Atheism and the Assumptions of Science
and Religion
Christina S. Chen
“There's this thing called
being so open-minded your
brains drop out.”
I have to credit Richard Dawkins for having some sense of humor because
I find
the remark to be rather funny. But I think Dawkins should
also know that
there’s this thing called being so close-minded that your brain drops
dead.
Dawkins is among the many atheists out there who advocates scientific
“fundamentalism,” arguing for people to embrace science and shed their
religious beliefs because they are not only “dangerous” but also
irrational.
According to him, religious people are too open-minded because they
believe in
something that isn’t provable. What Dawkins and many others
fail to realize is
that scientific discoveries that have been “proven” to be “true” are
all
founded on at least six assumptions that are not rationally supported
(compared
to the zero assumptions that theists who don’t claim to know the nature
of God
make); therefore, science largely depends on faith and should not be
considered
as more-- and perhaps should be considered as less--credible than
religion.
Since
science starts out with at
least three assumptions that aren’t provable, it may be more rational
to take
science less seriously than religion, which starts out with zero.
Before scientists perform any kind of experiments, they start out with
these
basic assumptions: (1) that the experimental procedures will be
performed
adequately without any intentional or unintentional mistakes that will
impact
the results (2) that the experimenters won’t be considerably biased by
their
preconceptions of what will happen (3) that the random sample is
representative
of the entire population and that any random sampling that isn’t won’t
significantly impact the results (4) that nature has regularity; most
if not
all things in nature must have at least a natural cause (5)
that there is such a thing called Objective Reality (6) and that
science at
least partly corresponds to that Objective Reality.
Therefore, when we think
about it more deeply, the foundation of science is actually faith, a
term
usually used to describe religion, not science. In
comparison, theists who
claim that God exists and don’t claim to know anything else about God
base
their belief on one currently true fact: that not everything can be
explained
by natural means.
Because scientists make at least six assumptions and theists make none,
it is
actually (and ironically) more rational to believe in God than in
science.
The
first counterargument to this
point is that the foundation of science is not
faith because it is based
on reasonable assumptions. Many people
assume that faith and reason
must be mutually exclusive. But the basis of this
counterargument depends on
how “faith” is defined. If one defines faith as “belief in
spite of, even
perhaps because of, the lack of evidence” like how Richard Dawkins
defines it,
then yes, science is not based on faith.
If one defines faith
as “belief in something without certainty,” then science is
based on
faith. But no matter how one defines faith, we can all agree
that at the heart
of science is uncertainty. We are
uncertain that the assumptions that
we make are right. We are also uncertain that the results
that we obtain are
right. Even scientists (or at least reasonable scientists)
admit that their
discipline, science, is subjected to error.
Granted,
science is based on
uncertainty, but according to the proponents of the second
counterargument,
science is also self-correcting and self-validating. We
replicate an
experiment to gain certainty that the results we have obtained are
correct. If
we replicate an experiment many times and discover that our results are
not
consistent with the original finding, then we can be fairly confident
that the
original finding is wrong. If we replicate the experiment
many times and
discover that the results are consistent with the
original finding, this
means that we can be fairly confident that the original finding is
validated or
correct. The problem with this counterargument is that even
though science may
be self-correcting, the only way to correct the mistakes that we make
now is by
doing more experiments, meaning the same assumptions must be made each
time the
additional experiments are performed. Also, the
self-validating
counterargument is flawed, and the following example can expose this
flaw. Let
us say an experiment was conducted 1,000 times, and we get the same
result 990
times. The counterargument says that we can then rationally
conclude (although
we can never know with absolute certainty) that the result is
right. This is
similar to saying: if we toss a coin 1,000 times, and we get heads 990
times,
we can rationally conclude that there is more than 50% chance of
getting
heads. But this is not true. According
to statistics, if we toss a
coin for an infinite number of times, we’d find that there is actually
only 50%
chance of getting heads. What matters is the long
run. Therefore, we
have to toss a coin or conduct an experiment infinite number of times
in order
to rationally conclude that we’ve obtained the right result.
This is an
impossible task. Therefore, it is impossible for us to
accurately determine
whether the results that we’ve obtained are right no matter how many
times we actually
replicate the experiment.
This
rebuttal to the second
counterargument is not foolproof. It should be pointed out
that statisticians
are making an assumption when they claim that there is only 50% chance
of
getting heads. The claim has never been proven. We
have never tossed a coin
for an infinite number of times to demonstrate the validity of the
claim, so
admittedly it is only an assumption. However, even though
they are making an
assumption in this case, they are only making one reasonable assumption
compared to the six assumptions that scientists make before doing any
sort of
experiment. Thus, the point that science makes more
assumptions and perhaps
should be considered less valid still stands.
