sagan said this is actually to protect us. Let me explain why.
Here is a link to a story about a man who believes a flower in the shape of the Indian God Genesha cures his ills: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2008/10/21/2008-10-21_elephantshaped_ganesh_growth_cured_my_il.html I would wager that you don’t believe Ganesha was a god, but here you have evidence that is roughly equivalent to the evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ. There are ancient documents, and there are millions of followers with experiential claims. This man believes Ganesha healed him. Is he lying? Is he crazy? Or is he maybe just sadly mistaken? I challenge you: if you think this claim about Ganesha is ridiculous, why don’t you hold your own beliefs up to the same scrutiny? Where is your threshold of belief, and is anything that passes over that threshold worthy of believing? If not, then I would suggest that you have chosen your faith using other criteria.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This axiom protects us from believing things that shouldn’t be believed, and also protects us from being inconsistent. The existence of George Washington is not extraordinary, since he didn’t raise from the dead. Regardless, there is still far more historical evidence re: Washington’s existence than Jesus’s so his example does not help your argument. Regarding black holes, they could be considered extraordinary, but the evidence in their favor is also remarkably extraordinary. We do know, based on myriad observable evidence, that whatever is inside the event horizon has enormous mass. The theories about why it emits no light is testable, repeatable, and quite remarkable.
Lastly, I don’t know of any scientists who assume that because they can’t detect God, he doesn’t exist. What they usually claim has subtle but important distinctions.
So what about the morality impeding science that says no experimentation on humans? Or the more recent morality impeding science that says the same about animals?
How do you feel about those, OP?
I find it equally arrogant when the either sides (Science Vs Religion) tries to argue who has the bigger dick.