The
third counterargument addresses
the issue that maybe scientists don’t make as many assumptions as it is
claimed
here. We don’t assume that the experimenters will perform the
experiments
flawlessly nor do we expect them to have no biases. We also
don’t assume that
the random sample will always be representative of the population, and
we
realize that a random sample that isn’t can change the conclusions that
we draw
from the experiment. Science allows for mistakes.
But the only way that we
can rectify those mistakes or validate the results that we’ve obtained
is by
doing more experiments. This point has already been
addressed by
counterargument two, specifically with the heads and tails
example. Thus, our
mistakes will never be completely rectified unless we do an experiment
infinite
number of times. And yet, people still believe in
science. This suggests that
those people still assume that the experimenters’ mistakes and the
occasional
unrepresentative random sampling won’t significantly affect the
results,
assumptions that are huge and unwarranted.
Finally,
the last counterargument
points out that the quality of the assumptions may be more important
than the
quantity. We intuitively know that there are certain
assumptions that seem to
be more warranted than others. For example, the assumption
that the sun will
rise tomorrow is more reasonable than the assumption that tooth fairies
exist.
Thus, the assumption that God exists may only be one assumption, but
since it’s
a pretty big assumption, it may be more rational to believe in science,
which
makes a few “reasonable” ones. To examine this point a little
closer, we
should look into the assumptions that both scientists and theists
make. A
theist (again, one who doesn’t claim to know the nature of God) makes
no
assumptions but bases his or her belief on the fact that not everything
right
now can be explained by natural means; this belief is so far true
because not
everything has been explained by natural means. Although many
people like to
put the burden of proof on theists by saying that it is the job of the
theist
to prove that there is God, the burden of proof is actually on science
to show
that the currently true fact that theists start out with is
false. The only
way to demonstrate this is to prove that everything in the natural
world has a
natural explanation, something that scientists so far have been unable
to prove
this. Instead, they only assume that
everything can be explained by
natural means, and this assumption is so far not true. Other
assumptions such
as the belief that there is Objective Reality and that science
corresponds to
that Objective Reality have not been shown to be true either.
Moreover, the
more reasonable assumptions that scientists make don’t always hold
true. We
know that there are experimenters who make mistakes and who are biased
by what
they perceive will be the likely outcome of their experiment, and these
mistakes and biases can influence the results. We also know
that random
samples that aren’t representative of the overall population can
negatively
affect the outcome. Thus, even based on the quality of the
assumptions, it may
be more rational to believe in God than to believe in science at least
for
right now. Granted, it may not be rational to assume that the
assumptions will
hold in the future; perhaps, we really will find out that everything
has at
least a natural cause later on. But for right now at least,
why not believe in
God in addition to science?
Opponents
of this rebuttal may
contend that it is fallacious to assume that there is a supernatural
explanation just because we have not been able to explain everything by
natural
means.
It is possible that there are other explanations (presumably natural) –
we just
don’t know them yet. Thus, we should make a more modest
claim: that God could
exist, but to say that he actually does is too
strong of a position.
I’ll concede to this argument but would like to add that it is just as
fallacious to take the law of gravity for granted. First, the
law was founded
on a set of assumptions that we know (1) to have been false in the past (2)
to currently not be true.
In comparison, belief in God is based on a fact. Second,
there may be other
explanations besides gravity (either natural or supernatural) that
account for
why things fall – we just don’t know them yet. Therefore,
gravity could
exist, but to say that it actually does is too strong of a
position. Thus,
those who doubt the existence of God should doubt the existence of
gravity too
(as well as all the other laws in science that most of us take for
granted).
The problem is: a lot of people doubt the former and not the latter.
There
are those that may argue that
theists are making unfair demands on atheists to scientifically prove
or
disprove the existence of God in a way that one wouldn’t on the alleged
theist. However, it is impossible for a theist (or anyone as
a matter of fact)
to directly prove the existence of something or someone. For
instance, one can
argue that I should believe that my family members exist because I can
see
them, but the counterargument is that sometimes, one sees things that
aren’t
really there. This example shows that any attempt to prove
one’s existence
will always be met with skepticism, and thus, any theist who is
demanded by
skeptics to soundly prove the existence of God is given an impossible
task. It
is actually up to scientists who are atheists to include the existence
of God
as a scientific inquiry and to use the deductive falsification model to
question the existence of such a being. If they set the
hypothesis to “not
everything can be explained by natural means”, and they successfully
showed
that everything could be explained naturally, then there would be no
need to
believe in God anymore. Of course, even if the hypothesis was
falsified, it
would not mean that God definitely does not exist; it would only mean
that a
rational basis for believing in God no longer exists. That
would be a good
enough reason to be in denial of God’s existence – but only if it is
clearly
demonstrated that everything in the natural world can be explained by
natural
means.
In
addition, these opponents may
argue that we are only limited beings and that we don’t know everything
right
now; therefore, it is better and simpler to assume for now that we are
not
omniscient than to assume that God exists. This
counterargument can be
summarized succinctly here: the rationality of one’s belief in science
≤
the rationality of one’s belief in God < the rationality of the
position
that we don’t know everything. Although the last position may
be the most
rational, one would be forced to be skeptical of everything, including
things
that most of us take for granted. Additionally, the point
that belief in God
is at least as rational as belief in science still stands because the
rationality of one’s belief in science is still ≤ the rationality of
one’s belief in God. Therefore, those who don’t believe in
God should not
believe in science because otherwise, that belief would make no sense.
The
point here is not to prove the
existence of God nor is it to deny the credibility of
science. Thus, trying to
invalidate belief in God without addressing the issue of science or
trying to
bolster the credibility of science without addressing the issue of God
will not
refute my claim that belief in science and belief in God are on equal
standing. This is what allows the argument so
flexible. If a counterargument
is made against God, I can easily turn it around and use the same
counterargument against science. Belief in God and belief in
science would
still be on equal standing – equally fallacious perhaps but still on
equal
standing. If one tries to argue that we should accept
science, that’s
perfectly fine because I’m not trying to deny the credibility of
science – I
would just add that we should accept God as well. The only
way to avoid this
problem is to provide a counterargument against God that cannot be used
against
science. Doing so is very difficult (if not impossible) given
the
uncertainties of the world we live in and of science itself.
Despite
the uncertainties in
science, we still have this underlying instinct to trust science over
God
because science is within our immediate experience, and God is
not. But this
instinct is not necessarily right. Often, we have instincts
that mislead us.
For example, most of us instinctively believe that the more times we
gamble the
more chances we have of earning money. Statistics shows us
that the more times
we gamble, the more money we actually lose. Thus, just
because we have the
instinct to trust science over God does not make this instinct
justified, and
upon deeper and more rational evaluation, the instinct falls apart
because of
all the reasons indicated in the previous paragraphs.
Although
science makes more
unjustifiable assumptions than religion does, one may still argue that
it is
more rational to believe in science over religion because there is more
evidence supporting the claims made in science than there is for
religion.
This point was raised by Antony Flew, who asserts that theists will
believe in
God even in the face of overwhelming evidence for his
nonexistence. To
illustrate his point, Flew describes a parable in which one person (the
Believer) claims that there must be a gardener taking care of the
cultivated
garden while the other person (the Skeptic) denies the existence of
such a
gardener. They decide to wait for this gardener to show up,
but he never
does. They then build a fence around the garden, a fence that
is capable of
electrocuting and detecting even the presence of an invisible gardener,
but
still, there are no screams of pain from the invisible gardener that
indicate
that he is ever in the vicinity. Despite the lack of
verification, the
Believer still insists that an invisible gardener exists.
Flew’s point is that
a theist is similar to the Believer because both the theist and the
Believer
will keep on believing without any regard to the number of evidence
supporting
belief or disbelief. He concludes by asking the theist, “What
would have to
occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love
of, or
of the existence of, God?”
I
would like to turn the question
around and ask Flew, “What would have to occur or to have occurred to
constitute for you a proof of the love of, or of the existence of,
God?” Of
course, the question would no longer apply to Flew, who has converted
from
atheism to deism, but the question would still apply to those who are
still
atheists. The problem is that most atheists demand
incontrovertible evidence
when it comes to the existence of God, but when it comes to science (or
any
discipline related to science), they accept it so blindly.
Upon examination,
however, belief in God is at least as rational as belief in science
because a
theist actually makes fewer assumptions than a scientist and because
both
beliefs are equally fallacious (both a theist and a scientist are
guilty of
committing the fallacy known as the argument from ignorance).
Thus, those who
are skeptical of God’s existence must also be equally
skeptical of the
claims made in science. It is not rationally acceptable for a
person to be
really skeptical of the existence of God but only a little skeptical of
the
discoveries made in science.
It
is time to recognize either the
rationality of religion and science or the fallibility of
both. The fact is
that science is not as sound as most atheists would have people
believe, and
those promoting scientific “fundamentalism” are no different from
religious
fundamentalists indoctrinating others with their radical
beliefs. As should be
mentioned again, scientists make at least six assumptions (three of
which
aren’t always true and the rest currently not true) while theists base
their
belief on only one currently true fact, a point that suggests that
believing in
God may be more rational than believing in science. Other
arguments such as
the one that states that the law of gravity (as well as other laws in
science)
and belief in God are both equally fallacious suggest that belief in
God and
belief in science are only equally credible. Therefore, upon
deeper
inspection, religion (excluding its support for the “God is good”
argument and
its stories) is at least as sound as science, if not more so.
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee
About the Author
Works Cited
Catalano, John. "Richard Dawkins:
Quotes &
Excerpts." The World of Richard Dawkins: Evolution, Science,
and
Reason. Aug. 1996. 12 Feb. 2008
<http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/quotes.shtml>.
Dawkins, Richard. The
God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.
Flew, Antony, and Alasdair
MacIntyre, eds. New Essays
in Philosophical Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1964.